[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCHv2] Document community process

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 01:55:11PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2020-10-19 23:57:31)
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 07:22:48PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > > Yo,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, at 19:02, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > +## Voting
> > > > > +
> > > > 
> > > > > +Voting is done using a ranked voting system, currently running on https://vote.ffmpeg.org/ .
> > > > 
> > > > I think Voting should be defined more precissely
> > > 
> > > That's a good point. What would like to see here? The algo used? The software used?
> > 
> > I dont know what is best.
> > 
> > What is the goal having this information there serves ?
> > I think there are 3 or 4 levels/classes of information that could be provided
> > at highest level, listing the properties of the vote system
> 
> In my view, this documented is intended to serve mainly as a statement
> of intent rather than a strict legalistic definition of everything, so
> it would be sufficient to mention that we are using a ranked Condorcet
> method. I would think very few developers know or care what the exact
> differences between the methods are, as long as they are in some sense
> "reasonable".

The problem is elections with multiple winners, That is elections of seats
in a committee or other group.
Consider a 5 seat comittee
and lets consider that there are blue and pink candidates
if you have 100 people voting and 51 of them vote only for pink candidates and
49 only for blue candidates.
repeated application of a Condorcet method will give you 5 pink candidates

OTOH something like schulze STV, also a Condorcet method should in this case
give you 3 pink candidates and 2 blue ones.

The above is a bit oversimplified but basically there are 2 classes of voting
systems. The first class is applying single winner election methods repeatedly
to fill all seats. 
The other is trying to fill seats so they are representing the set of voters.

The first class can skip over minorities even when they are quite large,
but the people choosen should have "strong and maximal support"

The second class would favor creating a representative set over one of
maximal support by voters. It could lead to a more "colorfull" result
with seats filled by people representing minortes and lacking broad support.

The results likely will differ in reallity as well.

We dont have to write this down in "this" document but we should
write it down in some document if what is considered "reasonable"
is "Proportional representation" or not.

What i can say is that if we want a 
* "Proportional representation" system
 then schulze STV is a "beatifull" system free of ugly discrete choices like STV 
 and its also condorcet
* non "Proportional representation".
 then normal repeatly applying the normal schulze method is the obvious choice

IIUC CIVS supports repeatly applying the normal schulze method and thilo added
support for schulze STV

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool.
-- Epicurus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20201026/7502415e/attachment.sig>