[Linux-aus] Name change election results..

[James Polley]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silvia at silvia-pfeiffer.de>wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Russell Stuart <
> russell-linuxaus at stuart.id.au> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 14:21 +1100, John Ferlito wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 12:28:12PM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
>> > > The right solution to me would be to go with the original plan: run a
>> > > second election with only those top three.  Like Chris I am a bit
>> > > mystified as to why that isn't happening.
>> >
>> > Because we announced that we would only follow the rest of the process
>> > if "No name change" didn't win.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>
> Maybe.
>
>
>
>> In retrospect if the wording was "didn't get an outright majority" I
>> would be happier.  "Winning" with a top 3 optional preferential voting
>> is a fuzzy concept, particularly when like this case no one got a
>> majority.  Maybe that's something we can do if we have another vote like
>> this.
>>
>
> IMO the problem with the process was that two questions were mingled up:
> 1. should we retain the name? and
> 2. which three names do we want to vote on if we want a new name?
>
> Because of this, the existing LA name turned into one of the options of a
> "new name" rather than being a filter of whether to go for voting.
>

I don't think those are distinct questions, because for me at least the
answer to the first depends on the answer to the second.

If those two questions were asked seperately, I'd have to say "No" to the
first. I don't think "Linux Australia" is the best possible name, but it's
better than a lot of names - and without knowing what the proposed name is,
I'd be forced to vote "No", even though there are some names that I'd like
to switch to.

Because we used preferential voting, I was able to list my preferred names
first, then list "no change", then list all the other names - which clearly
expresses the fact that there are a few names I'd like to switch to, but if
we can't get enough of a consensus behind any of those names I'd rather not
change.

I think this is a much better outcome than asking those two questions
seperately. Even with so many alternatives to choose from, a hair less than
50% of people who voted said that they prefer the existing name over *any*
of the alternatives. To me, this seems like a very clear answer.

>
> I can't believe this would have been intended by the council.
>
> In the interest of fairness, I would therefore suggest to go forward with
> the second round of voting on a "new name" in which the top three (or maybe
> four) names) are set as choice, which includes "LA". This will then give a
> much fairer statement of whether the community actually does want to keep
> the old name.
>

> Otherwise we will always have the question hanging around about "what if
> the voting process had been different...".
>
> Regards,
> Silvia.
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20130103/95ad9aaa/attachment.htm