Yeah, I was proposing Instant Runoff earlier when I said this: > I would second Daniel to have a rank based voting for ballots which can have multiple choice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting.
It is a more formal, well known and accepted form of voting for multiple choices. Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 1:17 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > BTW. I think Instant Runoff Voting is kinda similar to what Daniel proposed > but it's well researched and formalized way of doing it and it has known > properties that you can read about in the wiki page. > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:40 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If we are not happy with the current system that disregards voting power > > and simply states for preferences on options - then yes we can change > it . > > Actually this is an important part of governance - to change the rules if > > we are unhappy with them. > > > > And Actually we don't have to design our own system. ASF has us > > covered.Voting types are a very well researched subject and there are > > multiple voting systems we can choose from see "Electoral systems": [1] - > > each of them with different properties. There were plenty of similar > > discussions in the past in either ASF or ASF project that went the same > way > > - not happy with simple system, implementing more complex one that had > > different "fairness" properties - and well we can pick one for > > multi-voting options if we want, I would not encourage us figuring out > our > > own "approach" but simply pick from existing ones. > > > > ASF has a project called Apache Steve [2] that implements multiple voting > > methods that ASF recommends. You can read about those methods at STeVe > > page. We use it for board elections and we used it (and Single > > Transferable Vote [3] method) this year to select the new logo > candidates. > > This is a "multi-winner" system - i.e. one that allows several winners. > > There is a single-winner variant of it - Instant Runoff Voting [4] that > can > > be used instead - where you put your options in the sequence of > preferences. > > Generally - the Single Transferable Vote is widely considered in ASF as > > the most "fair" and we use it for almost everything where multiple > options > > are possible. > > > > Note that we do not have to use it of course (though we could ask infra > to > > set it up for us) - this system is designed in the way that people have > > one-time ballots and that the voting is anonymous and can't be really > > traced to a person - and I think we are nowhere near that expectation. > But > > we can use one of the methods it implements. In simple voting like ours, > it > > would be rather easy to implement it manually in an shared spreadsheet > (or > > we can find a ready-solution that is less complex than STeVe) > > > > *My proposal is not to invent our own - but to use Instant Runoff Voting > > (as the variant of the Apache-recommended STV).* > > > > More details on the Instant Runoff voting: > > > > People instead of voting +1, 0, -1 simply order the votes in preference. > > Then one or more eliminations are used to simulate multiple runoff > > elections. In each round, the candidate with the fewest first-preference > > votes (among the remaining candidates) is eliminated. This continues > until > > only one candidate is left. > > > > [1] Electoral system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system > > [2] ASF Steve project: https://steve.apache.org/ > > [3] Single Transferable Vote > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote > > [4] Instant Runoff-voting > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting > > > > J. > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 8:49 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I think I agree mostly with what Daniel says. > >> > >> We should arrive at a preference based voting to eliminate any sort of > >> voting power bias. > >> > >> I would second Daniel to have a rank based voting for ballots which can > >> have multiple choice: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting > >> . > >> > >> The ad-hoc +/- voting has more problems than we can imagine, and those > >> can be solved by ranked ballots -- giving everyone equal power while > also > >> being easy to explain and implement. > >> > >> Thanks & Regards, > >> Amogh Desai > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:20 AM Kiruban Kamaraj < > [email protected] > >> > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > IMHO, if we don't let people vote -1, how are devs supposed to raise > >> > legitimate concerns about an option? If someone votes -1, they should > >> > explain why - and hopefully devs are only doing this when they have > real > >> > concerns, not just to push their favorite choice. If you have a solid > >> > reason to oppose something, just vote -1. If you don't care about > >> another > >> > option either way, then don't vote on it. > >> > > >> > I agree with what Jerek said. > >> > > >> > *it's not "who wins" but "which option wins". I don't absolutely care > >> who* > >> > *"wins" here, but which option has the most support.* > >> > > >> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 2:55 AM Daniel Standish via dev < > >> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > The DAG terminology vote I think has surfaced a problem with our > >> multiple > >> > > choice voting procedure. > >> > > > >> > > If you allow people to vote for multiple options, they seem to tend > to > >> > use > >> > > it in a manner to signify their ranked preference. However, this > >> could > >> > > easily result in an option that doesn't have majority preference > >> getting > >> > > the win. > >> > > > >> > > E.g. suppose 4 people vote for option A, and 5 people vote for > option > >> B > >> > +1 > >> > > but also +0.5 for A. Then option A will win even though people > prefer > >> > > option B 5 to 4. > >> > > > >> > > This is a bad outcome. > >> > > > >> > > It gets even stranger if you allow negative votes. Then you end > >> > > essentially invalidating other peoples votes, unless *everyone* > >> minuses > >> > all > >> > > of the options they don't favor. And even if everyone does that, > then > >> > it's > >> > > hard to see how that gets to the outcome favored by most. > >> > > > >> > > With ranked choice voting, everyone votes for their most favored > >> choice, > >> > > but they can also rank all the options. If their most favored > option > >> > does > >> > > not win, then their vote goes to their second favored option, and so > >> on. > >> > > > >> > > This is a better way to do this. > >> > > > >> > > I propose that when doing multiple choice votes, we do ranked > choice, > >> > > instead of allowing people to just vote for multiple options with > >> plus or > >> > > minus votes. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
