Re: Suggestion for coming elections
After more thinking... On 10/16/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Picking 11 from 12 is a farce. Picking N from N+1 or anything closer to N than to 2N is going to be a farce or a light decision no matter what election procedure you design. I agree with Vincent: the current system already allows to vote 6 or less candidates, no need to change a tool that we know it works. I'm not even sure we want to promote people to vote just for 3 candidates instead of a broader number i.e. 6-7. In the way we are organized it doesn't matter how many votes you got once you are in the board: every board member counts as one. I don't see where does it help to have bigger differences in votes received between elected board members. About the specific case of not reaching 7 people, the situation is of total crisis: elected board members should choose people for the remaining seats either from candidates with 0 votes or GNOME contributors that didn't even run for election. So in fact I would recommend otherwise: picking 3 candidates is generally easy for everybody, but make the effort to find 7 names from, the candidates because at the end this is the number of people that will run the Foundation board. In fact the dubious votes pointing to newcomers or not so popular contributors can make a bigger change than the sure bets to the well know rock stars that get elected ijn the first 3 choices. What needs improvement is the fact of getting at least 14 candidates, so there is really variety to choose from. -- Quim Gil /// http://flors.wordpress.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Preliminary results for Membership Vote Regarding Change to Bylaws
Is it really a too difficult and too time consuming task to spend a minute to cast one's vote in a fortnight for an average GNOME Foundation member? I had no strong opinion so I left it up to the others. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 15:03 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Quim Gil wrote: > > What happens when you get less than 7 people with votes? > > Excuse me, I think I misunderstood. > > You mean, suppose we have 10 candidates, 150 voters, and the > distribution of votes is: > > Candidate 1: 120 > Candidate 2: 107 > Candidate 3: 64 > Candidate 4: 63 > Candidate 5: 52 > Candidate 6: 44 > Candidate 7:0 > Candidate 8:0 > Candidate 9:0 > Candidate 10: 0 > > Aside from the fact that it's extremely unlikely (everyone at least Not with your proposed scheme. Everyone wants to vote for the superstars, right? And doh, they run out of vote after three. > votes for themselves, don't they?), Ok, how do you deal with: Candidate 1: 130 Candidate 2: 117 Candidate 3: 74 Candidate 4: 63 Candidate 5: 22 Candidate 6: 18 Candidate 7:8 Candidate 8:6 Candidate 9:6 Candidate 10: 6 You've essentially widened the gap. > would you really want a candidate > who got 0 votes from the membership joining the board? 0 isn't much different than 1 btw. Or 2 for that matter. > Cheers, > Dave. > -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
Le mardi 16 octobre 2007, à 08:44 -0500, George Kraft a écrit : > Here is the balloting scheme used by the former Free Standards Group. > It was simple and I'm not aware of any resulting controversy. > > > In approval voting, each voter selects as few or as many > > candidates for whom they wish to vote, or 'approve'. > > > Mathematically, for votes to have meaning, each ballot > > should select between 1 and (n-1) candidates to approve, > > where n is the total number of candidates. Voting for > > fewer candidates indicates a stronger preference for > > those you selected, with little disapproval of those > > not selected. Voting for more candidates indicates a > > lesser preference for each of those approved, while > > allowing you to vote for more candidates. Ballots with > > none or all of the candidates selected may have symbolic > > meaning, but will not affect the outcome of the election. > > http://www.linux-foundation.org/docs/FSG_Election_Policy.pdf Actually, with the current system, members can vote for N candidates where 0 <= N <= 7. Dave, maybe it's just a matter of communicating more about the fact that we don't have to vote for 7 people, but for up to 7 people? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
Here is the balloting scheme used by the former Free Standards Group. It was simple and I'm not aware of any resulting controversy. > In approval voting, each voter selects as few or as many > candidates for whom they wish to vote, or 'approve'. > Mathematically, for votes to have meaning, each ballot > should select between 1 and (n-1) candidates to approve, > where n is the total number of candidates. Voting for > fewer candidates indicates a stronger preference for > those you selected, with little disapproval of those > not selected. Voting for more candidates indicates a > lesser preference for each of those approved, while > allowing you to vote for more candidates. Ballots with > none or all of the candidates selected may have symbolic > meaning, but will not affect the outcome of the election. http://www.linux-foundation.org/docs/FSG_Election_Policy.pdf -- George (gk4) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
On 10/16/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm certainly not against moving to STV, but that would need software, > and considerable retraining for members not familiar with the system. http://selectricity.org/ open + easy. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
Hi, Jeff Waugh wrote: > I think it would be better to go with a widely used and familiar system, > such as those proposed by James Henstridge and Ryan Lortie in previous > years. In fact, I would be happy to appoint a group (including James and > Ryan) to come up with a proposal for the Board. As I recall, Ryan's proposal was a suggestion to improve the verifiability & security of the vote by generating a unique voter token, and nothing to do with the actual procedure of the election. I may be misremembering. The othr discussion I remember was a proposal of STV. Is that what you're thinking of? I'm certainly not against moving to STV, but that would need software, and considerable retraining for members not familiar with the system. The modification I'm proposing here is much less drastic, and addresses a different problem to the process of running online anonymous voting. A key advantage is that it doesn't need any new software. I'm not against forming a group with some kind of mandate around elections, but I assume that doesn't preclude members making suggestions coming up to election time on ways to improve the process? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
Hi, Quim Gil wrote: > What happens when you get less than 7 people with votes? Excuse me, I think I misunderstood. You mean, suppose we have 10 candidates, 150 voters, and the distribution of votes is: Candidate 1: 120 Candidate 2: 107 Candidate 3: 64 Candidate 4: 63 Candidate 5: 52 Candidate 6: 44 Candidate 7:0 Candidate 8:0 Candidate 9:0 Candidate 10: 0 Aside from the fact that it's extremely unlikely (everyone at least votes for themselves, don't they?), would you really want a candidate who got 0 votes from the membership joining the board? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
