[Linux-aus] Name change election results..

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM, James Polley <jamezpolley at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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.
>

You've done exactly that: taken LA as another name. But by doing so, you
have also voted against all the other names implicitly. This is why there
was a mix-up of the two questions.


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 agree that having LA as another alternative is ok as a question. However,
I disagree about the additional condition that was put on the LA choice,
giving it unfairly more weight over every single other alternative. And I'm
sorry I didn't notice the problem that that caused before the voting
started - it didn't seem obvious beforehand.

Regards,
Silvia.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20130103/e950f962/attachment-0001.htm