Re: GNOME Foundation Elections - Official list of candidates

[danilo gnome org (Danilo Šegan)]

Hi Alan, Robert,

Today at 22:23, Alan Horkan wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Robert Love wrote:
>
>> Right, people can vote for any number of people with a shared
>> affiliation and someone might indeed want to vote for all six Novell
>> employees, but in this voting system that can result in scenarios where
>> I decrease the chances of the "more likely" four winning.
>
> Correct.
>
>> I am not arguing for or against changing to a Ranked Ballot system, just
>> trying to explain what Alan is saying.
>
> I was trying to point out some facts.
> In case anyone is wondering I'm not in any way against the quota.

I was simply trying to point out that switch of voting system wouldn't
have any particular effect in the case of Novell-employed candidates,
other than it would have on all the other members.  I.e. Alan's assertion
that this was "particularly bad" for them would still hold with
"preferential voting" system, and it wouldn't be for the voting system
itself, but due to 4-per-company rule.  It would work better for more
desireable candidates, but if they don't fit in the quota-of-4,
they'd be out nevertheless.

Or am I somehow misunderstanding "Ranked Ballot", and this would
somehow have particular effect on a case of 6 candidates out of which
only four can be chosen, compared to anybody else (and this assumed
relation is not the same as with current voting system, since Alan
somehow pointed out that they would gain something in particular)?

Perhaps you meant simply "it would be more fair for everybody, and
this fairness is what is most important in case of company with more
than 4 employees"?  If that's the case, I see no reason why would be
this fairness more important in such cases than in comparing any
other two candidates.

> Maybe I should resisted the temptation to mention my desire to change the
> voting system but I cannot help but throw that in anychance I get (and
> I'll probably be suggesting compulsory turnout next if you are not careful
> :)

I don't see anything wrong with your desire (or temptation for that
matter :) to propose alternative voting system, but I'm not sure one
of your (probably not too important) points was correct.  I may, of
course, be wrong about that myself.

Ok, I receive negative points for ranting on unimportant points of
your message, which caused at least 4 another mails (with more to come
;-)  Yeah, I knew proposal to change voting system is what should be
the main issue, so I apologize to anyone bothered with this (yeah, big
words, he apologizes, then continues ranting! and in so many words, oh
boy! I'm soooo repeating himself, that I'd better stop and rething my
messages).

Cheers,
Danilo