Re: [council] The election mechanism to be used by the NC

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>]

Raul Echeberria wrote:
> 
[...]
> 
> I have some important doubts.
> 
> 1) I read the Amadeu's comments, but who decided that nobody will be
> elected in the first round?. I don't agree with that.
> 
Well, here I convinced Javier, Elisabeth and Dennis. Let me say that
the only problem is technical: there is no SIMPLE way to make
convention-style compatible with electing one single cadnidate when
each voter cast multpile votes. The rule "half the NC votes for one
nominee" loses all sense when each NC member cast three votes. In that
scenario, up to five candidates could get more than 10 votes (half the
NC). A mess. If we use prefernetiual voting, as Dennis suggested, this
is reduced to three possible candidateselected. This is indeed
unlikely, but still possible with that system. The only way to do that
is going back to STV or accepting that there is only one voting round,
where the three nominees with more votes are selected. We are away
form convention stule, and we risk having results absoltuely
incompatible with GD.

There is nothing more in my proposal to use that round as "poll and
eliminate those without support". I insist that Dennis has expressed
his support for this limitation thru telephone, as Elisabeth (who was
charged with Javier to draft the procedure). Javier prefers a single
round of voting, but if we are to use convention style in multiple
rounds as agreed, then we MUST limit the votes to one when it comes to
elect one director....

> 2) I strongly prefer that all votes until third round inclusive, would be
> sent by mail and not necesarely during the teleconference. I don't
> understand why it is neccesary.
> I either agree with that.
> 
It is a matter of speed. Teleconf, or chat means all members being
present at a given time. So MULTIPLE rounds canbe played at that time.
If we use e-mail without forcing NC members to be ·there· we have to
allow many hours between round and round. probalby adays in tatoal,m
taking into account timezones. It is agreed that 24 hours breaks will
be used between elections (between electing the first, the second and
the third director) but nobody asked to have alos one day after each
and evry round for a given director. This would delay the process for
a looooong time, IMHO. But I prefer using alternatives to telconf. The
point is that while everyoneseems to know hwo telconfs work, not
everybody is familiar with ICQ or chat.

> 3) What did we do to obtain this extemely complex system??
> I believe that the Andrew's proposal is simplest (in that moment I thought
> it was complex......). I think it is important to add only that in the
> first round  each NC member has 3 votes.
> 
> Finally I ask you to have two or three more days to decide it and I propose
> that we vote to aprobe this system point by point.

I am afradi I must oppose that with all possible stregnht. Raul. We
have postponed this many times. During the last telconf on Thursday,
we all agreed that javier and Elsiabeth were to propose, with the help
of Andrew, a schedule and a procedure for coments. Then we had up to
Friday to coment, This was extended to Sunday. And to be hones, only
three people used that period for comnets. 

The agreement was to accept the proposal unless clear oppositoon by NC
members. I see your opposition to one point (how many votes) and your
and Kathy's request to postpone. In my veiw, and given the clear
understanding that this was to be adopted if there was no "material"
opposition, we should not postpone this any further.

Elisabeth0s latest version only incorporates the coments previously
made but sme /three) of us, There is nothing new as to the mechanism,
escept the times for telcongs or other minor details.

Best reagrds,

Amadeu