Hi, On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Paul Poulain <paul.poul...@biblibre.com>wrote:
> Le 24/09/2013 18:44, Galen Charlton a écrit : > > Thanks for clarifying. And I think that this example makes it clear > > that this particular voting scheme should never be used again for > > conference selection, as I can't see how such an outcome could possibly > > be justified absent an explicit "none of the above" option. > > I really liked last year way of voting. Let's suppose you're 4 options: > one in EU, one in america, one in north africa (tunisia), one in NZ. > Someone from France, could be happy to vote: > * #1 EU, 4 points (very cheap !) > * #2 Tunisia, 3 points (cheap) > * no other options, because I would really like to got to the > conference, and would not be able to pay NZ or america. > > But of course, that makes much more sense with more than 2 options. That > we don't have this year. I think an ordinary preferential voting system (perhaps similar to the process that the World Science Fiction Society uses for WorldCon) that includes "no preference" as an option would be better, as it avoids the possibility that a majority of voters pick site A as their first preference, but get overridden by an organized minority. Under that approach, if one can got to the EU or Tunisia, but nowhere else, one could vote: 1. EU 2. Tunisia 3. No preference / none of the above If "no preference" were to win in a given year, that's probably a signal to consider doing two smaller regional KohaCons that year. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: g...@esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
