|
Automod Election: cord
Crap.. Now I realize my No vote never even was posted. Fortunately it would not have changed the outcome.
Sorry but I feel this should have been cancelled because of the amount of No votes that it was clearly an indication
many people feel that this editor needs more experience.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:38 PM, tele GUISE <teleguise@...> wrote:
Crap.. Now I realize my No vote never even was posted. Fortunately it would not have changed the outcome.
Sorry but I feel this should have been cancelled because of the amount of No votes that it was clearly an indication
many people feel that this editor needs more experience.
While it may be in good taste to cancel an election that doesn't end in an overwhelming majority, the elections use a "simple majority", which cord got.
What exactly are you suggesting here?
-- Andrew Conkling http://andrewski.net
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 02:53:24PM -0400, Andrew Conkling wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:38 PM, tele GUISE < teleguise@...> wrote:
>
> > Crap.. Now I realize my No vote never even was posted. Fortunately it would
> > not have changed the outcome.
> > Sorry but I feel this should have been cancelled because of the amount of
> > No votes that it was clearly an indication
> > many people feel that this editor needs more experience.
> >
>
> While it may be in good taste to cancel an election that doesn't end in an
> overwhelming majority, the elections use a "simple majority", which cord
> got.
>
> What exactly are you suggesting here?
Perhaps it's time to tweak the 'simple majority' up to two thirds or
something. I wouldn't object to that.
I don't have much of an issue with the 'simple majority'. Changing it
shouldn't be neccesary if every yes voter has done their research. But
I really cannot judge if everyone does or not. I abstain a lot because
I don't know these new people, and don't always have the time to look
over their edits.
What is the general opinion here? Should the 'simple majority' be
changed into a supermajority?
-- kuno.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
 Re: Automod Election: cord
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Kuno Woudt wrote: > Perhaps it's time to tweak the 'simple majority' up to two thirds or > something. I wouldn't object to that. > > I don't have much of an issue with the 'simple majority'. Changing it > shouldn't be neccesary if every yes voter has done their research. But > I really cannot judge if everyone does or not. I abstain a lot because > I don't know these new people, and don't always have the time to look > over their edits. > > What is the general opinion here? Should the 'simple majority' be > changed into a supermajority? > > -- kuno. > > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-automods mailing list > MusicBrainz-automods@...> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods > > > Well 2/3 majority would still end up with this particular election being accepted ;) but I agree that we should bump the ratio up a bit, for pretty much the same reason. Paul / jarvo
Win £3000 to spend on whatever you want at Uni! Click here to WIN!
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
On Mon, October 13, 2008 4:40 pm, Atedos wrote:
> What about making votes public and creating the mandatory to specify the
> reason of the vote casted?
Well, public discussion of votes would certainly alleviate this suspicion
that 23 people voted "yes" without examining cord's profile.
But, no reason to make it manditory, just lead by example. Simply post
your decision and discuss your reasons. I tried to do this a few months
back with no apparent result.
(In this case I did not have time to do my homework and did not vote.)
Again, as I've recently argued, cord has been automatically subscribed to
this list and this discussion is his first exposure to the world of
autoediting. A post that asserts that his nomination should have been
canceled is perhaps not the best welcome he could get. It might be better
to sustain ongoing discussion of elections in general than reacting
negatively to a specific one that is just completed.
-Dave Smey ("bklynd")
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
I also would go along with a 2/3rd
majority vote.
Joan
Kuno Woudt wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to tweak the 'simple majority' up to two thirds or
> something. I wouldn't object to that.
>
> I don't have much of an issue with the 'simple majority'. Changing it
> shouldn't be neccesary if every yes voter has done their research. But
> I really cannot judge if everyone does or not. I abstain a lot because
> I don't know these new people, and don't always have the time to look
> over their edits.
>
> What is the general opinion here? Should the 'simple majority' be
> changed into a supermajority?
>
> -- kuno.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
> MusicBrainz-automods@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
>
>
>
Well 2/3 majority would still end up with this particular election being
accepted ;) but I agree that we should bump the ratio up a bit, for
pretty much the same reason.
