openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject Re: Voting if More Than One Accepted Nomination for a new PMC Chair
Date Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:16:53 GMT
On 7 January 2015 at 09:11, Andrea Pescetti <> wrote:

> On 06/01/2015 Dave Fisher wrote:
>> Have we discussed Voting if there are multiple candidates?
> Yes, we did. I'm not going to let procedural discussions prevail, but as
> it (too) often happens we can discuss it again. In this case it's worth it.
>  Perhaps Apache STeVe is an answer:
> What I proposed (see archives) is to have a simple, fully public, vote at
> the first round, then, unless someone gets to 50%, remove the last
> candidate, ask others whether they wanted to run again and iterate (for 1-2
> rounds likely).
> I agree STV is technically better since it can yield the same results and
> save some time. I strongly oppose secret voting since we never had it, and
> we used public voting, back at the time, both for selecting the PMC members
> and for voting for the Chair.
+1 We do NOT want secret voting.

> So, even if this takes a significant additional effort on my side, I
> volunteer to manage the following process if we have 3 or more candidates:
> 1) People vote on this mailing list; everyone simply lists his acceptable
> candidates (one or more) in order of preference.
You write it correctly, but based on my is good to stress:
Do not list candidates you dont like.

> 2) I compute STV, for binding votes only, on the above votes.

I helped a year ago (together with a second person) with the election of a
chair in another project, and downloaded the STeVe tool which was used to
manually feed in the mail votes that eased the process quite a bit.

I think providing a simple sum for non-binding votes is ok, hopefully that
shows the same direction as the binding case of big differences
it might be worth while to try and understand the difference.

> If candidates are 1 or 2, we use a simple vote instead.

> I'm proposing this for lazy consensus again. If you have other proposals,
> speak up; but I'm confident that the above can accommodate all concerns and
> this election is not complex enough for the voting system to really make a
> difference.


jan i.

> Regards,
>   Andrea.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message