Re: Voting if More Than One Accepted Nomination for a new PMC Chair
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
Re: Voting if More Than One Accepted Nomination for a new PMC Chair
On 7 January 2015 at 09:11, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: 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. +1 We do NOT want secret voting. 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. You write it correctly, but based on my experienceit is good to stress: Do not list candidates you dont like. 2) I compute STV, for binding votes only, on the above votes. I helped a year ago (together with a second person) with the election of a chair in another project, and downloaded the STeVe tool which was used to manually feed in the mail votes that eased the process quite a bit. I think providing a simple sum for non-binding votes is ok, hopefully that shows the same direction as the binding votesin case of big differences it might be worth while to try and understand the difference. If candidates are 1 or 2, we use a simple vote instead. +1 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. +1 rgds jan i. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: Voting if More Than One Accepted Nomination for a new PMC Chair
Can you explain STV please. (What do the letters mean?) Are folks required to rank all of the candidates in their ballots? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 00:12 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Voting if More Than One Accepted Nomination for a new PMC Chair 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Voting if More Than One Accepted Nomination for a new PMC Chair
On 07/01/2015 Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Can you explain STV please. (What do the letters mean?) Single Transferable Vote. To our purposes, in our very simple election, this is a single-turn replacement for the mechanism I originally proposed (i.e., remove the least voted candidate at each round). Are folks required to rank all of the candidates in their ballots? No. Seen from a voter's perspective this means: choose the subset of candidates that are acceptable to you, then rank them. If you only like one candidate, you obviously write his/her name only; if you like more than one, list the ones you like in order of preference, starting with the one you like most. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Voting if More Than One Accepted Nomination for a new PMC Chair
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: Have we discussed Voting if there are multiple candidates? Perhaps Apache STeVe is an answer: http://steve.apache.org/ https://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting using STeVe is a good idea, a lot better than simple voting. I am not sure though if the tool can handle binding / non-binding votes. I am also the strong opinion that if number 1 and 2 are close (less than 3 votes apart), then we should vote again just with the top candidates. A chair need backing from the whole community not just a simple majority. rgds jan i Regards, Dave On Jan 6, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 01/01/2015 Andrea Pescetti wrote: Let's take several days, until 10 January, to receive nominations (or self-nominations) for the next PMC Chair. Just reply to this e-mail with nominations. We have 6 nominees so far, very good since all of them would be excellent choices. I'm now asking each of them to either accept or refuse the nomination by the 10 January deadline. Nominations are still open, but if you nominate someone I'll immediately refer to this mail and ask for a statement by 10 January too. Each of the (current and future) nominees should answer this mail in public and state very briefly: 1) Whether he/she is available to run for election; the term is not set, but I expect an availability to stay in the role for at least one year. 2) Where his/her efforts will primarily be directed. 3) Regardless of whether one is running or not (and regardless of whether one is elected or not), it might be that some of the candidates wish to take responsibility for a certain area. This can be very good, since the project is huge and the Chair might miss some details. For example, Hagar often updates the draft quarterly report with information about the Forum (figures, issues...). If the Chair knows that someone commits to follow a certain area closely and to help in reporting, then reporting becomes a team work and can be much better than what we have done so far. The 6 nominees so far are, in alphabetical order: - janiJan Iversen - jsc Jürgen Schmidt - kschenk Kay Schenk - louis Louis Suarez-Potts - marcus Marcus Lange - robweir Rob Weir I'm hereby asking each of them (and any future nominees) to provide their statement by 10 January; those who already sent their statement are free to expand upon it according to the above guidelines if they wish. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org javascript:; -- Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
