AlexIn the Agenda I just use the template which we used forever. We can get rid of the NO column for board and council votes
chronosx88has joined
Alexemus: ya, we can add a section to the newsletter, I can work on it
intosihas left
lorddavidiiihas left
jcbrandhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
intosihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
intosihas left
emushas left
intosihas joined
Marandahas joined
Ge0rGhas left
intosihas left
Andrzejhas joined
Ge0rGhas joined
mdoschhas left
Zashhas joined
mdoschhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
debaclehas joined
nycohas left
nycohas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Andrzejhas left
intosihas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
intosihas left
intosihas joined
Andrzejhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
emushas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
emusAlex: ok cool
lskdjfhas joined
emusAlex: yes, as this seemingly just counts how much havent placed a vote for them I think its misleading. Id rather say how many peoplr voted, and then place the table with number of votes per person.
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
DanielThe label might be slightly misleading but I do find that information useful
DanielEven though you can of course derive it by subtracting the yeses from the total
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
DanielMaybe not necessarily for the news letter tho (I just realized that you were probably talking about that)
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
eevvoorhas joined
antranigvhas joined
LNJhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
emusDaniel: I was talking about the wiki page.
But I dont see the sense of placing the no if the only user action is to place a vote for people. In general election also place only who voted for one, not how many did not vote for him. (right?)
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
alex-a-sotohas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
alex-a-sotohas joined
wevifahas left
jonas’emus, I think you need at least half of the votes in addition to being in the top 5
jonas’so listing the No column also makes it clear whether that criterium is fulfilled or not
jonas’> Third, the individuals elected shall be those receiving the highest percentage of votes cast, up to the limit set by the Members and with the proviso that no individual receiving less than a majority of votes cast shall be elected.
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
jonas’though....
jonas’oh my
larmaThe lack of possibility to vote yes/no/absent explicitly actually can have real world consequences. Should we ever end up with significantly more candidates than number of votes you have, many will not make the 50% limit.
dwdlarma, That's be a lovely problem to have, mind.
jonas’I’m also fairly certain that we’re doing it wrong
jonas’reading Section 3.13
jonas’Section 3.13 Voting Procedure for Election of Board and Council. Election of individuals to serve on the Board of Directors and on the XMPP Council shall proceed as follows. First, the number of individuals to serve on each body shall be limited beforehand by the Members as specified in Section 4.4 and Section 8.1 of these Bylaws for the Board and Council, respectively. Second, the Members shall vote on the candidates standing for election in accordance with Section 3.9 of these Bylaws. Third, the individuals elected shall be those receiving the highest percentage of votes cast, up to the limit set by the Members and with the proviso that no individual receiving less than a majority of votes cast shall be elected. Fourth, in the case of a tie for the final remaining position, the final individual shall be chosen in accordance with the procedures defined in “RFC 3797: Publicly Verifiable Nominations Committee (NomCom) Random Selection” published by the Internet Engineering Task Force.
jonas’nothing in here says that we can only cast N (= number of seats) votes
Ge0rGThe vote was rigged!
jonas’Section 3.9 just says that each member gets a single vote:
> Section 3.9 Voting. Each current Member of the Corporation (other than Emeritus Members) shall be entitled to one (1) vote on each matter submitted to a vote at a meeting of the Members, except as may otherwise be provided in the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
jonas’that was a rabbit hole I did not want to discover
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
emus> emus, I think you need at least half of the votes in addition to being in the top 5
> so listing the No column also makes it clear whether that criterium is fulfilled or not
But dont you need the total number of person voted for this criterium?
jonas’emus, that is Yes + No
emus😄
emusOkay. but then I would place the total number directlt, because it looks like "No" is an active choice
jonas’true
emusOkay. but then I would place the total number directly, because it looks like "No" is an active choice
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
alameyohas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
krauqhas left
alameyohas joined
krauqhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
dwdemus, FWIW, it used to be an active choice - the memberbot used to just ask yes/no for each candidate, so you could (and people did) vote for 4, or 6, people. I'm happy to look into changing the memberbot back to doing that, though obviously I'd raise this with Board and Alex (as Secretary) first.
