Elections January 2006

elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org

11 participants
36 discussions

RE: [Elections] Re: A concrete proposal for registering votersandconducting the elections
by Peter Crowther 26 Jan '06

26 Jan '06

> From: [...] Masashi UMEZAWA > I also think the proposed system is good in a short-term basis, but it > would be harder to maintain the voters' list if votings occur many > times. I agree entirely. The reason I'm suggesting a system that is as easy as possible to develop (in the simplest case, we write no code) is that we're bootstrapping here: - We don't know whether the voting system we have chosen (Condorcet) is appropriate; - We don't know whether the construction of our set of voters is appropriate; - We don't know whether the nomination system for our candidates is appropriate; - We don't know whether a system that is appropriate for electing guides is also appropriate for making other community decisions; - We don't know whether anyone will actually vote. Until we have some indications on a few of these points, it seems to be a risk to spend scarce development time coding mechanisms that may be replaced after this election. > Ideally, voters' list should be automatically created, importing SqP, > Squeak-Ja, and other community lists. Assuming we continue with that mechanism for constructing our set of voters, I agree with you. However, I'm not yet sufficiently convinced we'll keep the mechanism to want to invest the time in doing this. - Peter

3 4

RE: [Elections] Re: A concrete proposal for registeringvotersandconducting the elections
by Peter Crowther 21 Jan '06

21 Jan '06

> From: [...] Brent Vukmer > I'd like the election to happen sometime between February > 16 and the end of Febuary. I'd like it to be complete and the results known by Feb 17 so that the existing folks can honour their pledge to stand down. However, that's going to be a bit quick I fear. > If someone can work up a usable system that meets the > Swiki-page specs by then, great. If no one has > volunteered, or the volunteers' system isn't ready by > then, we'll use CIVS. I'm not going to be able to put any effort into this; what little coding time I have is dedicated to rewriting a Squeak version of the SqP reputation algorithm. > In either case, I'd like to create the voter list as > described in Peter's concrete proposal email. OK. > Is that acceptable to the team? Yes. > If so, I'd like Daniel to post an invitation to squeak-dev, > for volunteers to develop a voting system to our team's > Swiki-page spec. I think that's a *much* lower priority than posting to squeak-dev saying how the elections are going to work - notably, how to stand as a candidate and how to register as a voter - and then keeping up the publicity so that people decide whether to stand and register. However, I agree that it is a task that needs doing. - Peter

2 1

RE: [Elections] Re: A concrete proposal for registeringvotersandconducting the elections
by Peter Crowther 21 Jan '06

21 Jan '06

> From: [...] Brent Vukmer > BTW if we do get volunteers, and if their system isn't > ready for prime time by the end of February, I will > heartily encourage them to continue development and will > make it an Election Team priority to exercise their system. This may be premature; do we know what else such a voting system would have to integrate with? > For one thing, perhaps we can have an election for > the Election Team... I think this is the next priority after the current set of elections. At present, the team that is deciding the policy for elections is as arbitrarily selected as the team running SqF. This doesn't help any perception of a transparent process. - Peter

1 0

New Team Member
by Brent Vukmer 19 Jan '06

19 Jan '06

I asked Peter Crowther to join the team, and he said OK. So welcome, Peter. Thanks especially for your work on the concrete proposal recently.

2 1

RE: [Elections] Re: A concrete proposal for registering voters and conducting the elections
by Peter Crowther 15 Jan '06

15 Jan '06

> From: [...] Daniel Vainsencher > Of the concerns (things we don't know) stated below, I am > even a little > worried only by the last. People might decide not to vote, > that's true. > However, even if few vote the first time, is that a reason to stop > running the votes? no, just a reason to improve the system, and > advertise more, and give it a few more shots. I agree entirely. > And improving the system > is an option only if we have access to the code. There is also the option of using different third-party subsystems, or moving to systems that are *less* automated. Not all human systems require automation [although I suspect this one does]. > So I think there are still good reasons to develop a voting system, > though anyone taking it on should be aware that we have an > alternative. I agree. > About the other concerns - Condorcet is hardly experimental, > its been a subject of research of many years. It has, and its properties are well-known. We may, however, find that an alternative system would have returned a 'better' set of candidates (for some definition of 'better') and change the system we use. > In short, I feel we're wasting time here. Agree. > If people decide that holding > a vote on a specific date is crucial, and there is not > alternative ready > by then, I won't object to the use of CIVS, it is not a bad > alternative. OK. > Besides that - anyone minds if I ask for volunteers to implement the > voting system as proposed on minnow? Happy to devote time - I'm already working on getting the core trust algorithm in SqP into Smalltalk so that we can bring SqP out of its present Apache module into something that more of the community can hack at. However, I've recently been putting more time into getting the existing vote up and running. - Peter

1 0

I'm standing as a candidate, so will be backing off somewhat on this list
by Peter Crowther 14 Jan '06

14 Jan '06

Those who're keeping an eye on SqP will see that I've put my name forward as a candidate. I'm noting that here. I'm willing to put forward my point of view, as I have thus far; but I certainly should not be part of any decision-making about the election process itself from here. Arguably, I should shut up completely on here. - Peter

1 0

RE: [Elections] A concrete proposal for registering voters andconducting the elections
by Peter Crowther 14 Jan '06

14 Jan '06

> From: [...] Peter Crowther > Sent: 11 January 2006 23:18 > Subject: [Elections] A concrete proposal for registering > voters andconducting the elections Twenty hours on and no reaction. That has to be some kind of a record for something specifying a system that registers candidates, registers voters and handles the voting process. No comments? Nobody willing to say "I like it", or "I like it, but..." or "I think it sucks"? If we don't get *some* dialogue going, we're going to have real problems if someone decides to challenge any mechanism we pick. - Peter

4 4

December Team Report
by Brent Vukmer 12 Jan '06

12 Jan '06

I will write one up after we've had some discussion on Peter's proposal (or early next week, whichever comes first). I realize it's quite late. Perhaps I'll make it the Combined December/January report :) Please feel free to suggest things you'd like me to mention in the report. I plan to focus on what we've done/are in the process of doing for the upcoming election.

1 0

I'm offline Friday-Sunday
by Brent Vukmer 12 Jan '06

12 Jan '06

I won't have Internet access for the next few days. I'll check email on Monday though and be on IRC, as previously advertised.

1 0

IRC chat
by Brent Vukmer 12 Jan '06

12 Jan '06

I will be on #squeak today 10am-6pm EST (as 'smakbo') if Election Team folks would like to chat real-time.

1 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Elections January 2006