On 06/01/2015 Dave Fisher wrote:
Have we discussed Voting if there are multiple candidates?
Yes, we did. I'm not going to let procedural discussions prevail, but as
it (too) often happens we can discuss it again. In this case it's worth it.
Perhaps Apache STeVe is an answer: http://steve.apache.org/
What I proposed (see archives) is to have a simple, fully public, vote
at the first round, then, unless someone gets to 50%, remove the last
candidate, ask others whether they wanted to run again and iterate (for
1-2 rounds likely).
I agree STV is technically better since it can yield the same results
and save some time. I strongly oppose secret voting since we never had
it, and we used public voting, back at the time, both for selecting the
PMC members and for voting for the Chair.
So, even if this takes a significant additional effort on my side, I
volunteer to manage the following process if we have 3 or more candidates:
1) People vote on this mailing list; everyone simply lists his
acceptable candidates (one or more) in order of preference.
2) I compute STV, for binding votes only, on the above votes.
If candidates are 1 or 2, we use a simple vote instead.
I'm proposing this for lazy consensus again. If you have other
proposals, speak up; but I'm confident that the above can accommodate
all concerns and this election is not complex enough for the voting
system to really make a difference.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
