Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections
voting system"):
> > WHEREAS
> >
> > 1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
> > system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
> > seriously lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such
> > as SPI's Board Elections.
>
> Please cut this paragraph and replace. As written, the paragraph is a
> source of argument over factors which have little or nothing to do with
> actually replacing the voting system. Frankly, it reads like a partisan
> vendetta against concordet. I suggest instead:
>
> 1. SPI's concordet voting system is unique to our organization and
> has had several issues over the years.
How about
1. SPI's voting system for Board elections is unique to our
organisation and has several problems; notably, a lack of
proportionality.
?
I obviously don't have a vendetta against Condorcet. I like Condorcet
(the single-winner system); indeed it was me that wrote it into the
Debian constitution. I do have a vendetta against SPI's
accidentally-invented and horribly broken multi-Condorcet thing, but I
guess it doesn't need to be in the resolution in quite such strong
terms.
It was a mistake of me in my previous draft to describe our system as
"Condorcet", because it's not really.
The lack of proportionality is its worst known bug.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
