On 2017-03-02 14:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:18:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The choice of voting system should not be left to the Secretary. Currently,
> the proposal is to have the Board select STV. If a future Board wants to
> change its mind and select something else in future, then that is quite
>
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
> Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
> technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of discussion.
I'm sorry that you feel that my
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board
elections"):
> Thanks to everyone for their comments. Here is a revised draft
> resolution. The first part of `whereas' section has been rewritten,
> and paragraph 7 (about software choice etc.) replaced as suggested in
Thanks to everyone for their comments. Here is a revised draft
resolution. The first part of `whereas' section has been rewritten,
and paragraph 7 (about software choice etc.) replaced as suggested in
the discussion.
Ian.
WHEREAS
1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional
Jonathan McDowell writes ("Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for
Board elections"):
> (I have re-ordered this reply to try and cover the issues relating
> directly to the wording of the resolution first, and moving the less
> time critical discussion about implementation to the end.)
(I have re-ordered this reply to try and cover the issues relating
directly to the wording of the resolution first, and moving the less
time critical discussion about implementation to the end.)
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 03:32:11PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jonathan McDowell writes ("Re: 2017
