| 1 |
Grant Goodyear wrote:[Wed Apr 27 2005, 11:15:31AM EDT] |
| 2 |
> Ideally, I'd like to have trustee elections finished by 16 May. Of |
| 3 |
> course, that means we need to decide how to handle the elections. |
| 4 |
> Here's a proposal: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I like it in general, except for two things: (1) I think there should |
| 7 |
be a maximum on the number of trustees. I don't know what that |
| 8 |
maximum should be though. How about 15? (2) I'm nervous about the |
| 9 |
ad-hoc voting scheme, i.e. the 50% number, etc. I don't really like |
| 10 |
the thought of experimenting with voting schemes for the Gentoo Board |
| 11 |
when there are tried-and-true voting schemes available. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I don't want to delay things with an unnecessary discussion, but |
| 14 |
wouldn't Condorcet voting work well in this situation? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
http://electionmethods.org/CondorcetEx.htm |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
After tallying votes, there is a Condorcet calculator (that supports |
| 19 |
Beatpath winner) that we could easily use at: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/ |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If we were to go ahead with a Condorcet election, then each voter |
| 24 |
would need to rank the candidates rather than simply voting yes or no. |
| 25 |
We also would need to decide on the number of trustees that will be |
| 26 |
elected. (I would suggest maintaining the current number for |
| 27 |
simplicity.) However we would have a fair election without the |
| 28 |
possible mishaps that can occur with an ad-hoc scheme. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
Aron |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Aron Griffis |
| 35 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives