board77

I no longr care about what is done with options 5 and 6, but there is something said here that is utterly wrong, and I have to speak up about it:

Jn: In my humble opinion, Option 5 is mathematically correct. One may not have more decimal places in a quotient than existed in the dividend and divisor. 80% of 69 votes is 55 votes, and that is what Option 5 achieved.

First of all, this rule about decimal places is only correct in certain contexts. It is used when dealing the uncertainty over measurements in a scientific setting. But there is absolutely no uncertainty here ... there were exactly 55 votes for option 5 or earlier, and 14 votes for option 6 or not at all. If measurements are exact you may take the quotient out to as many decimal places as needed. When comparing a quotient to another number, say 0.8 (which is what 80% is) there is every reason to take out the quotient to as many places to give you the correct answer. Rounding at some arbitrary point, and using that rounding to establish an improper relationship between two numbers, even if it seems "natural", is improper and incorrect. 55/69 < 0.8. This is a simple fact. No amount of rounding can actually change it, though it may mislead one into thinking something false, such as 55/69 >= 0.8.

Second of all, if this decimal rule is followed, the resultant quotient is 1, not 0.80!!! Folks, percentages contain two implied decimal places. The percentage XY% is a shorthand way of writing 0.XY. It is nothing more than that. 55/69 = 0.797 ... But if we follow the rule, then we must round to the nearest one's place, so 55/69 = 1. This rule is clearly wrong in this context. Attempting to apply this rule to a percentage, which is a convention of convenience, is the height of arbitrariness. The dividend and divisor are writtten out to the one's place, so the quotient is written out to the hundredth place??? That is a strange thing to claim.

If those in power want to fudge the results of this vote that is their business. I don't really care anymore. But mathematically this is an affront. Do not claim that this result passes mathematical muster. It simply does not, and no amount of arbitrary and convenient rounding will make it so.


edit: spelling

I am completely and utterly confused. How in the world can either option 5 OR 6 be considered a winner when option 3 got the most votes?

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

Then both 5 an 6 will have "won" and everyone will be happy.

But then we'll have nothing to argue about!

Maria, 5 wins (probably) because (roughly) 80% of people say they want to open at that stage or earlier. It's the "or earlier" part that's confusing a few. This was done because the people who feel it's safe to open by option 3 obviously wouldn't think it's harmful to open by option 5.

MariaH, it was agreed that we would choose the last of all options that accrued 80% support.

We also agreed (I thought) that this would be calculated in the following manner. 80% of the total number of voters would be the number of votes needed. 80% of 69 voters is 55.2 people. Or 55.20 people, if one prefers.

There is no such thing as .2 of a person, so the question before us is whether that should be rounded up to 56 or rounded down to 55.

Jn

MariaHobbit, the way the vote worked is explained in the first post of the thread.

Faramond, I thought Jn was talking about significant figures, not decimal places. That's how I was taught and what I used for years for calculations in the lab. You can multiply 248 by 0.096254 and you don't round the answer to the ones place, you round it to three significant figures since 248 has three, the fewest. The answer is 23.870992, but you round to three significant figures, or 23.9. You also round after the calculation, not before.

If we finish 5 and 6 at the same time, and open afterward, will you be satisfied that the outcome of the vote was observed?

OK, I did read that way back when the poll first opened, but I was really sick at the time and didn't understand it, and figured I wouldn't understand the explanation either, so I just voted.

Now, non-sick.... it still took me 4 readings to get the gist of what you are doing. I hate feeling stupid.

What a weird way to do it.

On principle, I agree with the objection to rounding.

We agreed on a threshold vote -- the threshold was 80%. The 80% threshold is not reached with #5.

We didn't say, the number that arrives closest to the threshold, and there was no talk of rounding up to the nearest whole number if the threshold was not quite reached.

To me it is like a finish line in a race, and moving back the finish line when the favored participant collapses just short of it.

If it takes 55.2 people to equal 80%, then clearly (since we can't have .2 of a person), we need to count the entire next vote (the entire person).

(It may be that practically it doesn't make much difference, but I tend to be more interested in the underlying principle than in the practical results.)

Quote:

If those in power want to fudge the results of this vote that is their business.

Faramond, I really have to say that I am disappointed by this attitude. I, and other people who are temporarily in as you call it "positions of power" (only because someone has to do it) have tried to be as fair and as objective as possible. I engaged in as open and honest a dialogue with you as I could when you first objected. I could have just let this slide thru after you deleted your original objection, but I did not think that would be fair, so I opened it up for discussion. As it stands now, I am satisfied that enough people object to rounding up and declaring no. 5 the choice, that I am willing to set the choice at No. 6. Certainly no one can claim that 94+% does not represent a strong consensus.

But your insistence that your way of looking at is the only possible right way and that the only possible interpretation is that the people "in power" (and particularly me, since I have run this vote from the beginning) were acting unethically in declaring choice no. 5 the winner surprises and saddens me greatly. I really had no idea that you had such a low opinion of me.

