Open Stack

The ASF moved to STV years and years ago and never looked back. It prevents
a board based on pure popularity and especially one based on ballot
stuffing.


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>wrote:

> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation mailing list
> Foundation at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20131008/06ab1862/attachment.html>