Re: Disclosing election results (was Re: Result Re: Call for Consensus - "Use 'Schulze STV' for voting")

On 6/3/14, 4:21 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote:
> On 02/06/2014 21:06, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>> I'd be happy to have the pattern data, but not the candidate names - i.e. anonymize them so we can't figure out who romped in, who scraped in, and who
>> was beaten out by a single vote - or only got 1.
> Then I disagree. Publishing anonymized data is not useful to people
> not drastically involved in W3C Process. I suggest then W3M shares
> *all* election data with the AB, in full confidentiality. I don't
> even know if it's already the case today or not, and that says
> something about the opaqueness of our electoral system...

Sounds good to me.

I think we're in a chicken and egg situation about if we have real problems on 
the voting system: the W3M and team have full knowledge about election results 
however, practically, they can't change the process without a consensus of the 
membership; On the other hand, the membership couldn't get to a consensus or 
even discuss this topic well sometimes, because they didn't have election 
results, which the W3M and some members disagree to disclose to public thanks to 
its sensitiveness and cultural diversity in a global organization. (I too think 
disclosing it to public is not a good idea.)

This sounds like a situation where the AB can work well.


> The AC would get, as I said earlier, number of votes globally and
> per candidate and that would be enough IMHO.
> (please note that even if the votes are ballots, the results are
>   counted per person)
> </Daniel>

Yosuke Funahashi
co-Chair, W3C Web and TV IG
Chair, W3C Web and Broadcasting BG
Researcher, Keio Research Institute at SFC
Special Adviser, Tomo-Digi Corporation

Received on Sunday, 8 June 2014 10:32:54 UTC