2019 Steering Council Election Results
Voting closed at 2019-02-04 12:00 UTC as prescribed in PEP 8100.
Of 96 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots.
The top five vote-getters are:
- Barry Warsaw
- Brett Cannon
- Carol Willing
- Guido van Rossum
- Nick Coghlan
No conflict of interest as defined in PEP 13 were observed.
Eligible voters have received result notification emails from helios, and may return to the system to audit/verify the results.
Thanks to all participants! It was an honor serving as the administrator for the governance votes.
-Ernest W. Durbin III
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:43 PM Ernest W. Durbin III <ernest@python.org> wrote:
Voting closed at 2019-02-04 12:00 UTC as prescribed in PEP 8100.
Of 96 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots.
The top five vote-getters are:
- Barry Warsaw
- Brett Cannon
- Carol Willing
- Guido van Rossum
- Nick Coghlan
Congratulations everyone for the participation and also to the members of the very first council.
Kushal
Staff, Freedom of the Press Foundation CPython Core Developer Director, Python Software Foundation https://kushaldas.in
On 4 Feb 2019, at 13:34, Kushal Das <kushaldas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:43 PM Ernest W. Durbin III <ernest@python.org> wrote:
Voting closed at 2019-02-04 12:00 UTC as prescribed in PEP 8100.
Of 96 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots.
The top five vote-getters are:
- Barry Warsaw
- Brett Cannon
- Carol Willing
- Guido van Rossum
- Nick Coghlan
Congratulations everyone for the participation and also to the members of the very first council.
Fully agreed.
Ronald
As a voter, I can see the full list of how many votes each candidate received. I wonder if this should be published somewhere? There are some interesting speculations possible about the spread of the numbers ,and they give extra data on how the voters seem to think and which (types of) candidates are likely to do well in future elections.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:13 AM Ernest W. Durbin III <ernest@python.org> wrote:
Voting closed at 2019-02-04 12:00 UTC as prescribed in PEP 8100.
Of 96 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots.
The top five vote-getters are:
- Barry Warsaw
- Brett Cannon
- Carol Willing
- Guido van Rossum
- Nick Coghlan
No conflict of interest as defined in PEP 13 were observed.
Eligible voters have received result notification emails from helios, and may return to the system to audit/verify the results.
Thanks to all participants! It was an honor serving as the administrator for the governance votes.
-Ernest W. Durbin III
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
Antoine noted the same lack of transparency at https://discuss.python.org/t/2019-steering-council-election-results/824/3?u=....
Ultimately I chose to initial publish results ASAP at the minimum granularity necessary given that there wasn’t direction on what level of detail should be published. I agree that transparency is key here, but as it wasn’t specified on in 8016/13/8100 I went with what we have.
I can open a PR to 8100 with detailed results if no objections are heard.
-Ernest W. Durbin III
On February 4, 2019 at 11:18:00 AM, Guido van Rossum (guido@python.org) wrote:
As a voter, I can see the full list of how many votes each candidate received. I wonder if this should be published somewhere? There are some interesting speculations possible about the spread of the numbers ,and they give extra data on how the voters seem to think and which (types of) candidates are likely to do well in future elections.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:13 AM Ernest W. Durbin III <ernest@python.org> wrote: Voting closed at 2019-02-04 12:00 UTC as prescribed in PEP 8100.
Of 96 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots.
The top five vote-getters are:
- Barry Warsaw
- Brett Cannon
- Carol Willing
- Guido van Rossum
- Nick Coghlan
No conflict of interest as defined in PEP 13 were observed.
Eligible voters have received result notification emails from helios, and may return to the system to audit/verify the results.
Thanks to all participants! It was an honor serving as the administrator for the governance votes.
-Ernest W. Durbin III
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 8:20 AM Ernest W. Durbin III <ernest@python.org> wrote:
Antoine noted the same lack of transparency at https://discuss.python.org/t/2019-steering-council-election-results/824/3?u=... .
Ultimately I chose to initial publish results ASAP at the minimum granularity necessary given that there wasn’t direction on what level of detail should be published. I agree that transparency is key here, but as it wasn’t specified on in 8016/13/8100 I went with what we have.
I can open a PR to 8100 with detailed results if no objections are heard.
