Open Stack

Thanks re the Meeks insights Jim. I'll incorporate this into the expanded
briefing for the Board.


Best,
Simon Anderson
CEO, DreamHost


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Jim Jagielski <jimjag at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20131015/448b8e22/attachment.html>