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

ah crap, here's the mail I sent. Let's hope it gets through this time.
--- Begin Message ---
Hey folks,

first of all: Sorry for the messy situation.
I think we ended up there due to the Bus Factor ain't as high as I'd like it to be.

As we follow Maemo closely in terms of this election, I went for the method used in Maemo as well. And this was, according to http://maemo.org/vote/results.php?election_id=6, the method used by me. We should have resolved the question about the method used and I probably shouldn't have taken action before asking back. But we were already late and I knew that I'd be pretty busy the next days. And as it got pretty quite around here, I just did it.

Vincent Untz wrote:
Le mercredi 24 juin 2009, à 10:11 +0200, Dave Neary a écrit :
The table on this results page shows the results with random transfer STV. When this was discussed over at Maemo, it was proposed & agreed that we should use the more accurate fractional transfer STV, since running random transfer STV several times can give different results.
I would think it's up to the elections committee to take a decision (since
it's a bit late for the board to decide on this, with some board members
running in those elections).

I agree that it should be up to us to decide on this.

Dave's argument, not to use "Random Transfer STV with Droop-Static-Whole threshold" is valid, given that the community can't reproduce the result. I, however, was not able to generate a different result using this method. So the point might not be valid in this case.

It might be a good idea to choose "Fractional Transfer STV with Droop-Static-Whole threshold" whatsoever, because it doesn't sound "random" as the other method does. This doesn't leave a bitter taste for the electorate (although I wasn't able to produce a different result with the other method).

So I propose to recount the ballots using "Fractional Transfer STV with Droop-Static-Whole threshold" for the reason mentioned above on the one hand, and to resolve Dave's challenge on other hand.
This will change the result though.

If there are no objections, I'd write to f-l announcing that we'll use fractional transfer and asking Dave whether this resolves his challenge.

For the next elections, I hope to not forget to have the counting method announced as clearly as possible.

I look forward to see your responses :)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

--- End Message ---

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