Hi Cor,
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 23:18 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote:
> Thanks, I see we can study quite some mathematical variations on this
> subject ;-)
:-) I suggest we have 'STV Meek Method' written into our bylaws to make
it clear - we had one case where someone in GNOME was either elected or
not by different methods ;-) 'Meek' (no relation) is at least repeatable
- it is what OpenSolaris used too AFAIR.
> However, in your example and view, you start with the idea of
> candidates representing company/section/partition A or B. Rather then
> random community members.
Sure, but any disagreement can be simplified into an arbitrary number
of two-horse races I think; the principle is basically the same - more
fairness with a larger electorate.
> But that can only be reached when we have experienced people on board
> that do not change every 6 months. Also for documentation, qa etc,
> experience is important.
Sure; of course, we can only hope that the people who stand for
election, and get elected are not entirely inexperienced - the
electorate should help with that.
> Looking at all proposals that fly rapidly around, I would prefer a
> bit stability first. The next issue then would be, which form of STV or
> other voting scheme would be most appropriate. So the voting scheme
> should support our desired elections scheme, not the other way round.
Um - I guess so, but given a fair voting scheme, the rounding issue is
fairly fundamental to how aliasing / numbers work and I don't see it
being easy / possible to work around.
HTH,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
