Open Stack

Meeks had more real-world experience and was more well-known and
"understood"... plus, Meeks is used by quite a few *large* membership
elections (iirc, it's the default for New Zealand) and in those cases it's
even more worthwhile, since Meeks allows for somewhat better representation
for smaller sects in larger populations.


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Simon Anderson <simon at dreamhost.com> wrote:

> Thanks Jim, good clarification. In other STV systems I've seen implemented
> there has been a forced rank. This clarification based on ASFs system makes
> STV even more similar to Condorcet, not requiring all candidates to be
> given an order of preference, in the event that STV was put forward for
> consideration by the membership.
>
> Did ASF also consider the size of membership in selecting the Meeks
> Method? Given the large size of the OpenStack membership (10K+), we are
> questioning the need for Meeks Method, and I was starting to look at
> Hare-Clark as an alternative.
>
> Best,
> Simon
>
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <jimjag at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All of the STV systems the ASF looked at and used (and developed) do not
> require ranking all candidates when casting a vote. Nor is it a requirement
> of STV itself.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:
>
>>  ** **
>>
>> Simon,****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Could you clarify whether there is an STV system which does not require
>> ranking all candidates (45 in the last round) and would require at least N
>> votes (to ensure reasonable consideration) but does not require all
>> candidates to be ranked ?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> This would avoid the “bullet vote” mentioned in
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote, require a
>> reasonable level of education by the electorate (i.e. not just choose the
>> nearest affiliation but also allow a vote to be cast in a reasonable time
>> by ranking your top M candidates where M > N) ?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Tim****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Simon Anderson [mailto:simon at dreamhost.com]
>> *Sent:* 15 October 2013 10:16
>> *To:* elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> *Subject:* [Elections-committee] Draft STV Briefing Paper for Committee
>> Review****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> I've attached the draft briefing paper I've prepared summarizing the
>> Single Transferable Vote (STV) system, and its benefits and drawbacks for
>> consideration by the Board at the meeting on October 17.****
>>
>> Look forward to discussing and refining it with you all today, on and
>> after the election committee call.
>> ****
>>
>>
>> Best,****
>>
>> Simon Anderson
>> CEO, DreamHost****
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Elections-committee mailing list
>> Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20131015/038177ee/attachment.html>