On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 01:55:11PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2020-10-19 23:57:31) > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 07:22:48PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote: > > > Yo, > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, at 19:02, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > +## Voting > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +Voting is done using a ranked voting system, currently running on > > > > > https://vote.ffmpeg.org/ . > > > > > > > > I think Voting should be defined more precissely > > > > > > That's a good point. What would like to see here? The algo used? The > > > software used? > > > > I dont know what is best. > > > > What is the goal having this information there serves ? > > I think there are 3 or 4 levels/classes of information that could be > > provided > > at highest level, listing the properties of the vote system > > In my view, this documented is intended to serve mainly as a statement > of intent rather than a strict legalistic definition of everything, so > it would be sufficient to mention that we are using a ranked Condorcet > method. I would think very few developers know or care what the exact > differences between the methods are, as long as they are in some sense > "reasonable".
The problem is elections with multiple winners, That is elections of seats in a committee or other group. Consider a 5 seat comittee and lets consider that there are blue and pink candidates if you have 100 people voting and 51 of them vote only for pink candidates and 49 only for blue candidates. repeated application of a Condorcet method will give you 5 pink candidates OTOH something like schulze STV, also a Condorcet method should in this case give you 3 pink candidates and 2 blue ones. The above is a bit oversimplified but basically there are 2 classes of voting systems. The first class is applying single winner election methods repeatedly to fill all seats. The other is trying to fill seats so they are representing the set of voters. The first class can skip over minorities even when they are quite large, but the people choosen should have "strong and maximal support" The second class would favor creating a representative set over one of maximal support by voters. It could lead to a more "colorfull" result with seats filled by people representing minortes and lacking broad support. The results likely will differ in reallity as well. We dont have to write this down in "this" document but we should write it down in some document if what is considered "reasonable" is "Proportional representation" or not. What i can say is that if we want a * "Proportional representation" system then schulze STV is a "beatifull" system free of ugly discrete choices like STV and its also condorcet * non "Proportional representation". then normal repeatly applying the normal schulze method is the obvious choice IIUC CIVS supports repeatly applying the normal schulze method and thilo added support for schulze STV thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. -- Epicurus
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
