RE: POLL RESULTS: What is the action that produces a Verifiable Presentation?

Thanks, Manu, for conducting the poll. For me the interesting part is to see how people go about in determining which text to use to call some (in this case well-defined) concept. I’m particularly curious to learn whether or not people will focus more on (a) the term itself (e.g. which is the best, what it should/must be), or (b) the fact that we need people to commit to the term (regardless of what it would be) (i.e. start using it only in the way it will be defined in the VCDW).

As for (a), perhaps Christopher’s suggestion can still be used on the 4 top terms.
Rieks

From: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>
Sent: zaterdag 4 maart 2023 20:48
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: POLL RESULTS: What is the action that produces a Verifiable Presentation?



On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 10:30 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com<mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
https://www.opavote.com/methods/recommended


I'm happy to recount using a different algorithm as long as the person
suggesting it is willing to explain/defend why the recount method is
better and then interpret the results. There are a number of
algorithms that we can choose from that would require hours of reading
to understand why you'd use one over the other, so we'd need someone
to boil that down for us commoners. :P

I studied, wrote and taught about these “collaborative choice” systems in mid 00’s.
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/12/systems_for_col.html


I’m not going to recommend a recount as the information was helpful, and it was a poll, not a vote. However, I find ranked choice STV variants are not always ideal for collaborative choice, other than that, they are easier than other alternatives for non-dedicated voters to do. (I actually prefer approval voting over ranked choice as they are even easier for voters and almost as good as ranked choice).

If you have a community that is knowledgeable and dedicated enough to spend the time to vote, a Condorcet will often yield a better result.[1]

Condorcet basically presents every option as pairs, such as  “present vs create”. The pairs are all evaluated. This addresses many properties that the various STV choices can’t do.

It isn’t perfect, as a tie can still happen, which requires another approach to break the tie. Another problem is too many choices make for an exponential explosion of pairs (thus my recommendation that it only be used by dedicated & knowledgeable voters as every pair is a choice, so it can take a while). I particularly like Condorcet for fiduciary groups like larger-sized boards (>10), or executive committees, as they have a legal requirement to be dedicated.

For more details on Condorcet support see OPAVote:
https://www.opavote.com/methods/condorcet-voting


My personal wish is that someone could offer me an optional Condorcet pair front end for STV that facilitates me to create a ranked-choice list. For instance, in Manu's poll I only voted for a small number of choices, the rest of which I ignored. I did not even evaluate “create” and if I had would have ranked very low as it was too bland and generic.

[1]: Beyond Condorcet being IMHO of the best set of choices given Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem (see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6483218), I feel Condorcet is also particularly good for choices between people as our socio-psychology often makes other forms of voting for people bi-modal (see an example of what this is in my article on Amazon 5-star voting http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2006/08/using_5star_rat.html) and helps address that voting about people triggers always voting behavior issues (sometimes unconciously): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_behavior. Unfortunately, Condorcet just requires too much work by the voter to be practical.

— Christopher Allen


This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. TNO accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail, for the manner in which you use it and for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages.