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

I beleive we'd make a far larger impact by going back to a simplevoting
system, and instead spend the energy on increased participation.
Very much +1 to this.
Kris  


On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 11:35 AM, 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.




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

-- 




--