Open Stack

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:

>  ** **
>
> We have seen good results from the voter information campaigns from the 1
> st year to the 2nd year and I feel that the trend will continue. ****
>
> ** **
>
> There is a need to make the electorate sensitive to their responsibilities
> but also to not raise the bar too high in terms of effort to vote (thus
> losing some highly involved, but busy, people).
>

Yeah, that's the concern I would have about forcing people to rank each and
every candidate. It may be sooo much trouble that they'll simply bail.


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Tim****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jim Jagielski [mailto:jimjag at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 15 October 2013 20:41
>
> *To:* Tim Bell
> *Cc:* Simon Anderson; elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Elections-committee] Draft STV Briefing Paper for
> Committee Review****
>
>  ** **
>
> That is right, but in that case the user has basically "thrown away" their
> vote. If their candidate was already going to win, then their vote is moot;
> Instead, what should be focused on is voter education. It results in a
> somewhat different mind-set which most voters feel *more* liberated about...
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> You could require that they submit at least the number of votes that
> correspond to the number of open slots; but that's an implementation issue.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:****
>
>   ****
>
> Jim,****
>
>  ****
>
> Thus, my understanding of both Condorcet and STV is that if we do not
> require a complete ranking, we could up with concerns that the “bullet”
> scenario could occur (i.e. single candidate votes) despite the change of
> algorithm.****
>
>  ****
>
> If we require voting for ALL candidates, we could be asking 10K+ people to
> order 20+ people which may risk some random voting patterns to complete the
> form.****
>
>  ****
>
> Tim****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Jim Jagi-elski [mailto:jimjag at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 15 October 2013 18:56
> *To:* Tim Bell
> *Cc:* Simon Anderson; elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Elections-committee] Draft STV Briefing Paper for
> Committee Review****
>
>  ****
>
> 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/20131015/86049826/attachment-0001.html>