OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

openc2 message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [openc2] New Standing Rule Proposal for IRV Ballot

Hi Duncan, hi everybody -Â

I ask that you table this discussion while I take this up with the board process committee.Â

While I agree with the positive benefits that the more modern voting protocol offers, I continue to be concerned that this requires a significant stretch of the definition of Full Majority Vote. My approach to applying OASIS rules is to take the simplest interpretation of their meaning. In this case, 1 vote for 1 option and 50%+1 is needed to succeed. I believe that the simple approach has served OASIS well.Â

Since we don't have a technology platform that can support this now, the standing rule will be entirely hypothetical (or aspirational - take your pick). In addition, the situation where it may be needed is hypothetical; no harm has yet occurred. This is a 'just-in-case' rule and, in my experience, those were the sorts of regulations that added bulk and complexity to the OASIS process itself. We spent a year plus weeding out a lot of complexity that had crept in over time in response to rare or theoretical concerns. OASIS is a lot better for that streamlining.Â

I will forward yourÂemail above to the board's process committee Duncan and open an issue with them to discuss it. If they have no concerns or are fine with using this as a test case, then you can proceed withÂconfidence that there will be no objection to it. I will let you know after we have had the opportunity to discuss.Â

Thanks for your patience,Â


On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 7:24 PM duncan sfractal.com <duncan@sfractal.com> wrote:

I would like to propose another standing rule for the TC:


âOnce systems exist to allow doing so, the OpenC2 TC will use Instant Runoff Voting for single seat elections of the co-chairs of the Technical Committee, SubCommittees, and any other single seat election. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), also known as Single Transferable Voting (STV) or Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), is defined asÂan electoral system whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference. In the event that one candidate fails to achieve a sufficient majority, the candidate with the fewest number of first-preference rankings is eliminated and these votes redistributed, the process being repeated until one candidate achieves the required majority. Voters may abstain from ranking 2nd-choice, etc candidates just as they may abstain from voting at all. â


The rationale forÂIRVÂis both to save time (ie obviating the need for runoff elections if a majority is not achieved) and is also considered a fairer system when more than two candidates exist (the âsplit voteâ issue). More on IRV in general can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting and https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used. Youâll note from the latter link that IRV is growing in popularity for elections for government. Note our election requires a majority of all voting members so it might also help in the case where there are only two candidates. For example if there are 50 voting members and only 41 vote with 20 voting for Person A and 21 voting for Person B. With our current system, it would require a second vote and possible many more until 26 votes are reached by one candidate. With an IRV system in place, if at least 5 of the people who voted for Person A also included Person B as their second choice (ie they found Person B acceptable even if they like Person A better) then there is no need for a second ballot and via IRV Person B would win on the second round calculated from the initial ballot. The more common value of this kind of system comes when there are 3 candidates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Process gives a good example.


Note our existing IT systems do not support IRV so it might be awhile before we could use it. There are some open source programs for counting ballots, but they are more designed for government paper ballot systems. Maybe we could start our own open source program and tie it in as an App with and API to Lucidmeeting.


Since it is only a few days before the TC meeting and this is a significant change, I am proposing to vote on this at the January meeting (ie NOT at the December meeting).

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more atÂhttp://vsre.info/



Chet Ensign
Chief Technical Community Steward
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393Â

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]