Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

asn't true what was wrote there? :/ > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > From: m...@gondwanaland.com > Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:51:37 -0800 > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari > to Wikimedia Foundation Board > > On 01/30/2016 07

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

I think an analysis of the past Wikimedia community election results, with a variety of different voting (and counting) methods, could show the best path toward achieving diversity in elected seats, without necesarilly resorting to quotas or separate contests. Thanks, Pharos On Sun, Jan 31, 2016

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

On 01/30/2016 07:19 AM, Risker wrote: > While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the > Board. Does the community voting process want to try to take that on? How > would we do such a thing? I wildly speculate that it could be done through a voter pledge, sketched at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

My personal analysis comes to the conclusion that the voting formula/voting system needs to be redesigned before next election. The current one has serious flaws related to the oppose option. It is both open to "smart" voting (manipulation) and it also gives undue weight to the oppose option.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best option in these circumstances. Simple positive voting, single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze would all do that. I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election committee to consider now

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Chris Keating wrote: > It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best > option in these circumstances. > > Simple positive voting, single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze > would all do that. > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the Board. Does the community voting process want to try to take that on? How would we do such a thing? Risker/Anne I think here we only have two options: 1) To decide that one (or two) of the community-elected seats is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

Well, the easiest way to determine a "next best" option is to build it into the bylaws. It's clear what would happen if, before an appointment, a "selected" candidate was found to be problematic - it goes to the 4th place candidate - but the bylaws don't go into what happens post appointment.

[Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

Actually the formula used (S/S+O) is from a ranking point identical to (S-O/S+O) (=(S-O)/(Total-Neutral). And the result would have been different if the formula (S-O)/Total had been used (Maria would have been in). So in some ways it was the Neutral votes who decided, or rather that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

I found that the "support percentage" formula S/(S+O) fails some important criteria for voting systems, for example it gives more weight to a vote for minor candidates, which violates the one person, one vote principle among others. "Net support" (S-O) is equally obscure and problematic. My