Open Stack

On 10/08/2013 06:21 AM, Tim Bell wrote:
> 
> I was undecided on the 4-vs-8 option... Some members in the election
> do want to express strong support for a single candidate and this
> change would limit their ability to express themselves as they wish.

The problem is that expressing themselves that way is pure corruption
and we should explicitly want to limit that.

> We saw a significant improvement in the vote spread during the 2nd
> election compared to the first. I think we'll see further
> improvements this time round as well with the foundation membership
> growing and becoming more aware of the nature of the community.

I continue to say that we're not trying to fix a problem with the
results themselves. We are trying to fix an actual mathematical/logic
problem which is the result of a mismatch between the design of the
voting system we are using and the design that we want for our community.

It does not matter that the people elected are good people.

What matters is that Cummulative Voting is designed EXPLICITLY to
support and bolster the idea that people with more money get more voice.
That's its benefit, and it does its job very well.

We, on the other hand, would not like to express that worldview or
organizational design in our community. We are, as with many things,
trying to do something new, not just in our software, but in the way we
run things.

I'm actually not satisfied even with SVT anymore. I want Condorcet, and
I want our legal team to give us an analysis of what the actual nuts and
bolts around switching to Condorcet are - including a list of the actual
(not preceived) risks. If the risks are that we might have to defend
Condorcet as a valid voting system in court because there is no
precedent, then I think that doing that would quite honestly be an
excellent use of the foundation's sizable budget, since it directly sits
at the heart of who and what we are as a community.

If all we are is another pay to play org, then we should quite honestly
just quit and go home.


>> -----Original Message----- From: Dave Neary
>> [mailto:dneary at redhat.com] Sent: 08 October 2013 12:13 To: Thierry
>> Carrez Cc: foundation at lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [OpenStack
>> Foundation] Individual Member Director Elections
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 10/08/2013 11:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>>> - 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.
>> 
>> This is the system we had for teh GNOME board of directors, and I
>> was one of the people who campaigned to have this changed, because 
>> 11 equal-weight votes leads to a pure popularity contest (name
>> recognition is likely to get you in the top 11 if you've been
>> around for a while, regardless of whether you're good or not, and
>> newer candidates struggle to get elected, regardless of what they
>> bring to the table).
>> 
>> Cheers, Dave.
>> 
>> -- Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact Open Source and
>> Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +33 9 50 71 55
>> 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Foundation mailing
>> list Foundation at lists.openstack.org 
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
> 
> _______________________________________________ Foundation mailing
> list Foundation at lists.openstack.org 
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation
>