Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 06:58:23PM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 06:09:21PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Dimitri John Ledkov writes ("2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections"):
> > > The board recognizes the deficiencies of the current voting algorithm
> > > utilized for Board elections as being inappropriate for multi-seat
> > > elections. After careful consideration, we recognize and acknowledge
> > > the evidence presented and we support updating the voting algorithm.
> ...
> > 7. We expect that the practical implementation will be by means of
> > OpenSTV, for example the openstv package in Debian. However, any
> > differences between the Rules in the Order, and the implementation
> > in OpenSTV (or other software), are to be resolved in favour of the
> > Rules.
>
> Given that we have an existing web based voting application that is
> written in Python it would be preferable for any new vote counting
> system to function within this framework. It's not clear to me that this
> is the case with OpenSTV, nor that it's desirable to specify the
> software means to achieve the desired goal as part of the board
> resolution.

Actually it turns out that OpenSTV is written in Python and largely
written in a way that means it might be possible to shoe-horn it into
the existing members website as a way of processing votes. However it
appears to have been taken proprietary by upstream, with Conservancy
having the latest GPL copy and stating it is unmaintained:

https://github.com/Conservatory/openstv

I still think specifying the method of implementation in the board
resolution is not desirable, even if it turns out OpenSTV is the
appropriate way to go at present.

J.

--
... Why are we here? Because we're here. Roll the bones.