Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system

Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system"):
> > WHEREAS
> >
> > 1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
> > system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
> > seriously lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such
> > as SPI's Board Elections.
>
> Please cut this paragraph and replace. As written, the paragraph is a
> source of argument over factors which have little or nothing to do with
> actually replacing the voting system. Frankly, it reads like a partisan
> vendetta against concordet. I suggest instead:
>
> 1. SPI's concordet voting system is unique to our organization and
> has had several issues over the years.

How about

1. SPI's voting system for Board elections is unique to our
organisation and has several problems; notably, a lack of
proportionality.

?

I obviously don't have a vendetta against Condorcet. I like Condorcet
(the single-winner system); indeed it was me that wrote it into the
Debian constitution. I do have a vendetta against SPI's
accidentally-invented and horribly broken multi-Condorcet thing, but I
guess it doesn't need to be in the resolution in quite such strong
terms.

It was a mistake of me in my previous draft to describe our system as
"Condorcet", because it's not really.

The lack of proportionality is its worst known bug.

Ian.