Delegate/Community Voting

[Laura O]

I think it's definitely an *indicator*. What's more, it's objective, and doesn't take any work to figure out for a competitor.

I do take your point.
At her first competition, I once asked a friend to read Article A before judging, and she was almost better than some "experienced" judges.

My explanation might have been a bit misleading.
Well, someone who decides about regulation changes should be representing the community (even if it is the local community), I think everyone agrees on that. So a reason to vote for removing feet should not be "I don't like feet, it s*cks" but something like "feet has a lot of appeal to the audience, but it's actually not very popular and quite time-assuming". And this is nothing that just comes from competing often or in a number of countries, but from being interested in these topics and also taking them seriously. This is probably arrogant and a bit harsh, but when I apply several of criteria mentioned in this thread, I find more than a few people who don't have this competency from my point of view.
That's why I would prefer a recommendation system to static criteria. A single recommendation from one delegate might be biased towards personal interests and extending this to two or more might disregard competitors in some regions, but I still think that this is more reliable and representing the community better.

 

[aashritspidey]

Why not allow one country one vote.. All cubers from a country can vote, And the majority will be considered the vote of that country

 

[AvGalen]

I hear a lot of "we would like to do more, but we don't have the manpower" and at the same time (qualified) people are applying but not accepted.
It seems like all the focus has been on getting things organised and documented in github, but almost nobody is using it.
It seems like the newest regulations are the most controversial, need the most discussion and are likely to be (partially) changed/reverted again.

From the outside it looks like the regulations and WRC need a big overhaul. Maybe we can have a Skype/FaceBook/Hangout meeting sometime to discuss this in a much more efficient way than "2 TLDR posts on a forum every 24 hours"

 

[hcfong]

Does anyone have suggestions for maintaining a voting body of cubers that 1) isn't tied to strict seniority criteria, and 2) is as easy as possible to maintain?
We need to be able to select people who can balance the mission of the WCA with practical reality.

I am very much in favour of keeping things small, and do things at a local level. I don't think the WCA as a whole needs to set detailed criteria for who is eligible to be on a voting body. Just set a number of essential criteria and maintain the voting body on a regional scale. In summary, my suggestion would be:

- The WCA sets essential criteria. My suggestion would be: Must be an active cuber (been to a competition within the last 12 months) and must have the support of the local cubing community.
- The WCA decides the votes distribution, for example in proportion with the number of active cubers in a region. So a region with more active cubers have more voters.
- Each region (my suggestion would be regions headed by a senior delegate) maintains its own voting body. They decide how members of the voting community as selected, in line with the essential criteria set by the WCA.
- To ensure the voting body is up-to-date, a new voting body is selected every 2 years.

I believe this idea has a number of advantages:
- By maintaining the voting body locally, it will result in less work for the WCA.
- It allows for regional discretion in selecting suitable people.
- By organising it locally, the members of the voting body are much closer to the community the represent, than when they are selected by the WCA as a whole.

Of course, this idea is not perfect and there are lots of other ways to do it. But I think it's a decent idea and fairly low maintainance.

 

[uberCuber]

- The WCA sets essential criteria. My suggestion would be: Must be an active cuber (been to a competition within the last 12 months) and must have the support of the local cubing community.

Being active is definitely important, but I'd suggest something longer. One can still be an active and knowledgeable member of the community while living in an area that doesn't have competitions very often. I don't see the way competitions run changing so drastically that everyone who hasn't competed in a year and a half has to be considered 'behind the times.'

 

[hcfong]

Being active is definitely important, but I'd suggest something longer. One can still be an active and knowledgeable member of the community while living in an area that doesn't have competitions very often. I don't see the way competitions run changing so drastically that everyone who hasn't competed in a year and a half has to be considered 'behind the times.'

That's not my point. My point is that someone who hasn't been to a competition for over 12 months can no longer be considered active. And there are very few places (and I limit myself here to places where there is a cubing community) where there are not at least 1 competition a year.

 

[Dene]

That's not my point. My point is that someone who hasn't been to a competition for over 12 months can no longer be considered active. And there are very few places (and I limit myself here to places where there is a cubing community) where there are not at least 1 competition a year.

I'm trying to stay out of this discussion in general, but there are many reasons why one might not attend a competition for more than a year. For example, in New Zealand things have been quiet competition-wise for a few years now, and if you live in Christchurch, and the only competition is in Auckland, that's a few hundred dollars and a significant inconvenience to get there. And what if you're busy that weekend? It's not an unrealistic situation, as most people probably end up with plans at least one weekend a month, if not a lot more. Also, it's a lot harder for people that rely on their parents.

It's probably less obvious to you because you live in a tiny country with lots of competitions around. In a country like New Zealand or Australia it isn't so easy. I can't even imagine how difficult it is for some people in South America.

 

[Carrot]

I'm trying to stay out of this discussion in general, but there are many reasons why one might not attend a competition for more than a year. For example, in New Zealand things have been quiet competition-wise for a few years now, and if you live in Christchurch, and the only competition is in Auckland, that's a few hundred dollars and a significant inconvenience to get there. And what if you're busy that weekend? It's not an unrealistic situation, as most people probably end up with plans at least one weekend a month, if not a lot more. Also, it's a lot harder for people that rely on their parents.

It's probably less obvious to you because you live in a tiny country with lots of competitions around. In a country like New Zealand or Australia it isn't so easy. I can't even imagine how difficult it is for some people in South America.

but if you didn't attend a comp in 1 year you are no longer comp active. Yes it's not nice for some people that they can't be considered comp active, but on the other hand, would you want people who doesn't have recent competition experience to set the rules? regulations keeps changing slightly, same does competition procedures, therefore it only makes sense to let people with somewhat recent experience take the final decisions.

And let's say you are have lots of experience, but you are no longer considered comp active, then the active people would most likely still listen to your good points and get influenced by your good points.. (in other words, you are still voting without actually placing a vote.)

 

[AvGalen]

...I believe this idea has a number of advantages:
- By maintaining the voting body locally, it will result in less work for the WCA.
...
- By organising it locally, the members of the voting body are much closer to the community the represent, than when they are selected by the WCA as a whole.
...

I think this would actually be a lot of work for the WCA. First they have to define regions, than appoint a regional maintainer, and than combine the information from all the regional maintainers. What you want would be a simple query on the WCA database
And I wouldn't want to represent the Dutch community for example. I always try to represent the entire community, even if it would be negative for me personally.

 

[hcfong]

I think this would actually be a lot of work for the WCA. First they have to define regions, than appoint a regional maintainer, and than combine the information from all the regional maintainers. What you want would be a simple query on the WCA database
And I wouldn't want to represent the Dutch community for example. I always try to represent the entire community, even if it would be negative for me personally.

The WCA has already defined regions for senior delegates (https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/delegates) and I think this regional division could work fine for this purpose.
The senior delegate of that region will be responsible for appointing a maintainer for that region.

A simply query on the WCA database is fine, but I think we need to allow for regional discretion when deciding who is eligible. A universal set of criteria, such as the one you proposed earlier, has the problem that it doesn't apply to regions where there aren't as many competitions as there are here. Here, we are in the fortunate position to have a competition within a few hours travel pretty much every month, but as Dene says, that's the the case everywhere.

I'm all for a single universal voting system, and I think a simple query on the WCA database would do the trick, but selecting the voters and maintaining a voting body, should be a regional matter, with only minimal interference from the WCA, who will only set as few as possible essential requirements. It's up to the regions to decide what criteria they use to meet those requirements.