Open Stack

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> [...]
> All your points are well made and thanks for taking the time to make
> them.
> 
> I do very much agree with your points about the election system and
> favoured a change to STV but, yet, I did vote to not change the system
> this year because:
> 
>   - there was a general feeling that relatively few perceive the 
>     problem here. Comparing our ~6000 members to the numbers expressing 
>     serious concerns on this mailing list, you can see why.

I suspect a lot of people consider that the already-raised concerns
should be enough to trigger a proper response and don't feel the need to
+1 to be "counted". For the record, add me to the number expressing
"serious concerns".

>   - the current system does appear to have elected committed board 
>     members who act on behalf of the membership rather than their 
>     affiliation. That could be a self-serving perspective, though.

It's a classic dilemma with democracy: the currently-elected (who decide
to keep or change the rules) generally don't feel like changing a system
that worked perfectly well to elect them.

>   - with such a large electorate, getting a majority of a 25+% voter 
>     turnout to vote for an election system change is going to require a 
>     lot of awareness raising. I'm trying to imagine a massive "our
>     election system is broken, it's critical you turn out to fix it" 
>     being a positive thing. I'm also concious that if we did hold a 
>     vote to move to STV and it was rejected, that could be the end of 
>     the matter forever.
> 
>   - I do think the code of conduct will have an influence and prevent 
>     "bad" voter behaviour. I'm basing that on the strong endorsement 
>     all board members appear to give the code.

It's not that clear cut. Is giving all your votes to a single person
"bad behaviour" ? Is voting only for members of your company "bad
behaviour" ? If you answer "no" to both of the above, how can you blame
a company that ends up with 81% of its employees voting only on company
candidates ?

>   - I was in favour of the max-4-votes-per-candidate "tweak" because we
>     initially thought that would not require a bylaws change. This would
>     have had an immediate positive effect IMHO.

Personally I would have made it max-1-vote-per-candidate. Forcing
everyone to pick the 8 people they want as individual members would
definitely and efficiently dilute block voting. And it makes perfect sense.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)