Weird ordering of the results, Sarah had an overwhelming sucrcess and you list the 3rd placed 1st?
That’s right. I just copied them in the order they were reported in the meeting. Same as OpaVote.
Weakest excuse ever, s See [OpenStreetMap Foundation] Voting on 2022 board election | OpaVote
Excuse? I don’t know what you’re trying to imply, but I literally just copied the list of names and did not think about the order. It didn’t occur to me to rank them by who got the most votes in each round. I just wanted to post the results here.
It seems we’re not the first ones wondering about a ranked list of candidates. OpaVote support wrote on the topic:
All winners are treated the same and the order in which they are elected doesn’t matter. You could come up with a way of ordering them, but that wouldn’t be part of Scottish STV.
Edit: the official OSMF page lists candidates in the sequence they have been elected: Annual General Meetings/2022/Election to Board - OpenStreetMap Foundation
Erm, I’m reminded of the old Private Eye cartoon where a dog, eager to please its owner, has got up to make him a cup of tea and brought it to him while he was still in bed. The dog owner isn’t at all impressed with the dog trying to be helpful and just says “you clot - you forgot to warm the teapot first!”
That would seem to fly in the face of that there is a clear natural order of the results and that STV wouldn’t actually work if that wasn’t the case. You could even argue that that is the whole point of STV (filling the seats with candidates based on the order of their overall popularity).
At that link, I see:
In other words:
Weakest conspiracy theory ever.
Also, congratulations to this year’s winners!
For reference, when OSM US announced the results of their last board election, the results were announced in alphabetical order:
That’s also, incidentally, the order that OpaVote spit them out. Since everyone gets the same job (board member with one vote), the whining in this thread (or whinging, since we use the King’s English on this project) seems quite the tempest in a teacup.
You need to wait a sec or two for the graphs.
The link I posted points to
not to what @ZeLonewolf mistakenly posted.
I would have had no objection to that.
Perhaps the opa-vote ballot should be ordered alphabetically then? This time Name ordering did
Follows the order of candidate self-nominations.
Ordering on a ballot by itself is not a simple feat.
For what it’s worth, I posted the same list in the same order to multiple communication channels, quoting directly from the IRC transcript. In other communication channels I’m following, people have variously posted the list in the listed order, alphabetical order, or chronological order. But even if one prefers the latter, there’s clearly enough reason to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they wind up with the former. And by the time of the next board meeting, it won’t really matter anyways, because a chairperson will have been chosen, again scrambling the order in which people will tend to list the board members.
I guess we will have to sit and wait to see how the weeklyOSM lists the winners tomorrow for the next scene in this unlikely saga.
For the record, last year, they listed them in the way Simon doesn’t like.
I’m not sure if they’re waiting for a VAR review, but I think you might have to wait until next week
Well, last year the the Dec 12 edition had a late add with the Dec 12 election results. Of course I would completely understand if they needed the extra time this year for the internal deliberation of what order to list the winners.
Nearly, but not quite as bad as if I was claiming the Germans are out to get the Americans.
My apologies, it is just that when is no obvious order (for example alphabetic) the ranking leads to the wrong conclusions and there would have been a certain amount of political dynamite in the results if the ranking was the way it was presented.
I’m moving the discussion about the results ordering to a separate topic to keep the original one just about the elections results and this one about opinions on how to share the order or the results.