Thanks for pointing out that omission. The info has been available via published minutes of the forum council, but it's better to have a summary in the present category (which is whither the "About" button on the home page leads), so I posted it.

@Toby-Pereira Maybe I can get them with a limited form of screen scraping.

Or maybe @SaraWolk can prevail upon CES to give us the images. I have no sway to even get CES to acknowledge receipt of a message. While she is at it, she could also ask them for an updated dump of the other data, or just the items added or changed since they sent us the dump they sent.

The first image in that post, on the original site (implemented with Discourse) is rendered with a document element as the following HTML would specify:

<img src="https://forum.electionscience.org/uploads/default/optimized/1X/cf86b73999447d4ed4ca89c8029dac48835e5a33_2_577x499.png" alt="Voters" data-base62-sha1="tBRsJE42NBx6MHq3EKBgNtMIsHp" class="d-lazyload" srcset="https://forum.electionscience.org/uploads/default/optimized/1X/cf86b73999447d4ed4ca89c8029dac48835e5a33_2_577x499.png, https://forum.electionscience.org/uploads/default/optimized/1X/cf86b73999447d4ed4ca89c8029dac48835e5a33_2_865x748.png 1.5x, https://forum.electionscience.org/uploads/default/original/1X/cf86b73999447d4ed4ca89c8029dac48835e5a33.png 2x" width="577" height="499">

The reference to it in the data dump that we received from CES and on which I base the archive, looks like this:

<img src="upload://tBRsJE42NBx6MHq3EKBgNtMIsHp.png" alt="Voters|577x499">

upload: is not a legal scheme for use in a URI. Discourse is parsing it and substituting the long version as above.

Maybe in exchange for an annual monetary tribute, CES would be willing to keep the original site up.

https://electionscience.org/voting-methods/runoff-election-the-limits-of-ranked-choice-voting/

In Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), the Supreme Court held that "One Person, One Vote" means that "the weight and worth of the citizens' votes as nearly as is practicable must be the same." The theequalvote document goes on to argue, validly, that the weight and worth is not equal without the balance constraint being met. The logic is that for example if it takes two million voters of one opinion to balance off only one million voters of the opposite opinion, the weight and worth of each person's vote is not the same. Consequently, IRV and FPtP do not provide for "One Person, One Vote" and are therefore not legitimate.

@SaraWolk outside-the-box thinking should be hyphenated.

@rob I am now formatting the dates that are associated to the posts.

Topics used to show all the details, including creation date. I no longer show any details for them, just the title of the topic.

I believe there were no other contexts in which dates showed up, just those two.

Of course, post headers themselves show up in three contexts: posts for a topic, a single post, and search results.

@Toby-Pereira said in STAR-like method ("reverse STAR"?):

Copeland

Which leads down a rabbit-hole all the way back to the middle ages and writings in Latin. https://d-nb.info/1212798317/34

@NevinBR, where I said "they have already taken on the expense of the logistics of IRV", I should have said "they have already taken on the expense of the logistics of IRV, but have repealed IRV."

@SaraWolk I think the version you propose in the sidebar would be fine, except that I would substitute "many" for "a large number of".

Our Internet Domains

We are holding:

votingtheory.org ($14/yr)
votingtheory.com ($9/yr)
votingtheory.net ($12/yr)
voting-theory.com ($9/yr)

Obviously, we have to keep votingtheory.org, because that's our official domain. So I will renew that right after the meeting.

During our founding meeting, I grabbed voting-theory.com (note the hyphen) by mistake. So I'm planning to cancel that.

A user of the old forum advised we grab the .com and .net names to avoid being impersonated by any unfriendly agents who could turn up. I don't know how important this is. If the council decides to keep them and can raise the money other than from me, I will cooperate with the decision. Otherwise, I am inclined to drop them.

Our other money expense is $60/yr. for the server. This could reasonably double if we get a second server in a different city to hold backup data. Currently, my personal server, which I am paying for anyway for other purposes, is holding the backups. I should double check whether the backup mechanism I set up is really working.

As I mentioned, I hope we can recruit someone as treasurer.

As I have also mentioned, in regard to tech support, we are in a more vulnerable position than would be ideal, because it all currently depends on one person (me). I don't mind doing it, but something could always happen to me (as something could happen to any single individual person). If someone can offer back-up support, they should submit their SSH public key.

In solidarity for a better tomorrow (or at least, a tomorrow),

Upgraded the uninstalled forum software NodeBB from v1.13.3 to 1.18.4.

This made it unnecessary to retain a plugin we were using for sending mail with SMTP, as this ability is now supported in NodeBB. This is a good thing, because the plugin is no longer maintained and was depending on a module that had a known security vulnerability.

@sarawolk said in Technical To-do List:

Ideally those two tasks would happen at the same time.

If we can get the images sooner rather than later, I might be able to get them to show up in the archive sooner, which would be useful for readers.

If we can get the updates to the posts sooner, that will also make the archive more valuable. I doubt whether anyone will be posting anything interesting to the old forum. I think just about everyone who might think to post there has had it drilled into them that that forum is supposed to be shut down and that we offer the present one as its replacement.

@rob said in Codepens:

So it is installed? Do I just do this?

Yes, you do.

https://www.votingtheory.org/forum/topic/135/evaluating-single-winner-systems-from-2021-10-18-until-the-next-major-discovery

I believe this is resolved.

So far as I know, this is resolved.

This is achieved.

The single/multi split was there all along. It just wasn't obvious to me because the table of categories only shows a certain number of levels of detail, until you nose in.

Reporting of this supposed issue resulted from a user head-space error on my part. The text area has a handle from which it's possible to expand it.

These goals are mostly achieved.