I would wait until you have explicit permission from every candidate. (You probably will have to reach out to some.) I hereby grant you mine.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
[Guido]
There are some interesting speculations possible about the spread of the numbers ,and they give extra data on how the voters seem to think and which (types of) candidates are likely to do well in future elections.
Ir was already speculated about before the election ;-) As predicted by a brief article I linked to on Discourse, limiting the number of approvals to 5 favored a landslide victory of the best-known candidates. Except for Nick, the weakest "winner" got 50% more approvals than the strongest "loser". So "landslide" for 4.
In pure Approval voting (which we've used for PSF Board elections), there is no limit, and then you get a clear picture of approval levels. The "losers" here should realize their relatively low approval levels _may_ be an artifact of the voting process. Like in "first past the post" plurality elections, with a limit there's pressure for voters to betray their actual favorite(s) if they _think_ they can't win, to avoid "wasting their vote". Without a limit, there's never a reason (regardless of whether a voter is 100% honest or 100% tactical) not to approve of your true favorites.
In the Discourse discussion, there _seemed_ to be consensus that limiting to 5 was probably a mistake, but it would require a change to some PEP to remove the limit, and the issue didn't come up before it was too late.
Beyond that, pure Approval is just unsuitable _if_ there's some goal to achieve some level of "diversity", in an extremely broad sense. While we don't have political parties, we are developing factions, like "old-timer vs new-comer", "conservative vs aggressive" wrt language changes, and so on. Some form of "proportional representation" voting is needed _if_ we want to cater to that (and, yes, there are _variations_ of Approval voting that address such concerns - but they're all more complicated and I doubt Helios supports them).
Did voting require you to select 5 candidates? Or was it up to 5? I don’t recall, but if it was the latter that could explain it.
On Feb 4, 2019, at 11:28 AM, Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote:
[Ernest W. Durbin III <ernest@python.org>]
Of 96 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots.
FYI, the total number of votes Helios showed me summed to 340. At 5 approvals per ballot, I'd expect to see 5 * 69 = 345 for 69 ballots. Are we missing a ballot?
python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
On February 4, 2019 at 11:30:13 AM, Donald Stufft (donald@stufft.io) wrote: Did voting require you to select 5 candidates? Or was it up to 5? I don’t recall, but if it was the latter that could explain it.
It did not. Voting was "Up To Five" per PEP 13 and PEP 8100
On Feb 4, 2019, at 4:11 AM, Ernest W. Durbin III <ernest@python.org> wrote:
The top five vote-getters are:
- Barry Warsaw
- Brett Cannon
- Carol Willing
- Guido van Rossum
- Nick Coghlan
Congratulations to the new council members! I wish you all the best.
Thank you to everyone else on the ticket as well. A new council is elected after each feature release, so your time may yet come.
Raymond
Full results have now been published at https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-8100/#results via https://github.com/python/peps/pull/915
On February 4, 2019 at 7:11:36 AM, Ernest W. Durbin III (ernest@python.org) wrote:
Voting closed at 2019-02-04 12:00 UTC as prescribed in PEP 8100.
Of 96 eligible voters, 69 cast ballots.
The top five vote-getters are:
- Barry Warsaw
- Brett Cannon
- Carol Willing
- Guido van Rossum
- Nick Coghlan
No conflict of interest as defined in PEP 13 were observed.
Eligible voters have received result notification emails from helios, and may return to the system to audit/verify the results.
Thanks to all participants! It was an honor serving as the administrator for the governance votes.
-Ernest W. Durbin III
On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 09:43:46AM -0500, Ernest W. Durbin III wrote:
[...]
Eligible voters have received result notification emails from helios, and may return to the system to audit/verify the results.
For curiosity sake, I'd like to do this. I did get an email from Helios linking to my ballot, but I don't know how to interpret the results:
cast in 2019 Python Steering Committee Election Fingerprint: xxxxxxxxxx
Clicking "Details" displays an enormous but cryptic nested dict:
{"answers": [{"choices": [{"alpha": "xxx...xxx", "beta": "xxx...xxx"}, {"alpha": "xxx...xxx", "beta": "xxx...xxx"}, ...
How do we use this to verify the results?
Thanks in advance.
-- Steven
participants (9)
-
Donald Stufft
-
Ernest W. Durbin III
-
Guido van Rossum
-
Kushal Das
-
Paul Moore
-
Raymond Hettinger
-
Ronald Oussoren
-
Steven D'Aprano
-
Tim Peters