Ian, All: So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system and fixing the problem with unranked candidates (and maybe providing a slightly better UI).
Yes, we could use a different system, but why? The system we currently use has been good at choosing candidates who are acceptable to most voting members over candidates who take highly partisan positions. This is a *virtue*, not a drawback. If we'd had a voting system which supported more partisanship, SPI probably would have been destroyed ten years ago when we had folks actively trying to split the membership. If we have a problem with too many candidates needing to be Debian-ish, then the answer is to add specific board seats elected in a way which ensures a pool of candidates who don't care about Debian. Personally, though, I think that would be more trouble than it's worth, and I work on Fedora. Overally, I disagree that there's any major issue with our voting system, and this whole thing really looks to me like voting system geeks looking for an excuse to tinker with "cool voting tech". Let's just fix the unranked candidate problem, work on the UI a little, and call it good enough. _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
