W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Is strategic voting a problem? - was RE: Don't disclose election results

From: Yosuke Funahashi <yosuke@funahashi.cc>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 00:42:08 +0900
Message-ID: <5391E150.3010700@funahashi.cc>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 6/7/14, 12:30 AM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> BUT  I still think the much worse problem is that we have qualified and committed people who wish to contribute to the AB/TAG but aren't elected because we are forced to select only 5 of them each year.   Nothing I've seen in these threads indicates that there are more than 20-30 people in the consortium who know/care enough about what either group does and have the employer support to spend time on it.  I'm just not convinced that there would have been a downside to having all 12 of the people who ran for the AB this year be seated, and letting them self-select who stays depending on their actual contributions.  Take away the fun of the competition and the supposed prestige of winning, we'll be left with the people who really want to spend their time working to improve how W3C runs and what it says about the architecture of the Web.

+1

This is one of the reasons why I wrote a message that we should make the AB 
open. Some people sounded comfortable with keeping the AB small or current size, 
which I don't understand at all.

Yosuke

> ________________________________________
> From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 12:38 AM
> To: David Singer; public-w3process@w3.org
> Cc: Robin Berjon
> Subject: Re: Don't disclose election results
>
> On 05/06/2014 22:24 , David Singer wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 2014, at 12:48 , Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
>>> As for strategic voting, only about half of AC reps vote for all
>>> slots. 20-25% vote for just one. (The rest distributes in between.)
>>> So there is no doubt that it is going on.
>>
>> Really?  I can quite easily imagine there are AC Reps who only knew
>> some of the candidates, and by the time they excluded ones they knew
>> and didnít like, found they had to accept a few so as to vote.  At
>> least, thatís how I imagine I got elected.  It might not be
>> strategic, merely caution.
>
> What makes me think it's strategic is the shape of the curve. Strategic
> voting is characterised by voting for just one candidate. Voting only
> for people you know, out of caution, should spread relatively evenly
> across knowing 1, 2, 3, etc. people. But things look more like:
>
> 1: 25
> 2: 4
> 3: 4
> 4: 15
> 5: 50
>
> We have two AC reps on the record stating they vote strategically (at
> least in elections in which they run): Chaals and Henry Thompson. It's
> something that was already discussed when I was an AC rep (and that's
> starting to be a while agoÖ). In a previous election we also know for a
> fact (because his email blast went to a few people it shouldn't have
> gone to) that at least one candidate asked his voters to vote
> strategically (and many did, though that wasn't enough).
>
> I think that strategic voting by at least 10-20% of the electorate is a
> fact; what I *don't* know is whether it really makes a difference: if
> voters spread it out evenly and the numbers are low, it can quite
> possibly cancel itself out.
>
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>

-- 
Yosuke Funahashi
co-Chair, W3C Web and TV IG
Chair, W3C Web and Broadcasting BG
Researcher, Keio Research Institute at SFC
Special Adviser, Tomo-Digi Corporation
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 15:47:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:11 UTC