On 2017-03-08 17:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system"):WHEREAS1. 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 have no real problem with this version, though since SPI has no political parties, I am not sure what proportionality means in our context. I am also hesitant about using language like "our" in a resolution. Suggestion: SPI's voting system for Board elections is unique to SPI and has several problems; notably, a potentially suboptimal representativeness. [...] -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
