Should we consider Ranked Choice voting for SC elections?
discuss.python.org
Speaking for myself: Summary I propose changing our Steering Council election process from simple approval voting to a ranked choice system to better capture voter preferences and provide more meaningful feedback to candidates. I want your input to know if this is worth pursuing. Background Our PEP-13 voting method has remained unchanged since late 2019. While functional, the simple approval voting system has limitations we should address. Current Limitations No Preference Expression: Voter...

Original comment:

I don’t know much about voting systems, but I know someone who does. Unfortunately he’s currently banned. Maybe we can wait until his 3-month ban expires and ask him for advice?

Previous discussion

  • moormaan@lemmy.ca
    20·
    3 months ago

    Searching some of these Python Community discussions separately and reading how they handled these bumps in the road as a group has actually increased my confidence in that group as a whole:

    https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250

    https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confidence/61557

    On the other hand, the three month suspension of Tim Peters that started it all and how that was handled sounds problematic (the second half of the essay addresses each point from the original banning rationale in detail):

    https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestration-of-tim

    Finally, Chris McDonough (the author of the above article) drawing attention to valid criticism of his own defense of Tim Peters is a blueberry on top of the cherry on the cake:

    https://chattingdarkly.org/@chrism/113020098915125686

    I hope the community ends up stronger as a result of this.

    • FizzyOrange
      191·
      3 months ago

      valid criticism of his own defense

      To be clear that post makes a valid point (don’t defend people just because they seem nice or dedicated or whatever), but it isn’t a valid criticism of Chris’s post because he didn’t do that.

      He did say Tim is nice and dedicated etc. etc. but he also went through the specific crimes that Tim was supposed to have committed and refuted them.

      I read a load of Tim’s comments and this was definitely a case of the CoC people getting annoyed with someone who disagreed with them and wouldn’t give up. There wasn’t anything remotely ban-worthy.

      • Thann@lemmy.mlEnglish
        81·
        3 months ago

        "Dismissing unacceptable behavior of others as a ‘neurodivergent’ trait, which is problematic because it creates a stereotype that neurodivergent people are hard to interact with and need special treatment.

        I’ll show you how difficult it is to work with neurodivergent people!

        /* SLAMS BAN HAMMER /*

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        3 months ago

        this was definitely a case of the CoC people getting annoyed with someone who disagreed with them and wouldn’t give up

        People suck. If someone is disagreeing with you and won’t give up, it’s time to reevaluate why you’re defending your position so vehemently.

        • FizzyOrange
          6·
          3 months ago

          From what I could tell it’s just because he cared about things a lot, and maybe is a little on the spectrum. He definitely wasn’t wrong, and maybe other people would have just given up and gone on with their lives but I don’t think that’s necessarily a trait to encourage.

          To put it another way, sometimes when people kick up a fuss it’s because they are obstinate naysayers, and sometimes it’s because they’re doggedly holding decision makers to account. This seemed more like the latter from what I read.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            5·
            3 months ago

            Exactly, which is why as a decision-maker, if you’re getting a lot of pushback, it’s important to take a step back and rethink your decision. It could be that you’re absolutely right, or it could be that you’re being obstinate just because you don’t like having your authority challenged.

            That’s basically my day job. I make decisions all the time, and when I get pushback, I take a step back and try to look at the decision with fresh eyes. I would expect anyone in a position like this to do the same.

    • lysdexicEnglish
      132·
      3 months ago

      Boy, does that group sound like the ultimate bunch of social climbers trying to make a living out of someone else’s work.

      • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
        111·
        3 months ago

        I think that’s a little too simplistic. I definitely agree that “we can’t show you the evidence of why we made this decision but trust us” isn’t going to instill confidence in the community, but it’s not like the steering council is some unrelated board of executives. They’re all core developers, theoretically chosen for their dedication and contributions to Python as a whole, and it seems their granted power has made them anxious about showing favoritism among the most seasoned at the expense of upholding the community guidelines that keep the Python community a positive and welcoming place.

        I think a flawed decision was made, or at least the way it was presented was flawed, and that should be considered for the next election. Maybe the council does need to be totally overhauled, that’s a valid position. But this is their work, too, and imply they have no skin in the game is disingenuous.

      • moormaan@lemmy.ca
        7·
        3 months ago

        Interesting perspective. It implies that:

        1. The value of their policy work is significantly below the technical community’s contributions value
        2. There is perceived status to be gained by climbing this particular social ladder.

        I neither agree or disagree fully, but I believe there is value in good governance of large and diverse projects.

        Whether their governance is good is what this whole kerfuffle is all about.

        • BB_C
          23·
          3 months ago

          It implies that the value of their policy work is significantly below…

          It’s always safe to assume that value to be negative unless proven otherwise actually.