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. Really, the selection of who steps up if a trustee-elect or trustee post appointment leaves/is removed from the Board has nothing much to do with the voting system. Once the vote is done and the candidates are ranked, that's the end of it. It's whether or not the results of the most recent vote will be used to replace a trustee-elect or trustee post appointment that is only partially answered at this time.
I'd be supportive of changing to a system that doesn't overweight opposition to a candidate,but any replacement system should be very easily understood by voters. The Schulze system is remarkably easy to game, was definitely misunderstood by many voters, and often resulted in candidates nobody wanted getting ranked higher than candidates that people were indifferent about. Organizations that used to use forms of the Schulze system have largely moved away from it and use other systems now that are more intuitive for voters. Hardly anyone in the WIkimedia world would even know about the Schulze system if it hadn't been selected many years back; retrospective review of that decision process showed it was very flawed and was based at least in part on the Enwiki article about the Schulze system - an article that has needed cleanup since at least 2006. There are plenty of voting systems out there that are intended to give multiple-winner results. I'd like to see something selected that is (a) designed to give multiple winners, (b) is simple and intuitive for voters and (c) has some sort of process for voters to identify clearly the candidates they feel are very inappropriate for the role. 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 On 30 January 2016 at 04:00, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> 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. > > I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election > committee to consider now how the next community election will be set up? > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>