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

["Lionel Dricot" <ploum ploum net>]

Hello,

Honnestly, I'm not interested about the algorithm.  The easier it is, the
best it is for me.

I believe that we announced that we will use Maemo software for elections.
If we want to stay transparent, I believe we have to stay with the Maemo
method. If it had drawbacks, we should have been concerned before the
election.

I propose the following :

1) What are the results with the Maemo method ?

2) What is the problem with those results ? (aka : why should we use
another method ?)

3) What are the results with alternatives methods ? (by Alternative, I
suggest to try other algo like Condorcet or simple preferential vote.
Maybe we will discover that results are nearly always the same)

4) Maybe ask people for who the method change their elected status if they
accept the Maemo result ?


Anyway, I want to insist that, in my opinion, we were using Maemo method,
including the counting algorithm. I believe that this « using Maemo » was
reasonnably clear. People interested in the algo should have challenged us
before the election. Of course, we will avoid that next year by
explicitely stating the algorithm that will be used.


Lionel


> 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 :)
> Cheers,
>    Tobi