First, no votes that were not on the [VOTE] thread are reflected in the report. The [VOTE] announcement stated that only votes on that one thread would be counted. (I know that got trimmed on various threads, but I can't do anything about that.)
I am sorry that two voters placed their votes where they would not be counted. I appreciate that language is always a factor. If someone had noticed before the end of the voting and recast the votes, it would have been solved. (There was one voter who voted twice. The last vote was identical to the first and the last vote is reported.) Finally, the "+0" was entered but has no effect on the tally. In fact, in the spreadsheet I used, it was entered as the alphanumeric string '+0' (a text field) so it had no effect on the result. In effect, the ballot was counted as an abstention, and the additional explanation was irrelevant. Since +0 = 0 = -0 in these parts, I could have done this with a formatting rule. Instead, entering it as text solved everything and honored the voter's attachment to that as well as I could. (A formatting rule is used to put the "+" on positive, non-zero entries.) [You should be able to check the totals to verify this. Also, please read the first line of my report carefully.] So, I preserved the symbolic value of "+0" for the voter but it did not alter anything. Of course, eliminating the ballot would have had the same effect but denied the voter the opportunity to have the fact of voting reflected in the tally. This did not seem like a worthy approach, since disposition of the vote seemed straightforward. Concerning misplaced [VOTE][DISCUSS] "+1" entries, that is something that I had no way to determine. Since +1, -1, =0, and such are used as signals of support, disagreement, indifference, etc., on [DISCUSS] as well as other threads, it was not possible for me as an observer to know that this was not the intention. By now, you all know that I fancy all of this procedural rigmarole. I do think there are matters of greater significance that it is time to turn to. I also think that congratulations are in order for all of us and the OpenOffice.org Forum operators in reaching this place. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Christian Grobmeier [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 00:46 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VOTE][RESULT] Acceptance of the OpenOffice.org Proposal >> No, it is valid. >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >> >> Reason 1: "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of >> majority rule unless otherwise stated" >> Reason 2: "+0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' >> >> Therefore you can consider this decision passed and the the forums is >> very much welcome many people! Congratulations! >> >> Cheers >> Christian > > I only meant the +0 vote, not the others. In Dutch elections all votes are > invalid that have scribblings on them, even if that'd be something like > "Thank God we have democracy" or more than 1 name ticked. Of course, such > invalid votes don't invalidate the election, they simply don't count towards > the result. > So we have 29 +1 votes, two of them invalid because in the wrong list, and > invalid +0 because that wasn't included in the original set of options. Ah, understood. Well, there was already discussion on this vote option (i think it was on the vote thread itself). The argument for this option to be valid was:"my opinion was not shown in that list". The voter explained he does support it, but does not have cycles to put hands on the move. Therefore the vote opener might add him to the plus one as Dennis did. In my opinion, as long as it does not cause trouble, we should not be so strict about this. > Cheers, > Peter > -- http://www.grobmeier.de
