Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> writes: > Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Another comment that was not brought up on the list anywhere yet, but >> that I have mentioned to a couple of others, is about the voting system >> used to elect chairs. A Condorcet method would be nice instead of the >> simple single-vote mechanism used now, in order to avoid some of the >> common pitfalls of such simple elections. > Note, however, that because we have two chairs, there is an edge case in > which a single-winner system is not sufficient. So, if we choose such a > system, we will need to make modifications to eliminate those cases. Condorcet gives you a ranked set of choices, not just a winner, so it's particularly good there (although I don't know what happens if you have to apply the cycle-breaking strategy; that's never happened in any Debian vote). > In general, any system we choose needs to be easy to understand well > enough to particpate, to operate elections, and potentially to verify > results. Bear in mind that most of us are not game theorists :-) Condorcet is pretty trivial from the voter perspective: it's just ranked preference voting. It's more complicated than "pick one," but it's not horribly more complicated than "pick two." All the work is on the vote counting side. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