Paul / jarvo
Win £3000 to spend on whatever you want at Uni! Click
here to WIN!
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
IIRC, we had the same discussion back a few months and the 2/3 was
suggested. How do we go about changing this or gathering enough opinions
to make a decision?
Aaron Cooper wrote:
> 2/3 sounds good to me, too.
>
> -Aaron (cooperaa)
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Joan Whittaker
> < joan@...> wrote:
>
>> I also would go along with a 2/3rd majority vote.
>>
>>
>>
>> Joan
>>
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
On Oct 13, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Chad Wilson wrote:
> IIRC, we had the same discussion back a few months and the 2/3 was
> suggested. How do we go about changing this or gathering enough
> opinions
> to make a decision?
Someone please take the lead to bring this to consensus. Since voice
was the last person to post, I volunteer him. :-)
Once consensus is reached and 2/3 is adopted, send me mail. The change
is trivial.
--
--ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot.
Robert Kaye -- rob@... -- http://mayhem-chaos.net_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
I support changing the limit to 2/3. Are you suggesting some kind of
RFC/RFV process for this change, or how are we supposed to establish a
consensus?
Philip
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Robert Kaye < rob@...> wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Chad Wilson wrote:
>
>> IIRC, we had the same discussion back a few months and the 2/3 was
>> suggested. How do we go about changing this or gathering enough
>> opinions
>> to make a decision?
>
>
> Someone please take the lead to bring this to consensus. Since voice
> was the last person to post, I volunteer him. :-)
>
> Once consensus is reached and 2/3 is adopted, send me mail. The change
> is trivial.
>
> --
>
> --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot.
>
> Robert Kaye -- rob@... -- http://mayhem-chaos.net>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
> MusicBrainz-automods@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods>
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
|
|
Should we change automod elections to require a two-thirds majority? (was: Automod Election: cord)
For those who haven't read the 'Automod Election: cord' thread,
a number of people have suggested changing the current 'simple majority'
vote in an automod election to a supermajority vote, specifically
a two-thirds majority.
Please everyone in favour of or against this proposed change let the
rest of us know here on the mb-automod list.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:33:29PM +0200, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> I support changing the limit to 2/3. Are you suggesting some kind of
> RFC/RFV process for this change, or how are we supposed to establish a
> consensus?
So far, I've only seen posts from people in favour. So I think a
consensus is emerging already :).
Perhaps not everyone is reading this thread though, because the
subject suggests otherwise. I have therefore changed the subject
of this post.
-- kuno.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Should we change automod elections to require a two-thirds majority? (was: Automod Election: cord)
I'm good with 2/3. Let's only move it higher if there are further
concerns.
--
Geof F. Morris
mailto: gfmorris@...
http://gfmorris.net/V: (256) 527-8152
Sent from my iPhone. I am remote right now.
On Oct 14, 2008, at 7:42, Kuno Woudt < kuno@...> wrote:
>
> For those who haven't read the 'Automod Election: cord' thread,
> a number of people have suggested changing the current 'simple
> majority'
> vote in an automod election to a supermajority vote, specifically
> a two-thirds majority.
>
> Please everyone in favour of or against this proposed change let the
> rest of us know here on the mb-automod list.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:33:29PM +0200, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> I support changing the limit to 2/3. Are you suggesting some kind of
>> RFC/RFV process for this change, or how are we supposed to
>> establish a
>> consensus?
>
> So far, I've only seen posts from people in favour. So I think a
> consensus is emerging already :).
>
> Perhaps not everyone is reading this thread though, because the
> subject suggests otherwise. I have therefore changed the subject
> of this post.
>
> -- kuno.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
> MusicBrainz-automods@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
MusicBrainz-automods@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
|
|
Re: Automod Election: cord
|
|
Re: Should we change automod elections to require a two-thirds majority? (was: Automod Election: cord)
|
|
Re: Should we change automod elections to require a two-thirds majority? (was: Automod Election: cord)
|
