Mmm... Let me start again.
The council can easily call for discussion in spf.discuss if it thinks
there is demand to change the voting system next time. I clearly hope
that this does not happen.
I am disappointed that Julian posted to spf-council when a post to
spf.discuss as a list member would have been appropriate if he wants
to gain support for a change.
John organised a very efficient transparent vote that can be used safely
again. A couple of constructive comments were made:
1. voters using proxy - expected that is why voting tokens were sent
to voters list addresses - IP's only useful to spot spoof attempts and
some small code changes will make this work better.
2. some people voted without names - due to errors in the listserver
data - this would have happened for any other voting system.
Monday, December 13, 2004, 7:14:04 AM, Mark wrote:
MS> I'm curious as to whether you will still have these strategy-related
MS> concerns after you do this research.
Quite possibly but I was not interested in pushing my own opinions in
my original post, other than to suggest that ranked voting for small votes
appears to work poorly. I desired to grab some experiences from those who
have used Condorcet.
I fail to see any reason to move from a one member one vote system that
works well for vaste parts of the world. While I don't know about Condorcet,
I do know about ranked voting at small organisations over the years - none
tried the experiment more than once.
Finally, I would have been pleased to vote for any of the contenders in the
shortlist but chose those that I thought would operate best as a team.
If we need a tie-break this can be done without fuss and an extra layer of
complexity.
Shane