I am going to take your use of the b-word as an example of you blowing up when a small amount of criticism is directed your way.
Is bitching not the right word? I am sorry, English is my second language...
The first election a year ago, and the last one months ago, and you are still complaining about the database being introduced. Isn't that bitching? I am seriously asking, it is not a rhetorical question. My vocabulary might be wrong on that point.
Would nagging be better? What is the right word for someone complaining in general against a system having problems from months ago which were always fixed quickly and which he cannot clearly point to.
Bitching is the first word which comes to mind, but nagging could work to.
But critisism doesn'T go far enough. I mean, you think that the database slowed the validation process!
It was in no way my fault for the last election: I had everything in place and was waiting on the judges. As for the first election, it was indeed partly my fault because this was the first validation and I had not anticipated the process enough.
But then again, I was not planning on running it, Iusti was supposed to do it until he had to take a leave of absense, so I am not 100% to blame.
The part where I can be blamed, was my insistance to count a 13 year old voter who voted present as being VALID, while Litz rejected it. We were on opposite ends on that gulf, she won me over.
This was an issue which shouldn'T have been rushed, and wasn't.
Well, guess what?
You are wrong, wrong. wrong.
The database actually HELPED with the validation, A LOT. It just shows how prejudiced you are against the database and yet, know nothing about it. I am not mad or angry, I am just constatating.
To you, the database is complex, and as such, it MUST make working with it harder than without it.
To you, adding the database added difficulty, when it reality, it simplified things.
Here is why: the members of the commission had a page with the list of ALL of the votes, with all of the details on the votes (how they were cast, the IP address if voted online, the date of the vote, etc...).
They had 2 buttons to click for each vote, either "Valid" or "Invalid", and their vote was recorded for all of the other members to see.
There was another page with the list of all of the emails received by the chancery, a definite improvement over the first election where I had to forward all of the emails, and it took DAYS to ensure all of the judges had all of them.
This last election? Everything in one place. All judges knew what to do.
I am 100% positive that the database reduces the manual tasks of validating to a minimum and allowed for optimal processing of the validation.
It was also secured, and pretty much almost error-proof since there was no exchanges of lists of validation.
The only issue was that the vote of a judge cannot be changed without my process, and that's NORMAL. It's to prevent judges from being influenced by the other judges.
I am sorry, I do not know which reforms you talk about, so I cannot relate, but I agree with your statement which is why, before the first election after my return, I did a mock election to test it out.
It's my JOB to build databases and websites, so I did a unit test and tested each component as best as I could, with Iusti's help.
When you assume that the database is out of touch, it is almost insulting to my professionalism. Almost, because honestly, I can understand where you are from and why you think the way do.
It's my job to try to educate and inform you.
And you are totally wrong on my process. My ego is not hurt. If you think you can personally hurt my ego, you are clearly wrong on me.
You are mistaken on a lot of things about the database, and what I am trying to do is show you that your critics are out of ignorance (because of my failure to educate you and not our of problems on your part, but I am not sure how to make that clear with my limited English so please don't take it the wrong way).
If you were to dig out old threads, you might find actual technical issues which were fixed in almost real time and blown out of proportion.
For example, a few people complained that their PSC didn'T work, but most of them either tried again and it worked, or instead emailed me their vote which was counted.
A user error isn't a fault in the system IF there are alternatives.
If the online voting form was the ONLY way to vote, I would 100% agree with you, it was premature to put it in place without sufficient training, community testing, etc...
BUT it was ONE of the methods to vote. Just ONE of them.
And this is what you seem to not understand...
The vote counting part is flawless and fully tested. No problems were found other than the results of the first of the 2 elections were seen online (but not the actual votes) before the end simply because we had not decided yet if I could show them or not live, so I had not hidden them.
Within what, 2 or 3 hours of the debate, they were hidden for good, once I decided to hide them from the comments.
And BTW, this was one of the criticism on which I reacted quickly and well.
The judgment of people that I am quick to anger and don't handle critism well is wrong.
What I do not handle well, is personal attacks, and my definition of personal attacks is quite unique.
Saying: "Hey, I found a bug in the database, here it is", gets you thanks and an apology.
Saying: "There might be bugs one day in the database, so let's be prudent", might get me a little defensive if I made tests, but mostly, I have reacted not that bad to comments like that.
But Saying: "There might be bugs one day in the database, so let's not use it at all", I see it as a baseless attack on my professionalism, and as such, as a personal attack.
Wouldn't you?
