John Pinkerton [johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com] wrote:
I am deeply dissappointed with the council for getting into
"navel-gazing" issues like this. The simple voting system of "one man,
one vote - most votes wins" is the way to do all voting the the council
will have to deal with. If the result is a tie, you have a tie-breaker
vote.
I read with growing anxiety about "What names should we use?", "How
should we vote?" , etc, etc. I thought we had elected a council to
exist for a short time only, and to do specific jobs - not to ponder
irrelevancies and build beaurocracies.
I strongly feel the need to defend my recent council policy. I know these
formal issues don't immediately come over as being very productive for the
SPF project's goals. But the same could be said for the creation of the
council itself. There is some amount of formality that is needed in order
to facilitate the successful work of a project that has just grown more
complex.
I am probably the last council member, possibly with the exception of Mark
Kramer (no offense to the others), who could be accused of neglecting
transparency. It was me who proposed and pushed for council resolution
#8[1]. It was me who set up the Council Thingy as a resource for the
council to keep the community informed about its work.
Pardon me for saying that, but the fact that you and Shane Rush asserted
Condorcet voting to be too complex and thus too intransparent suggests
that you have not even tried to understand it.
Were the council not to undertake such formal measures and were it to go a
purely pragmatic way unconcernedly, significant parts of the community
would surely complain (and rightly so!) as soon as the first major
incident happened within the council or between the council and the
community.
So I ask you to please bear with us (the council) while we set up some
basic things that we consider necessary for the council's and the
project's smooth future operation.
Julian Mehnle,
SPF Council Member.
References:
1. http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/8