- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:26:34 +0100
- To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "Charles McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:11:42 +0100, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: BTW relevant part of the process document: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AB-TAG-elections > ===Tactical voting vs Desired outcomes > The current system, with multiple votes of equal weight, strongly > rewards tactical voting for a single candidate (although for example the > current TAG election is for four, and AB elections are for four or five). > > This puts the voters in a dilemma - do they vote tactically to ensure > their most desired candidate has the best chance, or do they vote > according to more general preferences and hope they are in line with > everyone else so the result is reasonable. One reason I think this is a problem is because I am faced with the dilemma, and repeatedly choose between two not very good alternative voting strategies. Almost inevitably I end up voting for the single candidate I most want to win. This is an all-or-nothing strategy, and means a lot of my intention is completely lost. > A couple of alternatives have been proposed - either using W3C's current > WBS system (essentially ranking all candidates in preference order, I > don't know the details of the algorithm used from there), or "a system > of optional preferential voting" (there are plenty to choose from, each > with slight differences). I prefer optional preferential systems. But I would take almost anything as a major improvement on the existing system. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 11:27:05 UTC