jonas’dwd, from my reading of the Bylaws, the previous mode you describe is the one which matches the bylaws
jonas’while the current mode does not
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
emusI understand one have maximum 5 vote options. Sure, one might not vote for everyone, but that is an abstention not a "No"-vote or vote against one (as I first interpreted the table)
jonas’emus, I do not understand that from the Bylaws
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
dwdemus, Well, as jonas’ says, there's no "maximum number of votes" mentioned in the bylaws.
jonas’recount! recount!
emusBut I thought board and council are limited to 5 persons each
jonas’yes
jonas’but the voting scheme still says you vote yes/no (abstain?) for each candidate
jonas’and then the five with the highest ratio of yes votes get the seats
Daniel> emus, FWIW, it used to be an active choice - the memberbot used to just ask yes/no for each candidate, so you could (and people did) vote for 4, or 6, people. I'm happy to look into changing the memberbot back to doing that, though obviously I'd raise this with Board and Alex (as Secretary) first.
It may match the bylaws but I find that odd. If anything I'd prefer switching to ranked choice or something
jonas’which is different from "you select 5 candidates which counts +1 for each and the five with the highest number of +1 get the seats"
dwdemus, Sure. But - arguably - that could be found by everyone voting uniformly for every candidate and then randomly selecting via RFC 3797.
jonas’Daniel, agreed, ranked choice would be better than either system (but also much more complex to evaluate)
emus^^
jonas’nevertheless: I think we do have a massive legal issue if our voting procedure diverges from what the Bylaws say
emusMaybe Im just a bit confused
emus> nevertheless: I think we do have a massive legal issue if our voting procedure diverges from what the Bylaws say
I guess this should be discussed first
jonas’by whom?
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
jonas’the possibly not-legally-elected board? :-
jonas’the possibly not-legally-elected board? :-)
emus🤷♂️
DanielBecause if I _could_ vote +1 for each I either have to make an active choice not to vote someone in or just give anyone a +1. On the other hand if I only have 5 votes in total its just a 'I prefer x over z' instead of an 'I hate x'
emusAlex?
jonas’Daniel, that’d give some higher weight to the people who *do* make an active choice instead of just selecting the first five people memberbot comes up with
dwdjonas’, Given the Board couldn't have changed given a yes/no vote, it's Council are are potentially not legit, but still. :-)
jonas’dwd, true
Daniel> Daniel, that’d give some higher weight to the people who *do* make an active choice instead of just selecting the first five people memberbot comes up with
Well that's just an argument for making it random
jonas’dwd, though the bylaw voting scheme does encourage no votes more than the current one
dwdIn any event, as I say I'm happy to raise this at Board.
jonas’Daniel, it is random already :)
emusjonas’: one can randomise the listing^^
jonas’dwd, good :)
jonas’emus, see above :)
emusah
dwdemus, The listing *is* randomized already.
jonas’dwd, will you be part of council?
emusyep good
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
Andrzejhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
dwdjonas’, Seems so. I was expecting to be voted off, actually, but I'm happy I've not been. We'll need someone else to act as Liaision to Board though, otherwise I'll have conflicts in meetingts, but ordinarily that's the Council Chair anyway, and I'm hoping you'll continue that.
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
jonas’dwd, ok
neshtaxmpphas left
Alexhas left
Adihas left
Adihas joined
wladmishas left
Alexhas joined
Alexemus: in meetings all day, will read here later when I am available
emussure
Nekithas left
Nekithas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
wladmishas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
eevvoorhas left
eevvoorhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
moparisthebesthas joined
Link Mauvehas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
larmahas left
larmahas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
wladmishas left
Andrzejhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
Andrzejhas left
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
wladmishas joined
papatutuwawahas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
intosihas left
wladmishas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
SamWhitedoh neat. So if I understood that, the system we're supposed to have where you could just vote for everybody is called 'approval voting'. It's my favorite voting system and I always wondered why we modified it and limited you to 5 votes
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
SamWhitedAlthough I also thought we used a modified ranked choice too and that the order mattered just because memberbot seems to suggest it does, but I guess thinking back obviously that wasn't true because the results didn't show that ever. Not sure why I never realized that.
