On Oct 3, 2016 14:15, "Edward Leafe" <e...@leafe.com> wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Clay Gerrard <clay.gerr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> After the nominations close, the election officials will assign each candidate a non-identifying label, such as a random number, and those officials will be the only ones who know which candidate is associated with which number. > >> > > I'm really uneasy about this suggestion. Especially when it comes to re-election, for the purposes of accountability I think it's really important that voters be able to identify the candidates. For some people there's a difference in what they say and what they end up doing when left calling shots from the bubble for too long. > > This was a concern of mine, too, but IMO there haven't been too many cases where a TC member has said they would support X and then fail to do so. They might not prevail, being one of 13, but when that issue came up they were almost always consistent with what they said. > > > As far as the other stuff... idk if familiarity == bias. I'm sure lots of occasions people vote for people they know because they *trust* them; but I don't think that's bias? I think a more common problem is when people vote for a *name* they recognize without really knowing that person or what they're about. Or perhaps just as bad - *not* voting because they realize they have on context to consider these candidates beyond name familiarity and an (optional) email. > > I think that with so many candidates for so few seats, most people simply don't have the time or the interest to look very deeply into things. I know that that shows up in the voting. Take the election from a year ago: there were 619 votes cast for 19 candidates. Out of these: > - 35 ballots only voted for one candidate > - 102 ballots voted for three or fewer > - 175 didn't even bother to vote for 6 > - only 159 bothered to rank all the candidates >
I want to point out that the last statistic is not super useful. The very nature of CIVS allows for duplicated ranks. I rank folks where I would like them and explicitly stack the bottom for those not in the top X, as I see them all as equally viable but lower on my priority. So I am lumped into that last statistic without it meaning I didn't actively and consciously choose to do so for ease of voting. The web form on mobile (usually where I vote) is not as responsive and sometimes might mis-rank folks). So in short. Don't use the "failed to rank everyone" as a real metric. It isn't representative of what you're implying. > So I think that there is evidence that unless you are already well-known, most people aren't going to take the time to dig deeper. Maybe anonymous campaigns aren't the answer, but they certainly would help in this regard. > > > I think a campaign period, and especially some effort [1] to have candidates verbalize their viewpoints on topics that matter to the constituency could go a long way towards giving people some more context beyond "i think this name looks familiar; I don't really recognize this name" > > Agreed 100%! It was made worse this year because the nominations closed on a Saturday, and with the late rush of people declaring their candidacy, gave no time at all for any sort of campaign discussions before voting began. There really needs to be a decent period of time allowed for people to get answers to whatever questions they may have. > > > -- Ed Leafe > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev