Recent Forum Posts
From categories:

At this point, I don't know how anyone can really say what is likely. I could just as easily say it's likely that everyone will just go with the status quo, as Pau has assumed the role pro tem, perhaps people will be just as willing to go with him permanently. However, I don't really know what most people think about this.

Re: Vote Tallying by tamousetamouse, 01 Sep 2011 05:03

A more direct response to the above:

Another way to do it rather than weighting votes is to use a multi-voting system. If you allow people with longer and more active participation more votes, they can use them how they see fit for selecting the channel manager (this obviously crosses over into the thread about voting systems).

On the other hand, making things complicated can also serve to confuse people and make them less willing to vote.

Re: Voter Eligibility by tamousetamouse, 01 Sep 2011 05:00

We may need to have a discussion on how this eligibility is going to be tallied…

Re: Voter Eligibility by tamousetamouse, 01 Sep 2011 04:57

Voter eligibility is one of the core issues.

  • Ensuring people get a voice.
  • Make the eligibility too strict, and people that may well have a present interest may not get represented.
  • Too loose, and you have people voting that it doesn't affect.

As a starting point for discussion, I'd propose eligibility is at least 3 one-week periods in channel in the last two years, prior to the CM pro tem change.

Another option is tiered voting, such as presence in channel (to be defined; under this system at least a month (defined as maybe 20 days out of any contiguous 30-day period in channel) in the last year) gets you a vote with a weight of 5, one to two years 3-weight, two to five years, 1-weight, and longer than 5 years (essentially, since before the last election), no vote. (If you haven't been here since last election, why should you get a vote for just popping in?). This method would assign voting strength based on activity in channel (activity defined as being present, and talking at least on occasion).

There are many ways to go with this, so please, comment!

Voter Eligibility by bkcallahanbkcallahan, 31 Aug 2011 00:10

Anyone not a 500 in another channel should be eligible, provided they also meet the franchise requirements to vote. Technical competence should be a factor IMHO.

Re: Selecting Candidates by bkcallahanbkcallahan, 30 Aug 2011 23:59

There has been some discussion already about how to elect a new Channel Manager for the Undernet IRC channel #Callahans. As well, there has been some question as to who may be a candidate for the position.

Undernet rules allow one one channel per person, which means that if a person is already channel manager in another channel, they cannot be channel manager here in #Callahans. Based on the explanation posted by ManinBlak for the current change ( this seems to eliminate one or more of the current channel OPs from the Manager slot. Who, exactly, is eliminated is a question *I* cannot answer for you. I don't know.

However, there is no reason to assume that a candidate *must* come from the list of current OPs in the channel, and in fact there have been direct statements to the contrary. So it seems fair to suggest that anyone, who is not already a ChanMgr of a channel on Undernet may apply. While it seems highly unlikely that any of my fellow #Callahanians would vote to elect a stranger, that does not mean that no stranger or outsider might apply. How then do we determine who should be placed on the ballot, and who should not?

Perhaps you have some ideas?


Selecting Candidates by MildBillMildBill, 30 Aug 2011 20:54
Re: Vote Tallying by bkcallahanbkcallahan, 30 Aug 2011 20:39

Since it seems obvious that the eventual winner must have a full and true majority vote, and to avoid the need for at least 2 rounds of voting, let me make the following proposal:

The contingent vote is an electoral system used to elect a single winner, in which the voter ranks the candidates in order of preference. In an election, if no candidate receives an absolute majority of first preference votes, then all but the two leading candidates are eliminated and there is a second count. In the second count the votes of those who supported eliminated candidates are distributed among the two remaining candidates, so that one candidate achieves an absolute majority. The contingent vote is similar to the alternative vote but differs from it in that the alternative vote typically allows for many rounds of counting, whereas under the contingent vote there are never more than two. In the United States both the contingent vote and the alternative vote are often referred to as variants of instant-runoff voting. The contingent vote can also be considered a compressed form of the two round system (runoff system), in which both 'rounds' occur without the need for voters to go to the polls twice.


In this manner, if one candidate has that standout, clear majority vote, the ballots need only be counted one time.
If, however, as seems likely, there is no clear majority, this method transfers the votes of the clear non-winners to the other candidates by the rankings on each individual ballot, and continues to do so in as many recounts as necessary until one candidate has that clear majority.
But, it does not require a second ballot, which could take an excessive amount of time given the 'occasional' nature of some of the channel populace.


