Re: Endorsements one by one [was Re: Endorsing David Neary]
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 08:06:54PM +0800 or thereabouts, Davyd Madeley wrote: On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 13:03 +0100, Quim Gil wrote: I'm for showing the participation (% of members that have already voted) but not provisional results of the election. This might actually be really cool as a thermometer style graph on the webpage. Going on the turn-out we've had in past elections, I'm not so sure. Telsa ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Endorsements one by one [was Re: Endorsing David Neary]
On Thu, December 1, 2005 13:03, Quim Gil wrote: En/na Baris Cicek ha escrit: sure if it's okay to provide this information (although I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be okay). Is there any objection to this idea? I'm for showing the participation (% of members that have already voted) but not provisional results of the election. Showing the percentage of participation at any time may help increasing the percentage of vote at the end of the election, and it's a harmless data by itself. I was of course not saying that we can show the current results, but the participation rate. I think this is what Alan suggested too (or did I read his mail too quickly?). FWIW, I think this is a good idea (for the reason outlined by Quim). Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Endorsements one by one [was Re: Endorsing David Neary]
Hi Baris, On Thu, December 1, 2005 12:57, Baris Cicek wrote: Actually what Stallman and others did during voting is campaigning and this should have ended before voting get started. It's very likely that some people on the middle of their voting see these endorsements and vote them to fill their seven people limit (because of their respect to Stallman or other endorser, not because they personally want the one in board) even though they do not know who those guys are. I wish Board would change the election rules for later elections. If you think this should be changed, it might be a good thing to add an item to the committee todo list: http://live.gnome.org/MembershipCommittee/ToDo I don't see what we can do to avoid such things, though. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Endorsements one by one [was Re: Endorsing David Neary]
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Quim Gil wrote: [...] I'm for showing the participation (% of members that have already voted) but not provisional results of the election. I was only hoping for participation (like a very simple exit poll) which might encourage more people to vote. Showing the percentage of participation at any time may help increasing the percentage of vote at the end of the election, and it's a harmless data by itself. Thanks Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Endorsements one by one [was Re: Endorsing David Neary]
Well that's totally against the spirit of voting. Current counts may change people's idea and might get them affected and they would vote strategically instead of on their own free will. I'm sure that a large percentage of foundation memebers voted strategically; they just did so blindly and of their own free will. I don't know about other countries, but during elections in the US, precincts report back data as they process it, and that data is broadcast on the news. They'll say 55% of people voted for candidate X and 40% for candidate Y with 20% of the votes counted so far. Whether this is useful, harmful, or just airtime filler, I don't know. The sociologist in me would be interested in seeing a histogram of when people voted. My intuition is that the 2 week voting period is longer than it needs to be, though we'll likely (always) see a surge of voting towards the end. Actually what Stallman and others did during voting is campaigning and this should have ended before voting get started. It's very likely that some people on the middle of their voting see these endorsements and vote them to fill their seven people limit (because of their respect to Stallman or other endorser, not because they personally want the one in board) even though they do not know who those guys are. Since when is listening to and trusting another person's informed opinions wrong? And since when does campaigning not happen on election day ;-) If I hadn't formed my own opinion and I trusted Richard enough, I might follow his lead. I don't see anything wrong with deferring to another person's good judgement. Nor do I see anything wrong with a person convincing you to vote for candidate X when you're on your way to the polls. You're always free not to listen and free to inform (or not inform) yourself however you like to before you vote. That's just democracy in action. Best. Dom ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Endorsements one by one [was Re: Endorsing David Neary]
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 07:46 -0700, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: On Thu, 2005-01-12 at 13:03 +0100, Quim Gil wrote: Showing the percentage of participation at any time may help increasing the percentage of vote at the end of the election, and it's a harmless data by itself. As you said in the first part of the sentence, publishing the data may change voting behaviour, (not voting is also a voting behaviour.) THat by itself should tell us that unless the rules specifically state that every 24 hours the number of voters is published (or something along those lines) those numbers should also stay secret. also, media starts counting votes, at least from what I know, after the voting period is over. -- Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Endorsements one by one [was Re: Endorsing David Neary]
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 08:48 -0500, Dominic Lachowicz wrote: Well that's totally against the spirit of voting. Current counts may change people's idea and might get them affected and they would vote strategically instead of on their own free will. I'm sure that a large percentage of foundation memebers voted strategically; they just did so blindly and of their own free will. I don't know about other countries, but during elections in the US, precincts report back data as they process it, and that data is broadcast on the news. They'll say 55% of people voted for candidate X and 40% for candidate Y with 20% of the votes counted so far. Whether this is useful, harmful, or just airtime filler, I don't know. In Turkey, where I live, it's forbidden to reflect results or even survey results during voting period ends. Because it largely affect voter's decision (I concur this idea) ie. some voters think a party is already a head of others, and there's no need to vote for it, or they think a party get too much vote and they should not vote for them to leverage the results, which end up different parlement than as it should be. Well the situation is maybe different for a country elections, and board elections but the logic behind it does not change. Actually what Stallman and others did during voting is campaigning and this should have ended before voting get started. It's very likely that some people on the middle of their voting see these endorsements and vote them to fill their seven people limit (because of their respect to Stallman or other endorser, not because they personally want the one in board) even though they do not know who those guys are. Since when is listening to and trusting another person's informed opinions wrong? And since when does campaigning not happen on election day ;-) If I hadn't formed my own opinion and I trusted Richard enough, I might follow his lead. I don't see anything wrong with deferring to another person's good judgement. Nor do I see anything wrong with a person convincing you to vote for candidate X when you're on your way to the polls. You're always free not to listen and free to inform (or not inform) yourself however you like to before you vote. That's just democracy in action. Well, I did not say that endorsing a candidate is wrong. That should be even good. But the problem is timing. Yes, this is democracy, but there's also human psycology. As what I seen from the psycology classes I took, I can say that high percentage of humans are get affected easily due to small interaction. To let them free of this, and let them think without any outside interactions, we should let them on their own for this duration. To increase that notion, I can put an example like, people are more likely to vote nationalist candidates when they are recalled of their death before they make their decisions. But before voting, before they had no chance to instance action of voting, giving them some idea can not be bad. Those are just to make it more ideal as I don't want to see situation (I'm not claiming you're doing either) as what the heck, it's just a board election. Best. Dom ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Endorsements one by one [was Re: Endorsing David Neary]
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Richard M. Stallman wrote: Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:46:34 -0500 From: Richard M. Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: foundation-list@gnome.org Subject: Endorsing David Neary David Neary also champions free software ideals, so I am going to vote for him too. Are you going to keep doing this over and over until you have endorsed seven candidates? Could you please come up with one email listing the candidates you endorse and wish to promote rather than doing it seperately for each candidate as others have done. It might even be a more effective way to make your point. To change the subject slightly I'd be interested to know how good the turnout has been so far if it is not too much trouble for the Electoral committee to provide that kind of preliminary information. Sincerely Alan Horkan. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Endorsing David Neary
David Neary also champions free software ideals, so I am going to vote for him too. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
