<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">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.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Attendees:</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Todd Moore</font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Tim Bell </font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Alan Clark</font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Tristan Goode</font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Mark McLoughlin</font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Troy Toman</font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Monty Taylor</font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Simon Anderson</font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Jonathan Bryce</font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Mark Raddcliffe</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">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. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">We opened the meeting with context set by Mark R. and Todd reiterated the goals set forth in the previous minutes. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Goal of new system from previous minutes: </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif"> "</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">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. "</font><font size="3" face="serif"><br>
</font><br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">We then dived into the systems with Simon discussing STV first. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">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). </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">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. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">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.</font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">We resolved to meet again tomorrow morning to review the final material from Simon and Monty and a timeline from Todd/Jonathan.</font><br>
<br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="Default Sans Sarif">Please feel free to correct and add if I have missed any really salient bits. </font><br>
<br>
<font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Todd M. Moore<br>
<br>
Director, Interoperability and Partnerships<br>
<br>
11501 Burnet Rd. MS 9035H014 <br>
Austin, TX , 78758. (512) 286-7643 (tie-line 363)<br>
tmmoore@us.ibm.com</font></body></html>