| 1 |
Aron Griffis wrote: [Wed Apr 27 2005, 08:48:40PM CDT] |
| 2 |
> I don't want to delay things with an unnecessary discussion, but |
| 3 |
> wouldn't Condorcet voting work well in this situation? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Quite possibly. I hope you noticed the part of my e-mail where I |
| 6 |
mentioned that my proposal wasn't necessarily a good one. The reason is |
| 7 |
that I know very little about election theory. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
In any event, I'm reasonably happy with any well-established voting |
| 10 |
scheme. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> If we were to go ahead with a Condorcet election, then each voter |
| 13 |
> would need to rank the candidates rather than simply voting yes or no. |
| 14 |
> We also would need to decide on the number of trustees that will be |
| 15 |
> elected. (I would suggest maintaining the current number for |
| 16 |
> simplicity.) However we would have a fair election without the |
| 17 |
> possible mishaps that can occur with an ad-hoc scheme. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
My worry was that the argument over how many trustees to have could |
| 20 |
derail the entire process. Worse, until the trustee archive becomes |
| 21 |
available there's no way for people to really make an informed decision |
| 22 |
on what the right number happens to be. I claim that we have too many |
| 23 |
trustees as it is, because right now its rare for all trustees (or even |
| 24 |
a majority) to comment on any issue, but what's a good number? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That said, if we have too many trustees for another year, its hardly the |
| 27 |
end of the world, and the foundation can always change things next year. |
| 28 |
So, if 13 (the current number) is minimally contentious, I'll support |
| 29 |
it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-g2boojum- |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Grant Goodyear |
| 34 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 35 |
g2boojum@g.o |
| 36 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
| 37 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |
Archives