<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:silvia@silvia-pfeiffer.de" target="_blank">silvia@silvia-pfeiffer.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Russell Stuart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:russell-linuxaus@stuart.id.au" target="_blank">russell-linuxaus@stuart.id.au</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 14:21 +1100, John Ferlito wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 12:28:12PM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:<br>
> > The right solution to me would be to go with the original plan: run a<br>
> > second election with only those top three. Like Chris I am a bit<br>
> > mystified as to why that isn't happening.<br>
><br>
> Because we announced that we would only follow the rest of the process<br>
> if "No name change" didn't win.<br>
<br>
</div>Fair enough.<br></blockquote></div><div><br>Maybe.<br><br> <br></div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
In retrospect if the wording was "didn't get an outright majority" I<br>
would be happier. "Winning" with a top 3 optional preferential voting<br>
is a fuzzy concept, particularly when like this case no one got a<br>
majority. Maybe that's something we can do if we have another vote like<br>
this.<br></blockquote></div><div><br>IMO the problem with the process was that two questions were mingled up:<br>1. should we retain the name? and<br>2. which three names do we want to vote on if we want a new name?<br><br>
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.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>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.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>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.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>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.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>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.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<br>I can't believe this would have been intended by the council.<br><br>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. </div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<br>Otherwise we will always have the question hanging around about "what if the voting process had been different...".<br><br>Regards,<br>Silvia.<br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
linux-aus mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus" target="_blank">http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>