The truth is when I started this vote, it did not occur to me (or to anyone else) that the results would be so close to the number that I rather arbitrarily chose as marking a consensus. There is no magical reason why 80.0 % represents more of a concensus then 79.71%. When it did occur to me that there was a chance that this would happen, I clearly stated what my intention would be if it did happen, based on my understanding how benchmarks like this are generally handled (based partly on the Ted Williams story that I shared with you). Not a single person disagreed with me or objected in any way. When it did actually happen, I clearly pointed it out and asked whether anyone objected. When you objected, I engaged in dialogue with you and opened it up to discussion. When it became clear that there were others that at least partly shared your objection, I declared that we should change the results (particularly since it is likely to be a rather moot point of the convention proceeds as it should). And yet you still imply that I have acted improperly.

What more could I have done?

On page two there was a discussion of the rounding problem because the board calculates percentages differently than we did.

On May 9, Voronwe posted the following:

Well the current vote presents an interesting dilemna. As it stands right now. choice 4 is at 78.3783783783783783783783783783784%. Choice 5, with only one vote, is at 80.5555555555555555555555555555556%. Does that single vote really constitute a consensus? I would see no way around declaring it to be so, if the vote were to end now. We can't change the rules after the vote has already started. 80% means 80% (of course, it were 79.7 or something like that, I think we could safely round it up).

Voronwe did exactly what he proposed he would do. Between May 9 and the close of the vote on May 17 no one objected to this very standard and usual rounding method.

Jn

I find this whole thing so mind boggling...that people would be so upset about something so minute. I don't think there was any ill will on Voronwe's part and I still think he did the right thing...and still think #5 should be the winner (this is coming from someone who is nervous about opening!)

This discussion is driving me sick.

I tend to agree that 79.7% is pretty darned close to 80%, and we should move on. But as long as we have members who feel like this (emphasis mine):

Quote:

If those in power want to fudge the results of this vote that is their business

Quote:

To me it is like a finish line in a race, and moving back the finish line when the favored participant collapses just short of it.

I feel there is no way we can live with #5 being the winner. We should focus on #6, and wait the extra few weeks that it will take to get 5 and 6 completed before we open up.

I quite fervently want to open today, and I have felt like that ever since I started here. However, we cannot ignore the possible damage of a lingering feeling that a vote was massaged for some ulterior motive by "those in power".

We are in power, we, the geeks of b77. We rule (AND slide rule, apparently )

#6 it is!



Edited to remove possibly inappropriate text!

I'm not going to comment further than saying that I think Voronwe has done his utmost to explain how the process works and I fully support him in how he's rounded things.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

Did I really say "79.7 or something like that" on May 9?

That's scary.

This is very very silly. The flaws of a democracy. I'm guessing we'll have to put this to a vote in order to decide this?

Those in power is us. Each member of this board.... lest people here not forget this. I am TPTB, yova is TPTB, faramond is TPTB, jn is TPTB..... you get my drift.


Whoa, yova, you want to put it vote before we've had a chance to properly beat the horse dead? Tsk tsk bad Manweista.

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

When it did occur to me that there was a chance that this would happen, I clearly stated what my intention would be if it did happen, based on my understanding how benchmarks like this are generally handled (based partly on the Ted Williams story that I shared with you). Not a single person disagreed with me or objected in any way.

I wasn't aware that this possibility had been discussed and a course of action decided upon (my apologies for not keeping up on the discussion). I agree that objections to rounding up should have been raised when the suggestion of rounding up was first made.

Oh, and just because I can't spell "Guinness" I don't get on the TPTB list?

<sulks>

Anthy, LOL!
(Edit: there aren't any women on TED's TPTB list! )

And good points in your previous post, though sad!

I just hope that we do get both articles done at the same time.

Personally, I think 79.7 is as good as 80 - I don't know much about maths, but I'd round to the next number that makes sense, i.e. when you're talking about money you'd want no more than two digits after the comma, because there is no money unit for that. If you are talking about people, IMO, you want a number without a comma, because you can't have fractions of people, and .7 clearly rounds up to the next higher number.

Quote:

Those in power is us. Each member of this board.... lest people here not forget this. I am TPTB, yova is TPTB, faramond is TPTB, jn is TPTB..... you get my drift.

Exactly, precisely correct, TED.

Quote:

I agree that objections to rounding up should have been raised when the suggestion of rounding up was first made.

Actually, I did not point out that I raised the issue of rounding up earlier to suggest that objections should only have been raised then. I just pointed it out to show that I have tried to be as open and honest as I could (though I thought about suggesting that people post their questions in a separate thread so that I could answer them and then lock the thread). I don't think that people can be expected to keep up with every statement that is made in a thread like this. This is exactly why I asked again whether there were any objections when it turned out, apparently, to be exactly what I had suggested that it might be. And why I asked again if there were other objections after Faramond made, and then removed, his objection.

Fortunately, as I've said before, its a moot point because the two choices are likely to be identical. If the article on ownership is ratified later then the article on the Mayor's position, then we will open when the article on ownership is ratified. As far as I am concerned, this has been a great success, even with the minor speedbump at the end. I think its a demostration of board77's continued development as a community and shows that despite being made up of many strong-willed individuals with sometimes conflicting views and principles we are setting up something that is built to last.

And that is an encouraging thought.