Summary of subcommittee meeting of Thursday 1/23/14
The following are presented as topics for discussion and/or proposals to be voted on in the general committee meeting of February 7.
Scoring vs. Ranking There was some concern expressed that in the first screen, some screeners scored programs all 4s or all 1s. If we use rank instead of score, then no individual scorer can exert disproportionate influence on the result. We also avoid the dilemma of two programs separated by only a few hundredths.
How ranking would be implemented There are a number of scenarios. Our favorite proposal: each member fills out a screen for each curriculum. Once Adam has collected all the screens and averages, he converts all 4 screens from each screener into a ranking.
Example: Committee member Q has scored the curricula as follows:
Program A - 2.6 Program B - 2.0 Program C - 2.9 Program D - 1.8
This is converted into the ranking:
Program C = 1 Program A = 2 Program B = 3 Program D = 4
Presentation to the committee
First, community input will be tabulated and a summary report produced for everyone to review. This summary should be published ASAP, preferably before the general meeting.
At the general meeting Adam will present the rankings in a table, like so:
Program A Program B Program C Program D Rank 1s 12 8 5 1 Rank 2s 5 7 2 11 Rank 3s 4 6 11 4 Rank 4s 4 8 6 7
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) In the event one program gets a simple majority of Rank 1s on the first round, that program is selected. In our committee of 28 members, 15 constitutes a simple majority. In the more likely event that no single program garners a simple majority, we would eliminate the program with the fewest Rank 1s. In the above example, that would be program D. After eliminating D, D would be removed from everyones ranking altogether effectively giving us a ranking of the top 3 programs. In particular, the one person who ranked D highest would see their second choice promoted to a Rank 1, their third choice to a Rank 2, and their fourth choice to a Rank 3. For those of you conversant with eXcel, think of deleting all rankings of D and moving all data up one row. Hope this helps. In the event there is a tie for last place in Rank 1s, we will look at Rank 4s for those two programs. Whichever program has the most Rank 4s will be eliminated. Bye-bye! This process continues until one program garners a simple majority.
Raters complete new screener: (whether scoring or ranking)
Scoring/ranking proposal:
We will summarize each rater by their 1st 2nd 3rd etc. overall choice where the ranks are determined by the scores derived from their scoring shee.
Example: e.x., For each curriculum comput X=the sum of the core scores for the rater, Z=sum of the ease of use scores for the rater, and Y=0.6X+0.4Z. Each rater will get one Y for each curriculum, and the order of the Ys determine the order of their preferences.
Properties: If we use ranks instead of scores then no individual scorer can exert disproportionate influence on the result. A ranking system does not downgrade the influence of any individual scorers, it upgrades the influence of all scorers to the same level.
[Option 2: Same as above but where instead of scoring each criterion we rank, and combine the ranks using the same procedure. Arguments against this are summarized below].
Process proposal: How we use this to come up with a final result.
* Meet and discuss community input, and then rankings are revealed; have open discussion regarding options allowing community and each other to sway each of us to revise our scores.
* Allow people to revise their screener (maybe allowing them to provide a sentence or two about what it is that convinced them to change it).
* Retabulate the rankings and display the number of 1st choices per option.
* Eliminate one with a) fewest first place votes (tie being fewest second place votes), or b) most last place votes.
* Repeat until one is remaining:
Conclusions We are sure: That each committee member will ultimately produce a ranking derived from their new scoring worksheets, and that this is how we will consolidate everyones input (using something in the genus of IRV) and determine a top 1 or 2 Because (we have a whole powerpointfull of reasons) That we will run a first pass, meet to discuss (including the community), and revise our scores Because discussion will make sure everyone is informed and provide an opportunity to involve community feedback. We will all be permitted to revise our scores based on this ranking prior to a retabulation of the final ranks for each rater.
We think probably: That each individual screeners ranking will be based on a total score output by our screener because this makes everyone put in the effort Alternatively: each criterion is ranked by every screener but we dont like this because it is a lot of work and even more tabulation, it opens up far decisions on how to add up ranks to achieve the final overall ranks, and could also appear to outside people that we are just picking our favorites rather than carefully considering the criteria. That each individual screener will have the opportunity to subjectively break ties on their ranking This is vulnerable to slimy dealings but which are easy to detect. But we are not going to deal slimily Any other way will be less neat That after we run the IRV algorithm and come up with a top 2, we will meet to discuss and decide between these. Because its only a few more hours and potentially useful with a binary choice That we will not meet to discuss a third time Because this will take a lot of time and will probably not change opinion much
something in the genus of IRV: Does not really matter what Proposal: eliminate the program with the fewest top votes; as a tiebreaker, eliminate whichever has more last place votes Retally and repeat
Example of report:
A B C D first 9 9 5 1 second 3 7 2 11 third 6 4 11 4 fourth 4 8 6 7