Sounds like a good plan, Daniel.
Thanks & Regards, Amogh Desai On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:53 PM Daniel Standish via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > Yes IRV is what I was referring to when I write ranked choice vote. If > that's the approach that Apache favors / supports, then it sounds good to > me. > > As I mentioned today in the other thread, I think it is generally better if > we can avoid multiple choice votes. But when it makes sense, then IRV > seems right to me. > > I think it also could be reasonable to start out with an initial vote of > just simple one option selection, i.e. non-transferrable vote and majority > wins. And then if it's close, anybody can request we do IRV. The reason > for this is it might not be close enough to matter and it's simpler to not > do IRV. > > But I think we should not allow voting for multiple options because it's > confusing, hard to reason about, and as mentioned in the original message > of this thread, you may be unwittingly voting against your interest. > > > So my proposal I think would be the following two provisions: > > 1. For multiple choice votes we have two options: > a. simple majority vote, each voter gets one non-transferrable vote, and > cannot select multiple options > b. IRV > > 2. The person calling the vote can choose which voting approach to use. If > simple vote is chosen, any community member eligible to vote can request > changing to IRV for any reason. > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 1:02 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Oh absolutely - sorry I missed it :) > > > > Actually I started to do research and write my response before you > > responded - so the issue is that I did not have a chance to read your > > message :) ... Awfully sorry for that Amogh... Mental note to myself - > good > > thing to read the new answers before you press send on yours ;) > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:54 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:50 AM Amogh Desai <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> 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 > > >> . > > >> > > > > > > Oh absolutely - sorry I missed it :) - there were too many emails in > the > > > thread to read this morning and I simply missed yours, sorry Amogh. > And I > > > picked my proposal even without realising you had the same proposal - > > > which might mean it is a really good idea :) > > > > > > And one more comment: > > > > > > > I don’t necessarily think this is a bad outcome. Those 5 people also > > > believe A is a good idea, just not as good as B. > > > > > > Yes. I agree with Wei Lee here. It's not a bad outcome. It's SOME > > outcome. > > > It has some properties (and also some social aspects to it - like > people > > > are less likely to put -1 even if they do not agree with something and > > few > > > other things. Again - it disregards individual voting power of a single > > > person (if the voting power is something we seek as desired property), > it > > > focuses more on the single option support, not whether one person has > > > always the same "strength" of their vote. It assumes that we have > > > collaborating people who will not seek to 'play" the system but simply > > > state their preferences. It's not tamper-proof and if we have bad > > players, > > > they can definitely abuse it. > > > > > > So yes - if we are at the stage where we are concerned about bad actors > > > trying to play the system to their advantage, then yes, we should > choose > > a > > > system that is tamper proof. To be honest that never occured to me in > the > > > past that we are at this stage, but it's a good idea anyway. > > > > > >
