Re: "Removed statement there is one vote per available seat" - was Re: W3C Process 2018

Actually so much so that as originally created, I couldn't even make
sense of the choices with Accessibility turned on -- took W3C staff 3+
weeks to push a working solution. If nothing else, it at least proved
how broken Web Accessibility is --- if W3C cant figure out how to
create such a page so it works for everyone, clearly no one else can
be expected to:-)

I know we had many years of complex/convoluted discussions around
voting -- but I think the lesson that the STB deployment teaches us is
 that it (the discussions and the eventual deployment) was a failure.

Glenn Adams writes:
 > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:35 AM, T.V Raman <raman@google.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > I believe we have made voting far too complicated --- I dont believe
 > > the 75% of the silent membership that never participates on these
 > > lists or (sadly in most elections) is in any way likely to understand
 > > these nuances.
 > >
 > > I beleive we'd make a far larger impact by going back to a simple
 > > voting system, and instead spend the energy on increased participation.
 > >
 > 
 > +++1
 > 
 > 
 > >
 > > Florian Rivoal writes:
 > >  >
 > >  > > On Sep 29, 2017, at 7:34, Michael Champion <
 > > michaelc.champion@gmail.com> wrote:
 > >  > >
 > >  > > Since only the Team has access to the raw vote data, this discrepancy
 > > wasn’t noticed until recently.
 > >  >
 > >  > Good catch. I certainly wasn't aware of the discrepancy.
 > >  >
 > >  > > Does it matter?  Definitely, the results can be different.   There is
 > > a GitHub discussion of this issue in which I go through a hypothetical
 > > example  https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60#issuecomment-323474691
 > > <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60#issuecomment-323474691> to
 > > illustrate how the different approaches work.  The  currently implemented
 > > STV system would make it easier to elect TAG and AB members ranked #1 by a
 > > substantial minority of the AC, the one-vote-per-available-seat STV system
 > > would tend to elect people broadly ranked in the top few spots.
 > >  >
 > >  > Reasoning about voting systems is hard.
 > >  >
 > >  > One thing I wonder is which one is more supportive of diverse
 > > candidates. Diverse candidates may be people most voters don't know except
 > > for a small number of fans, but they could also be people who don't quite
 > > have the name recognition of the superstars, but still have a large number
 > > of voters who are familiar and confortable with them even if they don't get
 > > first spot on many people's list.
 > >  >
 > >  > I guess it might depend on whether "increase diversity" means "elect
 > > candidates from all sorts of places, not just Goozillapplosoft" or means
 > > "elect candidates with a broad range of viewpoints, including radical and
 > > polarizing ones". It's not obvious too me how much overlap there is between
 > > the two understandings, and what the exact effects of the two voting
 > > methods are, especially once you take strategic voting into account.
 > >  >
 > >  > It would be interesting to see if the results on the live data of the
 > > past elections for which we have data, even though this isn't perfect, as
 > > voting strategies for either system could be different.
 > >  >
 > >  > —Florian
 > > --
 > >
 > > --
 > >
 > >

-- 

--

Received on Friday, 29 September 2017 16:53:06 UTC