I don't think STV makes much sense unless we are picking more then
one. The key in STV is that the extra votes for the "winner" get
passed on to the choice. Since there really is not a next choice it
does not help.
Instant Runoff however does make sense. We cycle through the votes
and at each "round" toss out the losing candidate. In each round,
everyone gets to vote for their top choice of available candidates
until something has a majority or no other candidates are left. If
there is a tie at the end, the STV tally can break the tie.
We could rank more then 4 to ensure that the rounds could go
longer... but i hope that is not necessary. For things to work out
though it is important that everyone vote for the same number of
Agreed -- assuming there is a clear winner none of this is an issue.
My rationale for saying we need to have 4 votes is to be sure that we
can go through 4 rounds and have everyone have a vote in each round.
If someone only put one preference and that is eliminated, there are
fewer votes to tally for the next round.
But i really don't care -- go ahead and vote for as many or as few as
you like... with instant run off it should not matter (however if you
vote for too few and they are eliminated early you no longer have a
On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Mike Klaas wrote:
> I agree. I don't see why there needs to be a minimum or maximum
> number of logos to rank per vote.
> On 10-Dec-08, at 7:52 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>> Doesn't limiting to top 4 defeat the purpose of using STV to overcome
>> Seems like we should rank the whole list (or all that an individual
>> finds acceptable)
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Ryan McKinley <[hidden email]>
>>> This thread is for solr committers to list the top 4 logos
>>> preferences from
>>> the community logo contest. As a guide, we should look at:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~ryan/solr-logo-results.html >>>
>>> The winner will be tabulated using "instant runoff voting" -- if
>>> happens to result in a tie, the winner will be picked by the 'Single
>>> transferable vote'
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote >>>
>>> To cast a valid vote, you *must* include 4 options.
- There was a strong preference for capital letters over small in "Apache Solr"
- There was a strong preference for "rays" over "sun"
- There was a strong preference for red over blue
- There seemed to be a preference for "rays or sun" over "finder"
To try and avoid double-counting (the same person voting for a red
version, then a blue version, etc), I went back to the original vote:
21 people had one of the apache_solr_[abc]_[red/blue].jpg varianst
ahead of sslogo-solr-finder2.0.png
3 people had sslogo-solr-finder2.0.png ahead of apache_solr_c_red.jpg variants.
Due to that, I'm revising my vote to remove sslogo-solr-finder2.0.png
(if that makes a difference).
If one of the apache_solr_c_red.jpg variants win, we can still declare
a winner, but go back to the community for more guidance on the exact
version they prefer.
We can declare a winner to the contest, but hopefully we can still
tweak (after all, we need different sizes (or vectorized),
transparency, etc.) As I stated before, I'd like to get feedback on
the actual preferred variant, because as I read the tea leaves, these
two variants may be preferred over apache_solr_a_red.jpg.
Since the winner no longer changes, tweaking variants is no longer a
Unless a majority of the committers personally prefer
apache_solr_a_red.jpg. over apache_solr_c_red.jpg / solr.s4.jpg?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Ryan McKinley <[hidden email]> wrote: