On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 04:30:00PM +0000, Justin W. Flory wrote:
On 10/24/2017 01:41 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 05:08:00PM +0000, Justin W. Flory wrote:
>> Hi Jan!
>>
>> On 10/24/2017 04:19 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
>>> I am OK with a dedicated badge for every election cycle. However
>>> ,instead of using the Nuancier way of claiming badge I would
>>> personally prefer having a check box in the election app saying
>>> whether a voter would like to receive a badge or not and then get the
>>> badge automatically by the voting app, if a voter requested so. It
>>> will do the same job and it is IMO more simple solution that Nuancier
>>> is using.
>>>
>>
>> I agree, but I wonder how to implement this. We could get a FAS account
>> since the voter has to sign in. But I'm not sure if you could trigger
>> awarding a badge without emitting a fedmsg event from the Elections app
>> after someone voted (possibly compromising anonymity).
>
> What about people wanting a badge for a specific election and not for another
> one (for whatever reason)?
>
> The nuancier system allows the anonymity that is dear to a number of us while
> offering the flexibility of letting the user choose when to get a badge or not.
>
> Note also that on nuancier, you don't actually have to vote to get the badge,
> how would it work in this situation?
>
I think it would be an easier workload for the Design Team to create one
badge per overall election. I also feel like three badges for three
elections is a lot anyways, since it's a low-effort type of task.
Where do you see three badges per election?
It would be nice if the Elections app awarded a badge to the
logged-in
user, so we don't have to give the claim URL to the user. But if we had
to do it that way, like with Nuancier, I think it would be okay.
Badges are awarded via fedmsg or manual triggers and we don't want to send these
info via fedmsg, this is why nuancier implemented it this way.
Pierre