> Quim Gil wrote: > > What happens when you get less than 7 people with votes? > > I don't understand - you mean if there are fewer than 7 candidates? Quim meant fewer than seven who receive votes at all (implying that there would be other candidates running who received none). I don't think it's a huge issue, as those who were elected can choose to appoint more directors should they wish to. I think it would be better to go with a widely used and familiar system, such as those proposed by James Henstridge and Ryan Lortie in previous years. In fact, I would be happy to appoint a group (including James and Ryan) to come up with a proposal for the Board. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 "I rather think of Pat as our linguistic ornithologist here - 'Oh look, the brown noddy also nests in the mangrove!'" - John Fleck ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
On 10/16/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Quim Gil wrote: > > What happens when you get less than 7 people with votes? > > I don't understand - you mean if there are fewer than 7 candidates? > > Constitutional crisis, I suppose... everyone's elected, and they invite > specific people to fill up the board maybe? > > That's unrelated to my suggestion, though. > > Cheers, > Dave. no, the scenario is: you have 12 candidates, but everybody votes for the same 3. then what? -- jonner ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:53:28 +0200 Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Quim Gil wrote: > > What happens when you get less than 7 people with votes? > > I don't understand - you mean if there are fewer than 7 candidates? > > Constitutional crisis, I suppose... everyone's elected, and they invite > specific people to fill up the board maybe? What usually happens is someone really unwanted and undesired stands as part of the seven or less at which point lots of people sudden become willing to stand 8) Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
Hi, Quim Gil wrote: > What happens when you get less than 7 people with votes? I don't understand - you mean if there are fewer than 7 candidates? Constitutional crisis, I suppose... everyone's elected, and they invite specific people to fill up the board maybe? That's unrelated to my suggestion, though. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Suggestion for coming elections
What happens when you get less than 7 people with votes? On 10/16/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a suggestion for the coming board elections which I think might > make things more interesting (and, coincidentally, better). > > We've always proceded by giving members N votes, where N is the number > of seats available. What this results in is a very strong yes vote for > one, two, maybe three people, and a tepid "meh, why not" for another few > candidates. At least, that's my experience. > > I suggest that forcing people to choose more tightly who they're voting > for would be a good thing. If there are 10 candidates, picking 7 from 10 > is no good. A few years ago, we had 12 candidates for 11 places. Picking > 11 from 12 is a farce. > > Members could be limited to 3 votes, a nice balance between > first-past-the-post and preferential voting. > > The number of seats stays the same, the election mode stays the same, > from my reading of things, there is no need for any change to by-laws, > all that's needed is a decision from the board as to how the election > will be run. > > Cheers, > Dave. > > -- > Dave Neary > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > -- Quim Gil /// http://flors.wordpress.com ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Preliminary results for Membership Vote Regarding Change to Bylaws
Hi, Jeff Waugh wrote: > >> Voting in referenda is generally not very high, and there was 0 debate on >> this issue on the list (I did see some grumbling on IRC, but nothing >> concrete), so it's hardly an initiative that's going to mobilise the >> troops. > > There was buttloads of discussion around the initial plan, which partly led > to the revised implementation (mostly about extending the current board's > term, and we had legal advice suggesting the bylaws change). Based on the > length and breadth of the earlier threads, I don't think there was any lack > of discussion. :-) Right - because of the initial discussion, the referendum proposal had addressed many initial concerns, and thus didn't provoke lots of debate. Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Suggestion for coming elections
Hi, I have a suggestion for the coming board elections which I think might make things more interesting (and, coincidentally, better). We've always proceded by giving members N votes, where N is the number of seats available. What this results in is a very strong yes vote for one, two, maybe three people, and a tepid "meh, why not" for another few candidates. At least, that's my experience. I suggest that forcing people to choose more tightly who they're voting for would be a good thing. If there are 10 candidates, picking 7 from 10 is no good. A few years ago, we had 12 candidates for 11 places. Picking 11 from 12 is a farce. Members could be limited to 3 votes, a nice balance between first-past-the-post and preferential voting. The number of seats stays the same, the election mode stays the same, from my reading of things, there is no need for any change to by-laws, all that's needed is a decision from the board as to how the election will be run. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Preliminary results for Membership Vote Regarding Change to Bylaws
> Voting in referenda is generally not very high, and there was 0 debate on > this issue on the list (I did see some grumbling on IRC, but nothing > concrete), so it's hardly an initiative that's going to mobilise the > troops. There was buttloads of discussion around the initial plan, which partly led to the revised implementation (mostly about extending the current board's term, and we had legal advice suggesting the bylaws change). Based on the length and breadth of the earlier threads, I don't think there was any lack of discussion. :-) - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 "I hear Tom Wolfe's speaking at Lincoln Center. [...] Well, of course we're going to fling poo at him!" - Mason the Chimpanzee, Madagascar ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Preliminary results for Membership Vote Regarding Change to Bylaws
Hi, Žygimantas Beručka wrote: >> The results are: >> yes (125 votes) >> no (22 votes) > > Even though I've voted yes, the voting activity level is depressing I > must say. How many members the Foundation has currently? Voting in referenda is generally not very high, and there was 0 debate on this issue on the list (I did see some grumbling on IRC, but nothing concrete), so it's hardly an initiative that's going to mobilise the troops. I'm hopeful that there'll be more animation around the elections this year. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
