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

Re: Call for Consensus - "Use 'Schulze STV' for voting"

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 11:08:56 -0700
Message-ID: <537B9A38.5090706@linux.intel.com>
To: public-w3process@w3.org
I vote no for the following reasons.

1. It isn't clear to me that there is a problem or if there is that 
there aren't better solutions.

2. These elections are about 400 orgs eligible to vote for 5 out of 12 
candidates.   Each member has 1 vote.  I think it would be hard for any 
voting scheme to control an election if the eligible electorate really  
wanted something else.

3. In these elections there are well qualified candidates who likely 
would do good job if elected.  It seems to me they usually stress resume 
or things everyone wants.  Discussing needed perspectives that are not 
represented or positions on controversial issues could help get those 
views represented.  (so it can be about selecting diverse points of 
view, not just competent proposal writers).

4. These aren't elections for legislative bodies.  Except for Member 
submission appeals, these are groups give advice or to craft proposals 
for the AC or W3C Management.  If the elections went horribly wrong, the 
AC and W3C Management could simply seek that advice elsewhere.  So it is 
unclear why gaming elections would be of any value.

5. Schulze STV is complex.  To give up easy understandability in how 
votes are counted, it needs to be clear there aren't other ways to 
address whatever the problem is.   This isn't an election where there 
are parties (for the most part).

6. If what was being asked for was some straightforward single 
transferable vote, I'd be fine with it even if I didn't understand what 
the justification was.  The problem here is Schulze is complex.  I'd 
think there would need to be a good reason to think that complexity is 
needed.  One possibility is to switch to some simpler ranking scheme and 
get data from that.












On 2014-05-19 12:31, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> On May 18, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Nottingham, Mark<mnotting@akamai.com>  wrote:
>
>> Ah, but this isnít a business
> Well then, you're not a customer and no one needs to care what you want, right? :)
>
> A business case - as in, a clear explanation of the problem and why you believe the proposed solution fixes it - seems entirely reasonable. I doubt it'd hurt if you want to achieve 'adequate support in the AC'?
>
>> (at least from a Memberís standpoint); the real question is whether there will be adequate support in the AC, not whether a case can be justified to a boss / board / whatever.
>>
>> If the question is put to the AC fairly and it fails to get enough support, Iím happy. What Iím not happy with is the continuing delaying tactics and rhetoric on show; let the AC make a decision and letís move on.
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 18:09:36 UTC

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