"We are fully committed to filling the open community-selected seat through a
transparent proces (...)"
So it wasn't true
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.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016
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,
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.
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
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Chris Keating
> 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.
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?
would we do such a thing?
I think here we only have two options:
1) To decide that one (or two) of the community-elected seats is
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.
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