Rank voting: we had a lengthy discussion about how to use this in my book group, where we vote on which book to read. It turns out to be hideously complex, depending on how you do it. We floated two systems. In both, voters rank their choices from 1 to N. In one scoring system, an item ranked with rank x gets score N - x + 1, and the scores are tallied for each item, the item with the highest total score wins. This system is pretty easy to score: we felt we could do it on a piece of paper at the table in our group. We actually tried this, it was kind of fun, but I think it led to the same outcome we would have had from "normal" voting, in that instance.
Voting theorists seem to prefer a system where a winning candidate is chosen in multiple evaluation "rounds" by counting the top-ranking votes for each voter, and if any item has a majority, it wins. Otherwise, the bottom-scoring item is removed from the pool of candidates, and its votes are redistributed by taking the next-ranking item from each voter who had previously listed the now-removed item. Or said another way, the whole process is repeated while skipping the removed item. And then this goes on, removing losing items until some item has a majority of top-ranked votes among the remaining tallies. I guess that this has nicer game-theoretic properties than the simple linear combination, but it is annoying to compute since it requires maintaining every voter's distinct ranking. Perhaps there are other systems. We could use one logo 80% of the time, and the other logo 20%? Or we could produce a Chimera? Ball's in your court Ryan, but I would be willing to bet that awarding the winner to a plurality in a single round will get us the same result as all this complication... On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 1:30 AM Ryan Ernst <r...@iernst.net> wrote: > > > IMHO this vote is invalid because... > > it doesn’t include the red / orange variants submitted by Dustin Haver > > I considered the latest submission by Dustin Haver to be his submission, but > I can see how some might like the other better and it should have been part > of the vote. > > > I propose to restart the VOTE to include all submissions. > > Given that I omitted the submission above, that seems reasonable. And since > we are restarting, I guess we can allow Baris to add in an entry. > > Baris, please add your entry to the jira issue. I will restart the vote next > week. > > > If we're going to have more options, I suggest we use "ranked voting" > > I considered rank voting, but tallying a rank vote by hand can be incredibly > tedious. I don't think we should use any external tools since that prohibits > verification on who is voting from the PMC. However, given the lastingness of > this decision, I guess it is fair to do the necessary harder tallying work of > rank choice voting over email. When I restart the vote, I will give > instructions on making multiple selections. > > So, consider this vote CLOSED and VOID. > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:27 AM David Smiley <david.w.smi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If we're going to have more options, I suggest we use "ranked voting": >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting >> If you create a Google Form based submission which supports a ranked choice >> input, then this should make it probably not hard to tally the results >> correctly. A PMC boolean would be helpful too. >> >> ~ David >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:14 AM Andrzej Białecki <a...@getopt.org> wrote: >>> >>> IMHO this vote is invalid because it doesn’t include all submissions linked >>> to that issue. Specifically, it doesn’t include the red / orange variants >>> submitted by Dustin Haver (which I personally prefer over the sickly green >>> ones … ;) ) >>> >>> I propose to restart the VOTE to include all submissions. >>> >>> On 17 Jun 2020, at 17:04, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> A. (PMC) I like that it retains the same idea as our current logo with a >>> more modern look. >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:58 PM Andi Vajda <o...@ovaltofu.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> C. (current logo) >>>> >>>> Andi.. (pmc) >>>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2020, at 15:08, Ryan Ernst <r...@iernst.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Lucene and Solr developers! >>>> >>>> In February a contest was started to design a new logo for Lucene [1]. >>>> That contest concluded, and I am now (admittedly a little late!) calling a >>>> vote. >>>> >>>> The entries are labeled as follows: >>>> >>>> A. Submitted by Dustin Haver [2] >>>> >>>> B. Submitted by Stamatis Zampetakis [3] Note that this has several >>>> variants. Within the linked entry there are 7 patterns and 7 color >>>> palettes. Any vote for B should contain the pattern number, like B1 or B3. >>>> If a B variant wins, we will have a followup vote on the color palette. >>>> >>>> C. The current Lucene logo [4] >>>> >>>> Please vote for one of the three (or nine depending on your perspective!) >>>> above choices. Note that anyone in the Lucene+Solr community is invited to >>>> express their opinion, though only Lucene+Solr PMC cast binding votes >>>> (indicate non-binding votes in your reply, please). This vote will close >>>> one week from today, Mon, June 22, 2020. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9221 >>>> [2] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12999548/Screen%20Shot%202020-04-10%20at%208.29.32%20AM.png >>>> [3] >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12997768/zabetak-1-7.pdf >>>> [4] https://lucene.apache.org/theme/images/lucene/lucene_logo_green_300.png >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Adrien >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
