Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors

Lukas Geyer lukas at
Sat Feb 22 19:11:41 UTC 2003

Wichert Akkerman <wichert at> writes:

> A total of 136 people cast their vote, which is 55% of all eligible
> voters. The three winners are:
>     Bruce Perens
>     John Goerzen
>     Benj. Mako Hill
> The board of directors will vote on adding them to the board on its
> next meeting. 
> The lists of voters, votes and results can be found online at the
> following address:
> Starting today there will be a seven day dispute-period during which
> people can verify their votes using hash they received when they
> voted. After that period the information that ties a hash to a
> person will be removed from the voting database and the result will
> be final.

This is not a dispute but just a clarification request. I see some
votes which list only one option. As I understood the voting
guidelines, this effectively amounts to abstaining. On the other hand,
it is quite clear that the intent of those voters was different and
that they probably did not understand the details of the voting
procedure (or read the instructions...). I have no Condorcet voting
software at hand to run the results through but I know some people
have. Would it make a difference if those votes expressed a preference
over all other candidates and did not affect the races between the
others? Of course a similar question applies to all votes with less
than 8 options ranked. I don't think it would render this vote invalid
but nevertheless I consider it an interesting question.


This is not a signature

More information about the Spi-general mailing list