On 6 mrt 2009, at 00:03, Achim Schneider wrote:

Eelco Lempsink wrote:

...

The poll won't be public, but every subscriber to Haskell-Cafe will get a (private) voting ballot by email.

What about us gmane users?

Good point! All of you can send me your email address (directly, please don't use the group/list) if you want to participate. I'll merge that with the subscribers list. Please include "haskell logo voting ballot request" in the subject or body and write a small but unique message so I can (more or less) check you're not just trying to get extra votes and to make it more likely it passes my spamfilter (I'll check my spamfolder, but with the thousands messages a day pouring in to it I might miss your message). As Magnus Therning remarked, I also trust "the size of the group, and the extremely high standard of the members when it comes to moral fibre, common sense, intelligense, etc" to prevent duplication or at least a significant impact on the result ;) Consider yourself added to the ballot list, Achim, and thanks for bringing this point up. -- Regards, Eelco Lempsink

...

...

I'd love to hear about anything that I missed and/or that might influence the voting process in a significant way.  (There are probably some people subscribed with multiple addresses, but I'll be using the subscriber list from yesterday, so signing up now with lots of addresses won't get you more ballots ;)

I was wondering if you were addressing duplication. I've been subscribed to café for a long time with at least two email addresses (work and home) but I don't think I should be getting two votes.

Given the size of the group, and the extremely high standard of the members when it comes to moral fibre, common sense, intelligense, etc, etc, do we really need to enforce prevention of duplication?

Well, that is one possible solution (let it ride). I don't know what the level of email address duplication is, so I don't know the risk. Voting systems generally have to make a lot of effort to be fair, otherwise detractors can reasonably claim that the result is not valid. And as this is somewhat of a bike-shed level decision, you should expect a great deal of interest and passion! Alistair ***************************************************************** Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message, and any attachments, may contain confidential and/or privileged material. It is intended solely for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. *****************************************************************

Another alternative, perhaps we rank the first n we care about, and regard the rest as ranked as low as possible? Since Condorcet allows ties, it should work -- I don't know if it _technically_ allows for skipping ranks, though, but I imagine it would still work... Ashley Yakeley wrote:

Eelco Lempsink wrote:

...

The list with options can be found here (for now): http://community.haskell.org/~eelco/poll.html Notice that some (very) similar logos are grouped as one option (thanks to Ian Lynagh) All submissions compete, so that still makes more than a 100 options!

The voting system we'll use is the Condorcet Internet Voting System (http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html).

So ranking all 100+ items on the Condorcet ballot is a bit of a daunting task. However, if we get a rough idea of the favourites, we can each cut down a bit on the work.

For instance, suppose 82 and 93 are very popular. You might not like either of them, but it's worth ranking them on your ballot (after the ones you do like) if you have a preference between them. But there's less need to rank the ones no-one likes.

I'm currently liking

30 (specifically, 30.7) 58 61 (specifically, the second image) 62

Excerpts from Ashley Yakeley's message of Sun Mar 08 17:19:43 -0600 2009:

Eelco Lempsink wrote:

...

The list with options can be found here (for now): http://community.haskell.org/~eelco/poll.html Notice that some (very) similar logos are grouped as one option (thanks to Ian Lynagh) All submissions compete, so that still makes more than a 100 options!

The voting system we'll use is the Condorcet Internet Voting System (http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html).

I'm currently liking

.... 61 (specifically, the second image)

Forgive my asking for even more options here, (plenty of paint to cover the shed as it is), but regarding 61, a couple of those are in my top few, while the rest rank considerably lower. Would it be possible to distinguish them like the ones in 30? No worries if not, seems there may need to be some refinement process after this round anyway. -- wmw

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Benjamin L. Russell wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:19:43 -0700, Ashley Yakeley wrote:

...

[...]

I'm currently liking

30 (specifically, 30.7) 58 61 (specifically, the second image) 62

It would be nice to be able to specify a specific member image of a group of images; for example, the second image in group 61. Currently, none of the member images in group 61 is individually numbered; will we be able to choose a specific image from this kind of group?

Another reason condorcet voting is nice is that there is no need to group "similar" items together. Condorcet voting eliminates the "spoiler candidate" effect, so having N almost identical entries won't adversely affect that "group" (by spreading out the votes for that "group" among more "sub-entries" than for "groups" with only one entry in it). So actually I don't understand whey the logos are grouped at all, they could all just be listed individually, and then people can put them all at the same rank ("make tie" in the interface) if they don't care which one of the group they want, or they can differentiate between them if they like. You could possibly name them "60 a", "60 b" etc. to indicate that they are similar, but there's no reason not to allow people to differentiate between them if tehy so choose. -- Sebastian Sylvan +44(0)7857-300802 UIN: 44640862

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:13:40AM +0000, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:

Another reason condorcet voting is nice is that there is no need to group "similar" items together.

I think the plan is that once a logo "class" is chosen, we'll have another vote for the actual colour scheme etc to be used, if applicable. Yes, we could have done this in a single vote, but then people would need to spend time creating 30 variants of each logo, and we'd be ranking 3000, rather than 100, options. Thanks Ian

I agree that we should use the first round of voting to learn what the general consensus of the Haskell community is on a logo design "idea" (and to filter out the non-viable logos). In the spirit of bikeshedding, I would love to see---and would volunteer to spend part of a day editing, say, the top one or two logos, in Photoshop---generating numerous variations on fonts, colors (text, emblem and background), and relative font/emblem sizes. (Alternately, the original author of the favorite logo(s) could produce said variations.) Then I think we should vote on the final minor variations. I can *almost* picture a few of the current logos becoming the Final logo, but not As Is; there are many great ideas but some of them (or combinations of a few of them) could be improved in minor ways, bringing things (at least to me) up to professional level for a logo. (cf. the python.org logo) Jared. On 3/9/09, Ian Lynagh wrote:

On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:13:40AM +0000, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:

...

