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

Re: Case for/data about elections

From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 17:55:37 +0200
Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-id: <3780A247-5C39-4649-97EF-6FCE069ED1AF@mac.com>
To: jicheu@yahoo.fr

On May 19, 2014, at 10:27 , Jean-Charles (JC) Verdié <jicheu@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Hi Brian
> 
> We need data. So far what we have is feelings that the vote is biased or
> that it isn't.
> 
> If you are on ac-forum you can see [1] that I asked all the people who
> are running for the current election to agree on having the results
> being made public (after the ballot is closed), but so far it has not
> got a great support, so I fear we once again won't have access to the
> raw data and therefore people will be able to stand on their position
> that the system is or isn't flawed

I agree.  I think we have three problems to resolve here before we can make progress:

* not enough AC reps vote at all for the question to be meaningful
* we have nowhere near enough data for us to work out whether we have a meaningful problem
* I am not at all sure we are agreed on the purpose of the election;  as I said before, I think Chaals wants it to reflected the (desired or actual) diversity of the membership, but maybe we want an AB that has the people who will best serve, and so on…

I agree we can and should solve the data question.  The first question, well, I don’t know.  The third we should be settling in the ‘process’ discussion list.

> 
> Regards,
> JC
> 
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2014AprJun/0216.html
> 
> Brian Kardell wrote:
>> Spinning off a new thread in order to keep the other about actually
>> voting on votes.
>> 
>> To reiterate in order to pose my questions:  I agree there are potential
>> biases in the first system, it has serious flaws.  I entirely support
>> the idea that it is worth discussing and probably fixing.  BUT - I am
>> very dubious that THESE are the biases that have hurt things thus far
>> and relatively confident that other biases (apathy/lack of participation
>> or knowledge, who actually does the voting, etc) actually have had a big
>> impact AND changing the voting system does not address these.  My
>> assertions are easily validated with data.
>> 
>> So my question is:  Is there data to actually support the assertion that
>> this has affected outcomes? On several occasions now i have heard people
>> cite recent elections.  The fact that candidates and folks like myself
>> actively made an effort to turn out the vote and collaborated and
>> discussed importance out in the open on issues is a perfectly rational
>> explanation, but there is adamant insistence it seems that somehow the
>> system is rigged or something.  Has there been a questionnaire to
>> membership about whether they strategically voted or any effort to play
>> it out another way that has shown otherwise?  If so, I'd like to see
>> this data.  If not, let's please stop holding this up as an example if
>> the data doesn't support it.  It's disheartening to people like myself
>> who really care and all it's accomplishing is creating more "why bother"
>> sentiment.
>> 
>> Again, in principle, theoretically - i fully support ranked voting. 
>> I'd, love to see coordination with a linked, unofficial poll for
>> studying impact, etc.  I'd also love high level preference data to be
>> public - it's useful for making sure membership is able to express
>> itself and groups and W3C are addressing appropriately.
>> 
> 
> 

Dave Singer

singer@mac.com
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 15:56:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC