It is true that doodle did require a name, but did not check it.
I could argue that requesting a name helps a little with fraud, in
that the "fraud bot" would have to come up with
reasonable names so it doesn't look suspicious.
(Insert humorous references to recent florida elections or choose
some other bogus election,
there are too many to count).
I suggest that the PC use what we have and then decide. It really
isn't that important to churn on.
David M Williams wrote:
I don't know if any of you watch the
naming votes on a regular basis, ...
But I became suspicious, asked
our webmasters if there were unusual request patterns, and it turns out
there have been many http requests made from just a few IP addresses,
have some obvious non-browser user-agent headers ... strongly
some "ballot stuffing" with some kiddie scripts. While this voting
system and process was always meant to be informal (and not especially
secure) I'm afraid I was naive and it has just been too tempting for
not to play with it, to the point of manipulation. And, the problem is,
there's no way to tell how extensive the problem is. There's not that
tracing or logging done ... and it'd be pretty easy for someone to
scripts that were just a little bit more sophisticated, spoof the
user agent, and we'd not be able to detect those as fake.
So, what to do? Denis said he could
(probably on Monday) add some logic to the polling mechanism to require
a bugzilla login, so we'd be a little more confident that people voted
just once. And I don't think it'd be bad restrict to only those with
accounts. But, if we did that, should we start over? Just give a few
for re-voting or extend the period for a few more weeks? Or, should we,
the planning council, just ignore the votes and decide a good name
I don't think moving to doodle is much help, if I understand doodle's
since that just required the user to enter a name, and we never did
that those names are "real" in any way.
I don't much like any of the
so I'm hoping some of you have a clear idea or opinion of what the best
course of action would be.
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.
Oliver E Cole oec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
OC Systems www.ocsystems.com
9990 Fairfax Blvd, Suite 270 (v) 703.359.8160 x160
Fairfax, VA, 22030 (f) 703.359.8161