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
intosihas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
wladmishas joined
florettahas left
florettahas joined
eevvoorhas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
wladmishas left
papatutuwawahas left
intosihas left
intosihas joined
intosihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
intosihas joined
Arnehas left
Arnehas joined
Steve Killehas left
alex-a-sotohas left
alex-a-sotohas joined
GuusAm I reading https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0124.html#terminate correct like this? "When a client sends 'terminate', the server should not deliver any stanzas any longer"
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
adiaholichas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
adiaholichas joined
wladmishas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
Adihas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
Steve Killehas joined
Adihas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
Holgerhas left
pasdesushihas joined
eevvoorhas joined
wladmishas left
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
adiaholichas left
Holgerhas joined
pasdesushihas left
APachhas left
Andrzejhas left
pasdesushihas joined
wladmishas joined
APachhas joined
flowFWIW "approval voting" and "condorcet voting" would be my favorites when it comes to voting for council and board (with a slight tendency towards condorcet)
Wojtekhas joined
flowGuus, good question, I am not that much into BOSH, but I somehow would expect BOSH's 'terminate' to mimic </stream>, so it would be a unidirectional close
flowGuus, in any way, this could probably be clarified in xep124
adiaholichas joined
Guusflow that was kind of my thinking (eg, I expected the server to be able to deliver a pending message or echo presence unavailalble), but that's not how I read this.
SamWhitedTIL: condorcet voting, this sounds neat (if a bit complicated to understand and implement compared to approval voting which seems pretty intuitive)
Link MauveGuus, also note that a client couldn’t assume that it won’t receive stanzas anymore, latency and all.
flowSamWhited, ideally you can use a condorcet voting library instead of impl the whole thing. Understanding is a bit different, approval voting is far easier to understand. But OTOH condorcet voting is already used in tech communities (e.g. Debian, Jenkins)
flowthe stackexchange network also does condorcet voting (if I am not mistaken)
SamWhitedI didn't mean implement in terms of memberbot, I just meant "making the whole thing work and understood and contingencies for ties within an organization", sorry
flowI see
pasdesushihas left
SamWhitedMaybe it doesn't matter since what we have now is effectively approval voting but with ties already taken care of. Probably no need to change what isn't broken.
SamWhitedInteresting to think about though
KevTies aren't taken care of, are they?
KevOr not by the voting mechanism itself, at least.
SamWhitedmore-than-5-way-ties, I mean. If we have a tie in the top 5 it doesn't matter, but with regular approval voting if there are 6 candidates for 5 positions and all voters approve of all candidates you have to figure out what to do
pasdesushihas joined
Andrzejhas joined
SamWhitedActually, no, you're right, doesn't matter, we could still have a tie for 5th place, for example. Ignore me.
SamWhitedSo we have approval voting with a weird restriction that I still don't fully understand :)
AlexI updated our Agenda page and removed the No votes which memberbot is counting by default. Please take a look here:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2020-11-24
alex-a-sotohas left
alex-a-sotohas joined
NeustradamusSamWhited: My tickets has here :)
- https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/issues/created_by/Neustradamus
+ This ticket here but not solved: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/966
NeustradamusSamWhited: My tickets are here :)
- https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/issues/created_by/Neustradamus
+ This ticket here but not solved: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/966
Andrzejhas left
SamWhitedNeustradamus: I don't have anything to do with that and can't help, sorry.
SamWhitedAlso, reading the question, that issue *was* solved. The editors tried to explain how it's not a problem it looks like.
AlexAbout the voting process. When there are any concerns then I would ask you to bring it to the member list for dicsussion. We are using the process as is for over a decade now. Which does not mean that there are still areas where we can learn, adjust and improve.
SamWhitedAlex: voting process seems fine, I don't think anyone is seriously talking about wanting to change it (although I can't speak for everyone of course). Just a fun discussion about how different voting systems would work :)