On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM, James Polley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jamezpolley@gmail.com" target="_blank">jamezpolley@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">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>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><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><div>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><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>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></div></div></blockquote><div><br>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.<br>
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>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>
</div></div></div></blockquote><br>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.<br>
<br>Regards,<br>Silvia.<br></div>