Open Stack

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:03 AM, John Griffith
<john.griffith at solidfire.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
>
>> Honestly, I think the flat (no category or PTL requirements) 11 has
>> the advantage of simplicity, and likelyhood of attracting / electing
>> people that touch more than one project, which helps the TC have a
>> more global project POV. It also means that as the scope of OpenStack
>> changes we don't have to keep redefining what's an important category
>> and/or project.
>>
>> My $0.02 of preference.
>>
>
> I'd agree for the most part, I only wonder if there should be a limit
> regarding company affiliation?  In other words it doesn't seem like it
> would be overly useful to have the majority of members all representing the
> same company.  That's the only concern that I would have.
>

In theory, the condorcet proportional voting [1] approach should help to
mitigate that concern. But its not something folks are familiar with and
its not obvious how things would work, so there are some real reasons to be
hesitant about adopting proportional votes.

Thierry, do you think we could possibly work with the maintainers of the
voting/poll site to run a normal, non-proportional vote (if we chose a flat
11 election), but to save the data and let us view what the results would
be if we did a proportional vote?

1. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/civs/proportional.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130530/5fee6e5c/attachment.html>