Open Stack

Thanks Todd, good summary of the meeting, much appreciated.


Best,
Simon Anderson
CEO, DreamHost


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Todd Moore <tmmoore at us.ibm.com> wrote:

> The committee met again today to review draft materials for voting system
> candidates: STV, and Condorcet.  The committee also discussed the best
> approaches for ensuring informed decision making by both the board and the
> Electorate.  Alan Clark has scheduled a special board session for reviewing
> materials with the complete board on Thursday of this week.
>
> Attendees:
>
> Todd Moore
> Tim Bell
> Alan Clark
> Tristan Goode
> Mark McLoughlin
> Troy Toman
> Monty Taylor
> Simon Anderson
> Jonathan Bryce
> Mark Raddcliffe
>
> Simon and Monty provided description documents for the two systems that
> remain under consideration, after the tweak to the current cumulative
> system was deemed to also require a bylaws amendment.   These documents
> have previously gone out to the election committee mailing list and will
> not be duplicated here.
>
> We opened the meeting with context set by Mark R. and Todd reiterated the
> goals set forth in the previous minutes.
>
> Goal of new system from previous minutes:
>
>  "STV or Condorcet are under consideration as both provide a means of
> offsetting the effects of casting all 8 votes for a single individual in
> the current cumulative voting system.  The impression is that the
> electorate is not expressing their complete preference for the elected
> slate for fear that they have to cast their vote in a block to ensure their
> individual of choice is elected.  Neither of these systems mitigate large
> affiliated groups from expressing their vote for a single candidate, but
> the they do improve the likelihood that the slate of directors chosen is
> more thoughtfully elected as voter angst over the casting of all 8 votes as
> 1 would no longer be an issue.  Testing against past data would suggest
> that the end results would have been the same directors elected in the new
> system.  So careful education as to how to use and view either new system
> would be required. "
>
> We then dived into the systems with Simon discussing STV first.
>
> The meeting ran for several hours, as considerable debate ensued.  We did
> resolve that either system was permissible under Delaware law, that STV had
> precedent from the stand point of use by other Delaware non-profit
> corporations (Delaware does not have separate requirements for profit or
> not for profit organizations in this matter) and neither appear to have
> been challenged in the courts.  Both systems have variations in the way
> that they are implemented, and therefore our explanations of the systems
> needed to be easily understood by those that might adjudicate a dispute.
>  For this reason, we asked Monty and Simon to take another pass at the
> details in the material for the board..  We expect that the Foundation
> management will still need to add final details as to implementation once a
> direction is set. ( It was noted that Delaware allows for a single
> (default) or cumulative (optional - chosen to protect minority segments)
> voting and states such as California make cumulative the default choice).
>
> While STV was the most straight forward to explain, Condorcet requires a
> more intimate knowledge of mathematics and graph concepts to truly
> understand the results of the election.  Implementation details on whether
> to require all preferences to be expressed in STV or not could also bear on
> how it is considered compared to Condorcet which does not.  Our current
> cumulative system allowing 8 votes to be cast for a single candidate is in
> place to give a better voice to minority segments and STV and Condorcet
> implementation details should be gauged also against their impact when
> faced with larger voting affiliations that are still in place.
>
> After lengthy discussion, we concluded that targeting a January Ballot
> item for a candidate voting system change was still a good target, as it
> places a timeline upon us to drive activity.  The complexity of what we are
> describing and implications to the body as a whole require thoughtful
> education and consideration by the board and the electorate.  We did not
> feel that a single meeting where we brought a proposal to the board, in a
> crowded agenda, would be adequate for educated debate.  We also preferred
> to provide education to the electorate so that they can make a careful
> choice. Therefore, we concluded to use the board time on Thursday to spend
> to complete the initial education process, and that Alan would work to find
> a slot on the Nov. board meeting for a vote on a predetermined and
> publicized amendment to the bylaws.  The choice for the electorate would
> then be retain current system or switch.
>
> We resolved to meet again tomorrow morning to review the final material
> from Simon and Monty and a timeline from Todd/Jonathan.
>
>
> Please feel free to correct and add if I have missed any really salient
> bits.
>
>
>
> Todd M. Moore
>
> Director, Interoperability and Partnerships
>
> 11501 Burnet Rd. MS 9035H014
> Austin, TX , 78758.  (512) 286-7643 (tie-line 363)
> tmmoore at us.ibm.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131015/8045f875/attachment.html>