On 10/16/06, David MENTRE <
address@hidden> wrote:
I think you need to allow overlaping criteria: we wan't to be able to
delegate a domain while still being able to vote on a specific
question covered by that domain (rationale: I don't care about the
domain in general ("legal procedures") but I'm very concerned by a
specific question ("death penalty")).
I did not even consider this as a problem as i think it is obvious that a personal vote should have precedence over a delegated vote.
> I like the second one. If you tried to do a delegation that could conflict
> with a previous one the server simply answered "InvalidCriteria".
I think the server should provide the cause of conflict, otherwise you
can't understand the issue on the client side.
Yes, that would be preferable. But leaving the client to figure out what the conflict really is about is still better than no delegation at all :)
> A criteria would have to be boolean expressions if you wanted to create (more than one)
> valid ones.
I dont' understand. Could you elaborate?
Some sample delegations:
D1: true
D2: question = 153
D3: (tag = "toothpaste") and (tag <> "commersial")
D4: (tag = "commersial") or (tag = "me")
D1 delegates every question.
D2 delegates only a single question.
D3 delegates any question with tag "toothpaste" as long as it does not also have tag "commersial"
D4 delegates any question with tag "commersial" or "me"..
BTW, I've seen that you(?) have made an interesting proposal: "Do not
delegate on voting server, just publish public positions". I like it
because it would simplify both the server and the protocol. And this
approach is much more scalable (the client is doing the hard work).
It was not me, and i don't really what is meant by publishing public positions. Or.. It means users has the choice to make publicly visible votes? How would an external party use the information to realize delegation? What stops a user from both voting anonymously and delegating its vote?
However, would it work with a stateless client like the web client?
How the state and preferences of delegation can be saved for a given
client? Side effect question: if we solve this issue, can w use the
same approach to allow simultaneous use of hard and web client?
You need to store all "local" data on servers connected to the internet. Even if a person uses only the hard client, he/she might not allways use the same computer.
Another issue: the main use of a delegate is to let him vote in my
place, change his votes, etc. and still follow what he is doing. If
this is not automatized, I don't see much interest in delegation.
I fully agree. But for us to automate something, it needs first to exist :)