Re: GNOME Board of Directors Foundation Elections Spring 2009 - Preliminary results

Is it really fair if people can't agree on how it works?  Seems to go against the GNOME principle of simplicity by adding more choices to fix some of the issues of voting.  I'm all for making things more fair but I'm not sure the complexity actually fixes things or hides the issues under a layer of complexity.  In any case the final decision should be well documented on how it was reached.  If at all possible, done by hand showing the work at each step.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Michael Meeks <michael meeks novell com> wrote:

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:11 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
> You just announced the results based on first-past-the-post, when the
> elections were to be run using preferential voting, with single
> transferable vote and fractional surplus transfer.

       Ah ! the famous 'Meek' method (no relation); can be rather a rabbit
Warren of complexity this thing - though it's clearly a fairer way of
doing things: as I recall the Open-Solaris board specified this form of
STV in it's bylaws which seemed sensible.



 michael meeks novell com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]