Re: Vote Tallying by MildBillMildBill, 30 Aug 2011 20:20

I agree that at minimum, the system should be at least looked at, to see if it the system we wish to continue with in the future.

X does seem to be fairly, well, useless at present.

I've given this as my opinion every time the topic of a channel manager comes up, and especially in light of the previous move that was made where all the ops were reduced to the current list, but I'm in favor of a system with a lot less stratification.

Like, none.

I'd get rid of X entirely, but if that's off the table, my opinion is that the whole channel manager thing should be a mere formality and that everyone else who's been around for a while and demonstrated that they're not a complete douchebag be equal. As in, snails for everyone, we're all grown ups here.

Feudal System vs. Communism by kurukuru, 30 Aug 2011 20:09

Locked synopsis page is here.

Re: Vote Tallying by bkcallahanbkcallahan, 30 Aug 2011 18:32

As I recall form last election, there were many different forms/ways to vote and tally them. The simplest and most recognizable (at least to an American) is each person gets one vote, and winner takes all.

With majority rule, those who are unfamiliar with voting theory are often surprised that another voting system exists, or that disagreements may exist over the definition of what it means to be supported by a majority. Depending on the meaning chosen, the common "majority rule" systems can produce results that the majority does not support. If every election had only two choices, the winner would be determined using majority rule alone. However, when there are three or more options, there may not be a single option that is most liked or most disliked by a majority. A simple choice does not allow voters to express the ordering or the intensity of their feeling. Different voting systems may give very different results, particularly in cases where there is no clear majority preference. — Wikipedia

The above quoted article should be a good base to start from for those unfamiliar with different voting theories. For a quick table of options and comparisons, please see this table.

Vote Tallying by bkcallahanbkcallahan, 30 Aug 2011 18:28

It may also be a worthy idea to not think of just this election, but future elections, so a process is already in place. If the future #callahans wishes to do the elections differently next time, they can always use the frame work here to start that discussion. This may obviate the need for "chaos" when it does come about. We're re-doing the work from the last election because we didn't think ahead; much like I made Mike open-source (a big change from previous Mikes), I'd like to put this process into place for our future as well as our present.

One of the things recently heard in channel is confusion over exactly how we go about it, what happened last time, etc. Having this process as an already-existing policy/guideline should vastly reduce any chaos in the future, or doubt about what needs to take place.

While the discussion goes on here, the synopsis (a locked page) will be located here

At first glance, 90 days seems rather long. But as this is a social process, it's probably about right.

Every once in a while, the channel manager role in #Callahans needs to rotate.

Sometimes, this has been as a result of a channel manager losing interest and not logging in for several months, in which case the channel loses the CService X channel management bot until we can manage to get it back, which is a sometimes difficult process as CService on Undernet has spotty availability. In this case, there is usually a scramble to get things back in order and a temporary channel manager often takes the lead in this.

Sometimes the current channel manager decides to step down orderly, and a new channel manager must be chosen. In the present case (August/Sept 2011 timeframe), the old channel manager selected one of the 499 ops to become the new channel manager. Currently under discussion are how the new permanent channel manager is to be chosen.

This discussion is to provide a space for patrons of #Callahans to register their thoughts, needs, and wishes for how the new, permanent channel manager is to be chosen.

Why do we need this discussion by tamousetamouse, 30 Aug 2011 04:50

I believe we did something along the lines of 90 days to discuss, and 30 days of open voting. I think this is a good starting point to work form, anyone else?

In most discussions, there are threads which relate directly to the subject at hand (in this case the channel manager electsion) and other threads which relate to how the discussion is handled or other threads which aren't directly about the subject at hand. This forum group is intended for the latter type of threads.

What is a meta-discussion? by tamousetamouse, 30 Aug 2011 04:42

Why do we want transparency?

Because we are not children, and do not wish to be dictated to, nor do we want things to be decided upon without our participation.

In this latest go-around of the change in channel management, up to now the channel manager pro-tem and the 499s have been apparently discussing things among themselves, although even this was not known until recently. We want all patrons to have a voice in this process, from the creation of it through to the completion of it.

This wiki was created to enable the open discussion of this process, and to further the participation of all patrons.

Why we want transparency by tamousetamouse, 30 Aug 2011 04:39