completely agree with the notion that right now, doing the right thing is much more important then posting about it, thus limited information about the status of the Jolla negotiations.
for the sake of clarity... are representatives of the Community in discussion with Jolla?
if so

• who is negotiating? i assume so far it was Council; will Hildon Foundation Board take this over?
• how was this initiated? common sense would suggest that Community took the initiative, but...

opinion of a man... who has no feelings either way...

Agreed, but then that would take time and effort that was beyond what we were already doing. I did want to do this on wiki, but frankly just lacked the time.

In several areas the Board and Council have limited powers over each other. (Being able to trigger each others elections, etc.) This is one place where it made sense to me to allow the Board to step in to settle issues in Council. This is not unprecedented, btw, as the current Council rules on election call for the Nokia rep to be part of the decision making as well.

Good catch. We should probably add that in.

Speaking of this, are we sure that Fractional Transfer STV is what we want for future elections? Wouldn't it be appropriate, to use simplest and most effective mechanism of one person - one vote for one candidate = results depending on how much votes each candidate got?

I know reasoning behind FT STV, but frankly, in my opinion, it adds unnecessary complication, resulting in fact, that ~80% (wild guess) of voters doesn't fully understand mechanism behind counting votes.

/Estel

// Edit

proposed "one person - one vote" is just an idea, it could also look a little more complicated - main question I've asked, is if we really need/want FT STV election/counting mechanism.

Maemo and several other sane countries have been using STV or "run-off voting" for some time because it is by far superior to one-vote, especially for multi-position elections. There are tons of pages on why that's the case, google it.

One-vote is by far the simplest to comprehend, but is not at all the most effective. Run-off or STV is not all that much harder to comprehend. To calculate, maybe, but not to comprehend.

This is coming from someone who lives in a country where we still use one-vote for 99% of our elections... Trust me, it sucks, and you don't want it here. It strips 3rd parties from the ability to complete, and leaves everyone unhappy.

I think, that FT STV counting methods leaves too much place for people, that are seen by Community, as "least wanted", especially, that most times, we have very abd ratio of candidates/positions (low amount of candidates for positions, not even two runners for one position...).

This way, IMO, many times people with least approval from Community - i.e. last in order of preference - end up taking positions only because we have low amount of candidates.

Lack of candidates for positions isn't case of most government elections,, so it kinda defeats your argumentation. Everyone, who understand mechanism behind FT STV (I still think, that most people doesn't/doesn't care), know that low amount of candidates is main weakness of FT STV.

Honestly, I'm not very surprised, that you're defending it's usage - after all, during last Council election, you and Niel were approved for Council only, due to FT STV usage (mixed with messed up statute) - using optimal voting mechanism (for such low number of candidates), we would end up with 3 people Council, as both of you were "least preferred" ones.

Warning - no offense meant in what I've written above. It's just example, that everyone can check on it's own, and get own opinion (looking on how much votes each candidate got during first two rounds of counting votes, and, despite that, who ended up in Council).
---

That said, I'm also quite sure, that no one will care for changing voting mechanism - it's too abstract for most people to even care, so we're probably getting stuck with FT STV.

Well, Community decides.

/Estel

You show your ignorance again. FT STV works fine in elections with a low number of candidates.

Wrong. The method of voting has nothing to do with how many candidates are elected. There were 7 nominees, of which 5 were to be chosen. Even if your proposed "one-vote" system were used that cycle, the results would have been exactly the same.

Want proof? Look at the results page. You see that first line? That's the tally of everyones first vote only, the exact result you would have gotten had you used the single-vote method you are championing. From that, the top five choices would have been chosen, which corresponds exactly to who won in the end.

If you're going to lie about things, you should check your facts first.

The only way there would have been only 3 elected to Council because of the number of votes is if 4 of the candidates had gotten 0 votes. Further, single-vote raises the issue of what to do if two or more candidates spanning 5th/6th place had exactly the same number of votes. That would require some form of tie-breaking mechanism, which FT STV has build in.

But please, keep speaking as if you know everything about this, when you clearly don't even know the basics...

Edit: And frankly, I fear for where we would be now had it just been you three, instead of the five. Based on your conduct as Chair, and after, I think we'd be in a much worse spot now.

If you would re-read my post without your usual arrogance and ego-mania, you would notice, why you're not responding to my obserfvations about (as stated in my last post) mix-up of STV + statute (re number of positions vs number of candidates).

Instead, you've made false assumptions, and you're commenting on them - essentialy, arguing with your own, wrong assumptions - calling others "liars" in the process, as the lightest of your insults.
---

I'm not going to comment more on this - I'm glad that Community filtered you out during Board election - the less people like you in Foundation, the better. Of course, you're probably going go say, that
you were not elected, because you didn't wanted to be - in usual wanna-be ploter/egomaniac, comic-book villian style, that you present - but frankly, it doesn't matter, at all.

/Estel

That's enough bickering. I'm starting to feel like moderating again.

Enough. Limit discussion in this thread to the by-laws and directly related matters only. Further postings of insults and attempts at character assassination will not be tolerated.

EDIT: I have deleted the two posts that preceded this one.