I have traditionally looked primarily at percentage support, but I also look at other factors... mostly as a "sanity check" on the results.
(For example, if there was a candidate who somehow got only 30 supports and 3 opposes, I would consider that to be quite odd. That's an extreme example.)
Also, traditionally, I have tended to view past experience as a very important factor in appointing people to expansion seats, if any.
--Jimbo
George Herbert wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 10:18 AM, Mike R tacodeposit@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 11:52 AM, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 2007 3:26 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL RESULT. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMAL OFFICIAL COUNT. THE RAW DATA IS ALL PUBLIC, HOWEVER...
I for one welcome our shiny new Arbcom overlords, pending vote results confirmation and the official announcements:
Newyorkbrad (97.4% support !!!) FT2 FayssalF Sam Blacketer Deskana
I'm confused what Sam is doing among these five - he's 7th in new votes. Wasn't net support the criterion that Jimbo used in the past?
I believe percentage support as expressed by [support votes / (support votes + oppose votes)] has always been used to rank candidates.
That's my recollection and what I calculated them by.
If I'm wrong I apologize and will go stand in the corner for a while (have to anyways, my work computer is borken).