[FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCE] upcoming vote: TC/CC elections

[Anton Khirnov]

Quoting Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel (2023-11-29 13:22:11)
> 
> 
> On 28.11.23 21:30, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> > On 11/28/2023 3:50 PM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >> Calling things generically bad is the opposite of helpful.
> > I cannot offer help on making a paragraph that I don't fully
> > understand become more comprehensible, as that would require
> > I understand it fully.
> >
> > But, I would again like to state these votes should be scrapped
> > and redone. People literally voted the opposite of what they wanted
> > to by accident, due to this.
> >
> 
> FWIW the type in of weights is one of the two options to do a 
> proportional representation for the vote.
> The other is the one we had used so far, by ranking the candidates from 
> 1st to n-th.
> 
> Both should serve our needs for proportional representation AFAICT and I 
> don't assume they'd give us different results of the vote. But maybe 
> Anton had a reason to pick one over the other.

As per the official documentation https://civs1.civs.us/proportional.html

  Combined weights. In combined-weights mode, the voter gives a
  nonnegative weight to each candidate instead of ranking the
  candidates. The voter's goal is to maximize the sum of weights of
  selected candidates. This is an appropriate criterion for elections
  where the quality of all the candidates is is important to the voters,
  such as the election of an actual committee that will be voting on
  some issues. [...]

  Best candidate. In best-candidate mode, the voter's goal is to get a
  single very good candidate elected, and the quality of other elected
  candidates is a strictly secondary consideration. This is appropriate
  for an election where the voter really only cares about the best
  candidate[...]

-- 
Anton Khirnov