Open Stack

On 10/11/2013 01:27 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/11/2013 01:24 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
>> Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hey all!
>>>
>>> If you want to learn more about this from wikipedia, you should check out:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_systems#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29
>>>
>>> The TC/PTL elections use Schulze. STV would be IRV in this table.
>>
>> Browsing the lists of election system users on wikipedia, a couple of US
>> tax-exempt orgs stand out:
>>
>> LOPSA: A 501(c)(3) using Meek's STV
>> http://governance.lopsa.org/LOPSA_Bylaws#Election_of_Directors
>>
>> SPI: A 501(c)(3) using Schulze
>> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2003/2003-01-06.wta.1/
>>
>> It seems unlikely that we would be breaking new ground as a non-profit
>> with either of these.
> 
> I believe this is an excellent point and excellent precedent.
> Considering that Delaware law allows us to explicitly define our voting
> mechanism (which makes the Delaware portion itself moot) - I would think
> that existing precedent of non-profit boards using Schultze should give
> us the ground cover we need to be more confident on both stated concerns
> around use of Schultze.
> 
> That that has been in effect for them since 2003 and should be AMPLE
> time for issues to have arisen.

As a followup, I have found that the XBMC Foundation, which is an Open
Source 501c3 registered in the state of Delaware uses Condorcet for
their elections.

IANAL - but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that perhaps there
actually is precedent for us to use the voting mechanism that we want to
use.

Monty