Board Composition Proposal

[inode0]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 06:45:24PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 17:15, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I am for this if we can change how we elect people (either make voting
>> >> mandatory, change range-voting to a more parliamentary system, and/or
>> >> make voting per seat versus pool). As I have said before, while I
>> >> would have gotten this slot if there had been one more seat
>> >> available.. the difference in votes for me versus the next candidate
>> >> (and versus the other 2 contenders) was significant.
>> >
>> > It's difficult to see how we actually do this while having multiple
>> > seats up for election at the same time. We don't have any concept of
>> > districting by which to separate seats out as distinct opportunities.
>> >
>>
>> It is more of my understanding of Range Voting as a method to select
>> seats and isn't meant to be used for a pool of seats. With a pool we
>> could go with something much more simpler and be as valid (vote
>> +1/0/-1 for a candidate and those with the most votes above 0 get in
>> :)). The seats is mainly for making keeping change as simple as
>> possible in the election system.
>>
> Wait... You mean one pool and just have votes of +1/0/-1 for everyone?  If
> so, that's still range voting.... (believe it or not, Vote +1/0/-1 and only
> +1 counts is also range voting. It's distinctive enough that it has its own
> name, though: approval voting).

You know, I'd like this not to be a referendum on the voting method.
If whatever we are doing is ok for 2 or 3 open seats on the board it
is surely good enough for 3 or 4 open seats. If it is good enough for
4 or 5 open seats on FESCo and 7 open seats on FAmSCo I don't get why
this is an issue. While I think it is not to my taste, I see it as a
side issue.

John