The upside to staggered votes is that some membership of the OCT team is guaranteed to remain constant over any period less than a year. Do you think that dilution of minority votes is likely to be a serious problem? If so, how could we address it without losing continuity? Three staggers of 3 people each, and elections every 4 months?
Fair, as I've seen it best defined, is "the choice that the most people want, wins," which in a situation with more than two choices means, "the choice that wins more than other choices in pairwise comparison, wins." And the mathematicans report that Condorcet is the best way to determine this for many-choice, single-winner. But I haven't seen any research on how that applies to many-choice, many-winner. Can you point me to some, or better yet, summarize? If we stack votes (5 votes for a top choice, 4 for a second choice), my intuition is that we are then open to more gaming, and potentially less fairness by the above definition. And we wouldn't be able to produce a count that says, 55 people out of 180 wanted X as a team member.
