[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01134: RE: [WDDM] WDDM BoardElections results

From: "Nicolas Durand" <nicolas(at)enitiatives.ch>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:22:03 +0200
Subject: RE: [WDDM] WDDM BoardElections results

Dear all,


I’ve been away from an internet connection for 10 days now and discover these results and would like to make a few humble comments.


1)     this “Range voting” is a little confusing, especially with this small number of participants, especially if people are allowed to register after the start of elections, especially if the winners are the ones with the highest “Average rating” and not the “Sum” for a number of reasons:

a)     someone who had LESS votes than another can be elected at his place, e.g. Richard Moore or Miroslav, who were elected, even though George had more votes (as given below). In fact, 6 people (everybody) voted FOR George, and still, he comes third-last…

b)     2 “friends” could come first a the elections: they just had to register just before the deadline and vote for each other: they would have had 198 points (2x99), which is about the quorum and an average rating of 99.

c)     This brings me to the next item: by giving 1 “point” to someone, you actually put him down (by lowering his average). This might be a technique, but needs to be explicated very clearly to avoid people thinking “I’ll give him just some points, but not too many”. Actually, in this case, anyone giving less than 62 points (the lowest average of the top 3) has put this candidate DOWN. Not very logic in my opinion.

2)     In my eyes, the whole voting process and timeline needs to be revisited. I did not vote (partly because I was away for 10 days, which virtually never happens, but still, in a real democracy, everyone should be able to vote). This is certainly not to dismiss Mirek’s great job of putting this together; it is just to improve the process, especially from a frustrated voter who could not vote… ;)

The fact that only 6 people (is that really so?) voted, which is *less* than the number of candidates (8) is quite significant… ;)

Suggested improvements:

a.      Announce the voting period well in advance (e.g. “Voting will be from May 9 to May 18, midnight Pacific time”), so that people can make sure they don’t miss it. I would give at least 2 weeks of voting time, to allow people to be away of an internet connection for a few days without too much stress.

b.      The subject of the email announcing the vote must be extremely clear. This one was “Latest news from WDDM”. It should be “WDDM – Elections are now open!”

c.      All material (Candidate names, voting period and methods, etc.) must be in this email

d.      One reminder should come after one week. Another one should come 24h before elections close.


These were my 2 cents… I hope this helps.


Take care,


Nico



From: WDDM webmaster [wbm@world-wide-democracy.net]
Sent: vendredi, 18. mai 2007 07:01
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Cc: Richard Moore
Subject: [WDDM] WDDM BoardElections results


Dear all:
   Below is the copy of the elections results from the online voting page. As you can see, six members voted online. No numerical votes (ratings) came by e-mail. Therefore, there is nothing to add to the results below. However, Filia, Jiri and Lee sent in mail-in votes formulated such that they voted for (endorsed) whoever were willing to be active on the Board.
    If we arrange the results by the average ratings (from the highest), we get: for those who got the quorum this order:
Richard Moore
Mark Antell
Miroslav Kolar
George Kokkas
Nicholas Durand

     Richard, are you ready to take up this position?

     Mark, George and Nicholas expressed willingness to serve on the Board before the elections. Are you still interested?

     As for me, as I wrote in an earlier e-mail, I'd prefer to be only the webmaster for the next while. So let's wait for the replies of others first.

Mirek

------------------

: Elections and Votings :: You are WddmAdmin
WddmAdmin cannot vote

WDDM Executive Board Elections    

Range (0..99); secret (encrypted); voter ID not scrambled
http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/vote/vote.php

Number of voters: 6
Winning candidates are those with the highest 'Average rating' out of all who achieved a quorum, i.e., their 'Sum of all ratings' is not smaller than the quorum, which equals one half of the greatest 'Sum of all ratings' achieved by any candidate. Quorum is
194.5. Candidates with a quorum are marked in blue. The 3 winning candidates in green.

Candidate

No. of numeric ratings

Sum of all ratings

Average rating

George Kokkas

6

294

49.00

Mark Antell

6

389

64.83

Nicolas Durand

5

242

48.40

Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan (PVR)

4

158

39.50

Miroslav Kolář

4

248

62.00

Richard Moore

4

291

72.75

Doug Everingham

3

162

54.00

bruce eggum

2

103

51.50



[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]