Another reason condorcet voting is nice is that there is no need to group "similar" items together.

I think the plan is that once a logo "class" is chosen, we'll have another vote for the actual colour scheme etc to be used, if applicable.

Yes, we could have done this in a single vote, but then people would need to spend time creating 30 variants of each logo, and we'd be ranking 3000, rather than 100, options.

Thanks

Ian

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ashley Yakeley wrote:

Eelco Lempsink wrote:

The list with options can be found here (for now):

...

http://community.haskell.org/~eelco/poll.html Notice that some (very) similar logos are grouped as one option (thanks to Ian Lynagh) All submissions compete, so that still makes more than a 100 options!

The voting system we'll use is the Condorcet Internet Voting System ( http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html).

So ranking all 100+ items on the Condorcet ballot is a bit of a daunting task. However, if we get a rough idea of the favourites, we can each cut down a bit on the work.

For instance, suppose 82 and 93 are very popular. You might not like either of them, but it's worth ranking them on your ballot (after the ones you do like) if you have a preference between them. But there's less need to rank the ones no-one likes.

I'm pretty sure this is precisely how the system works. You bring the ones you care about to the top and rank them, and everything else shares a rank at the bottom (or you could pick a few of those that you really dislike and put them even lower than the default rank). But the point is that you shouldn't need to rank every single logo, just the ones you care about and then you leave the rest at the default rank. -- Sebastian Sylvan +44(0)7857-300802 UIN: 44640862

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:

Hello Sebastian,

Monday, March 9, 2009, 1:08:50 PM, you wrote:

i think we should make 2-stage voting, like in F1

after 1st stage we will know which logos are most popular and therefore are real candidates, so we can select among them

Sounds reasonable, although I thought that those advanced voting systems are also intended for avoiding multiple elections. Then again, if both elections lead to the same ranking at the top, and especially yield the same top candidate, then this proves the soundness of the method. On the other hand, a dictatorship would also satisfy this property. Yes, I know, there was a Nobel Prize about that ...

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Sebastian Sylvan < sebastian.sylvan@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Bulat Ziganshin < bulat.ziganshin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello Sebastian,

Monday, March 9, 2009, 1:08:50 PM, you wrote:

i think we should make 2-stage voting, like in F1

after 1st stage we will know which logos are most popular and therefore are real candidates, so we can select among them

One of the reasons condorcet voting is good is that this isn't needed. If everyone is consistent in which logos they prefer the results from second voting stage will be identical to just picking the condorcet voting from the first stage.

"picking the condorcet winner" -- Sebastian Sylvan +44(0)7857-300802 UIN: 44640862

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:

2009/3/9 Sebastian Sylvan

...

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Bulat Ziganshin < bulat.ziganshin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello Sebastian,

Monday, March 9, 2009, 1:08:50 PM, you wrote:

i think we should make 2-stage voting, like in F1

after 1st stage we will know which logos are most popular and therefore are real candidates, so we can select among them

One of the reasons condorcet voting is good is that this isn't needed. If everyone is consistent in which logos they prefer the results from second voting stage will be identical to just picking the condorcet voting from the first stage.

The interface to the condorcet voting site is actually pretty good (try out one of the samples), so it's pretty easy to just "move to top" the ones you prefer and move the ones you dislike to the bottom. Then you can ignore the vast majority of "don't care" logos in the middle, and just fine tune your ranking at the top and bottom.

With so many candidates, I think a two-stage process would be helpful. For example, what if a variant of a logo I liked ended up being popular, but I missed that one and didn't rank it (not unreasonable, there are a hundred logos). After the top candidates have been selected, I will surely notice it up there.

Of course, introducing multi-stage voting breaks some of the properties we'd like a voting system to have. But, alas, you (provably) can't have it all :-)

It just seems like duplicated work to me. They're still few enough that I can scan through them and multi-select the ones I like and then click "move to top" in a pretty short amount of time (and then refine the ranking if I care). Having to vote twice just seems like a lot of extra effort for questionable added benefit. Maybe one vote requires people to be more careful about their rank (though you'd hope that any minor mistakes, such as the one you describe, would be random and therefore roughly cancel out over a few hundred votes), but at least it won't require them to vote twice. I say leave the plan the way it is. It's Good Enough (TM). The hassles of more delays while we go through an arduous processes isn't worth any theoretical minor gains. -- Sebastian Sylvan +44(0)7857-300802 UIN: 44640862

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:

Hello Sebastian,

Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 1:08:38 AM, you wrote:

...

It just seems like duplicated work to me. They're still few enough that I can scan through them and multi-select the ones I like and then click "move to top" in a pretty short amount of time (and then refine the ranking if I care).

and if none of them will be among 10 most popular - it is no difference for you which one will be finally selected?

Clearly not, because if I did have a preference among them I would've ranked them - if I didn't then I must not care either way. I suspect 99% will have a few favourites, and then they will have a few that they object to, and for the rest they just don't care which ones win. Expressing that with the proposed system is easy. -- Sebastian Sylvan +44(0)7857-300802 UIN: 44640862

On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 10:08 +0000, Sebastian Sylvan wrote:

But the point is that you shouldn't need to rank every single logo, just the ones you care about and then you leave the rest at the default rank.

You'll also want to rank the popular ones even if you don't like them. -- Ashley Yakeley