CMS week - CB 120 …… Proposed changes to the Spokesperson election procedures Report from the Reflection group Report from the reflection Group 2 nd of October 2018 � 1
Reflection Group about CMS Spokesperson election procedures Reflection Group Membership ▪ In February the CB had a discussion ▪ DE: Thomas Hebbeker about the length of the SP’s term and ▪ France: Marc Besancon the election procedure. ▪ Italy: Paolo Giacomelli ▪ JINR: Igor Golutvin ▪ We decided to proceed with gathering ▪ Other-member-states: Paris wider views on the SP election procedure. Sphicas ▪ A survey was conducted, the results were ▪ Other-A: Brajesh Choudhury presented in the April CMS week and ▪ Other-B: A.Sanchez-Hernandez CB meeting. ▪ Switzerland: Ben Kilminster ▪ UK: Nick Wardle ▪ A Reflection Group (RG) was created in April ▪ US: Greg Snow / Meenakshi and asked to consider the topic and work Narain out a proposal. ▪ DO: Isabell Melzer-Pellmann ▪ YSC: Hannsjörg Weber + ▪ In June the RG presented some findings. Tamas Almos Vami ▪ Secretary: Quentin Ingram ▪ CB chair team ▪ Now the RG presents a proposal for collaboration for wide discussion and to collect feedback. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 2
SP election process: proposed changes The Reflection Group met over the summer and prepared a proposal. ▪ This should be discussed widely in the collaboration - see mail to all CMS members last Friday - a presentation in the CB meeting today ▪ CB decisions on each part are planned for December 2018 (earliest) Proposal: ▪ The collaboration should benefit from the participation of a broader constituency in the SP-election process. ▪ Areas where it is proposed to change our procedures are: 1. the nomination process 2. the interaction of the candidates with the collaboration 3. the election/voting procedure CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 3
Proposal: Change of SP election procedures current current current CMS CMS candidates PhD-M&O PhD-M&O other organized 1 day before other CBI CBI meeting at election CERN CMS Nominations Ballot box Open CMS Nomination Interaction Election Bi CMS candidates CMS PhD-M&O organized 3-4 weeks PhD-M&O other regional before CBI other CBI meeting s election CMS Ballot box Nominations proposed proposed proposed CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 4
RG proposal 1: nomination ▪ Each CMS member, who has a PhD and is on the author list, should be allowed to nominate Spokesperson candidates. ▪ This is similar to the nomination procedure for L1 and L2 positions, in which the call for nominations is sent to the entire collaboration. ▪ Experience shows that this usually leads to well thought-out candidate lists. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 5
For the candidate list: Current procedures include: ▪ Three months before the [SP] election: ▪ The Election Committee has the list of nominated candidates. These are then asked about their willingness to stand, and in the case of the election of the Spokesperson, CERN's agreement to the candidates must be secured. No change is proposed to this. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 6
RG proposal 2: candidate’s campaigns ▪ Several open meetings with the SP candidates should be organised 3-4 weeks before the election. Participation by all regions should be made possible. ▪ Such organised meetings will help the candidates to inform the collaboration and increase transparency in this step of the election process. ▪ These meetings are necessary in order to have informed voters. ▪ The meetings should be organised and chaired by the election committee; the style of the meeting should be such that it remains unbiased. ▪ Candidates should present their statements, followed by time for questions and discussion. ▪ If possible, these meetings should be recorded and made available to those who are unable to attend. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 7
RG proposal 3: election procedure ▪ The proposal is guided by the following principles: ▪ The voting system should be simple and easy to understand. ▪ The special role of the CBIs is retained, who cast votes in parallel. ▪ Every CMS member for whom M&O-A is paid should be able to express his/her opinion. ▪ The definition of voting rights for CBIs is defined in the CMS constitution, section 2.2. It should be applied in the same way as it is currently. ▪ CBI participation for institutes or clusters of institutes with 3 or more members. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 8
RG proposal 3: election procedure ▪ The election is organized by a web-based vote where all scientists participate for whom M&O-A is paid. ▪ Team leaders (CBIs) vote N times. ▪ We believe N=4 is a good value. ▪ Simulations suggest that the value of N=4 would give the popular and CBI components approximately equal weight. ▪ This retains influence for the smaller institutions, while also enabling broader participation in parallel. Very small institutes (< 3 member) participate in the election. ▪ For large institutes the CBI vote does not play a large role, though the different opinions in the group can be represented. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 9
RG proposal 3: election procedure ▪ The election is organized by a web-based vote where all scientists participate for whom M&O-A is paid. ▪ In our community satisfying experience exists using commercial systems: D0, CDF, in CMS, CERN developed a voting system in use at CERN and elsewhere. ▪ For the exact implementation details we propose to consider two options: 1. a single round of voting and the so-called preferential voting system 2. two rounds of voting, where the top most voted candidates enter into a run-off election. ▪ Option 2 is pretty much the current system. In a first round of voting the two candidates with the highest number of votes go forward to a second run-off vote. It is expected that a voting period of ~2 weeks is required. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 10
Election options Option 1: Option 2: > Election organised as ▪ Election is done voting for the preferential (ranked) vote. preferred candidate. > Voters places a candidate in ▪ The winner has to receive first place, one in second > 50% of valid votes. place and so on, i.e. none, ▪ If not achieved in round 1: some or all candidates’ positions are assigned in a ▪ 2 candidates with most votes ranking participate in run-off election ▪ Winner is the candidate with most votes. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 11
Option 1: Preferential (ranked) voting Several ways exist to find the winner in an election using ranked voting It is proposed to use the “Instant Runoff” (IRV) procedure. > Instant Runoff: > The candidate with the fewest votes for first place is deleted from all ballots and the subordinate candidates move up. > The procedure is repeated from step 2 until only two candidates remain. The person with the highest number of votes wins > This process is repeated until one candidate receives a majority of the ballots cast in that round. > The procedure can be terminated as soon as a candidate has more than half of the votes for the first place. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 12
Work of the reflection group ▪ We have looked into several ways of defining the winner in a preferential vote. ▪ There is scientific literature about voting systems, based on mathematical and statistical analysis and simulations. - It contains mathematical criteria by which voting methods are compared. ▪ We looked at simulations ourselves. ▪ We looked at resistance to tactical voting. ▪ We believe that the ranked voting and the IRV procedure is robust for the CMS SP election. ▪ The advantage is: the result is derived in one round of voting. ▪ People may be hesitant to ‘downgrade’ colleagues by ranking them low. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 13
CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 14
CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 15
CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 16
Next steps proposed: ▪ The Reflection Group met over summer and prepared a proposal. ▪ It is presented to the collaboration for wide discussion and to collect feedback. ▪ Feedback, preferably in writing, is appreciated by the CB team and the RG members. ▪ The RG will meet again to consider feedback and suggestions received. ▪ Depending on the feedback received we foresees to put the proposal for decision in the CB meeting in December 2018 or February 2019. CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 17
▪ Backup CB Team - Matthias Kasemann | CMS CB 120 | 2 nd of October 2018 | page � 18
Recommend
More recommend
