Hi, for privacy reasons I must use JB's quote as given in the archives and need to drag this reply up one level. If the addresses in the redacted part need to be referred to, they shall be referred to as AddressA and AddressB. I will address more replies once time allows, JB's reply is actually the one mail that addresses the cause of this whole mess so I reply to it now (asap). I will also start the repeat vote now and everybody can hold their horses before going to flamewar. Depending on JB's explanations, he might still prove that the old vote is valid and this repeat vote becomes void. Anyway, if he cannot, this needs to follow the given timeframe. On we go: Am 11.11.23 um 10:54 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Kempf: > On Sat, 11 Nov 2023, at 08:22, Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel wrote: >> Neither does this list of 51 people [1] correlate to the 54 authorized voters >> (distinct email addresses) the CIVS system actually counted, see [3]. > > And instead of you ASKING for that, you launch another vote? That's your solution? Very well, then let me ask you to share, even privately if you have privacy concerns, the following data that might help to invalidate my claims and probably shortcut the whole when what and how questions in the other half of the mail: - The file(s) you used for the first and second batch. I'd assume you did the editing you mention below in the same file, so it's of course reasonable if you therefore could only share the one file used for the second batch after editing. - The mail the poll supervisor gets with the subject like "CIVS poll created: " so that I can look at the control panel. The mail says you should keep it private so nobody can interrupt with the poll in progress. The vote is over, results known and a lockfile set so nothing can happen anymore to the vote. > Just as as remark, YOU are running the voting system, and have access to infra, so YOU can check it. > > The answer is simple, Linjie Fu has had several emails in use, (one with and one without justin) and one of them is bouncing. I remembered that after sending the first batch, so I added it back, knowing that he/she could only vote once. > Same reason for Ruiling Song who has both an Intel and a gmail email. > Finally, in the emails, there was REDACTED FOR GDPR/PRIVACY. It was probably the reason. This is not completely clear to me so let me ask for clarification here as well. The logfile (attached) says: The first batch sent out were 53 mails (from 10:11:19 to 10:12:20) The second batch sent out were 53 mails (from 10:16:20 to 10:16:48) One single mail was sent (at 12:55:40) In the end, the counter is at 54. In the end, you named 51 distinct people. So the first batch must have been 53 distinct mail addresses, raising the counter from 0 to 53. The second batch must also have contained 53 distinct mail addresses because 53 mails have been sent. After the second batch, the counter must have been at 53 or 54 already, depending on wether or not the one single mail that was sent afterwards was already in one of the batches or yet another distinct mail address (counter++). What I understand from your simple answer, is you changed two mail addresses in between batch one and two (Linjie & Ruiling). That would have risen the counter from 53 to 55 after sending the second batch because the two corrected addresses are distinct and counted. Depending on wether or not the one single mail that was sent afterwards was already in one of the batches or yet another distinct mail address (counter++), the counter would have to be 55 or 56. Can you clarify what mail addresses you changed from what into what between batch one and batch two? Can you clarify if the single mail that was sent afterwards was already in one of the batches or yet another distinct mail address? > > And that's why you see 3 more emails than names. And that cannot change anything to the vote. > > jb > -Thilo