[Linux-aus] Name change election results..

[D.Jitnah]

It seems to me that whatever voting scheme had been used to decide this 
matter, there would always be cause for criticism unless it was a 
unanimous vote.  Probably best now is to stick with LA and revisit this 
at a later date - say 2 yrs.  The situation might then be that a name 
change may indeed be more desirable and popular.

For info: I did not vote because I honestly forgot about it :(. I was 
first inclined to vote to keep LA as the name, but I was also 
sympathetic to the name change argument, and was tossing between voting 
for "Open Source Council of Australia" as second choice or other way around.

I think there is a role for an umbrella organisation based on the 
Australian Research Council model, but instead of morphing LA into this 
it would be possibly better to create one and LA would be a major 
founding member/sponsor, and I could see Open Source Industry Australia 
also being an important founding Member (Disclaimer: I am a current 
Director of OSIA - the opinion expressed here is mine only and should 
not be read as representing OSIA's position in anyway)., and also state 
based Linux User Groups.  I think there is still a role for LA as a 
predominantly Linux focussed National organisation.

Cheers
Daniel.



>
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Russell Stuart 
> <russell-linuxaus at stuart.id.au <mailto: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 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/20130103/5d491a0d/attachment.htm