Perhaps Jonah and Tim can let us know what is possible. I *think* technology permitting - election buddy can let everyone go back and select additional candidates along the line Neil mentioned (and as was done last year). This would allow everyone to vote for the N candidates who would make their ideal committee. My fear with a choose-one approach is that there is pressure to vote for the candidate you know best (i.e. have had at least some personal interaction with) , and can’t support the other great candidates. After a few cycles of voting like that, you could tend to get a very insular community, and those who everyone supports (but who get few votes) are buried in the statistical noise of this long-tail distribution.
As far as I know the current Steering Committee did not set any parameters for the election other than having an impartial volunteer set things out. There is surely no blame on Tim here (much thanks in fact), but I just want to make sure that if my sentiment is supported we are revising a decision that was made by default/omission not by someone who made a purposeful decision. - Jason -- Jason Williams Assistant Director, External Collaborations: DNALC Lead - Education, Outreach, Training: CyVerse DNA Learning Center Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 1 Bungtown Rd. Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724 516-367-5186 <tel:516-367-5186> www.dnalc.org <http://www.dnalc.org/> On 2/15/16, 6:13 AM, "Laurent Gatto" <[email protected]> wrote: > >Dear all, > >I'm with Jason and others who have replied, here. I expected to be able >to vote for > 1 candidates (like last time), and was a bit frustrated >from this limitation - there is probably no single best candidate >anyway, and I feel unable to make a balanced contribution. > >Best wishes, > >Laurent > >On 15 February 2016 11:04, Williams, Jason wrote: > >> Honest to goodness question, >> >> Maybe I missed this but is there a reason we didn't use the same style >> of voting used last year? Choosing only one candidate makes it >> impossible to think about choosing a committee that is balanced. Since >> we are voting for a group (not only one person/position) I really >> liked that. >> >> I guess it all turns out in the end, but raising the point in case >> anyone else may have even better reasons to agree/disagree with me. >> >> Happy voting! >> >> - Jason >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
