During the Addendum period, there should be a course set for Final Voting.
I'm not sure if there is a need to reduce the sites for final voting.
Do we narrow voting down (2nd round), or include all seconded proposals?
- If we do 'trim' our large # of nominations, how? What is the timeframe?
- If we keep all proposals in final voting, how feasible is this from a IT/web design standpoint?2nd Decision:
Final Voting format - 10 sites per region (C/N balance) or alternative format(s) (for example, # of sites based on number of proposals?)
- If we choose to place restrictions on voting (C/N balance & specific number) how challenging is this from an IT/web design standpoint?
- If we choose few or no restrictions (or limited region-free) voting what are the pros/cons (I have my own opinion based on the 2014 results, but it would be useful to hear other voices)Here are some quotes from users sharing their ideas:
Sorry if I missed anyone (I tried to gather some diverse opinions)
I feel uncomfortable assigning the same number of candidates per region, but I agree with winterkjm this might be the easiest solution. Allowing "region-free" candidates will automatically go in favour of Europe/North America.
I further support the approach proposed by winterkjm to reduce the number of sites per region.
Are we comfortable with a 60-40 ratio between cultural and mixed/natural. Considering how underrepresented natural sites are I would propose 50-50.
By putting side constraints on the voting, we will only make it harder and more complex, but I don't see us achieving much. A constraint should actually make a difference and I doubt they will.
My proposal would still be to stick with the established 5* rating scale and compute the whs.org rating based on that. No regions, not sub classes, just 0 to 5* per site.
And I am almost afraid to suggest this, but with 440 accepted nominations at the moment, might it be more appropriate to go with a "Top 100 missing" list?
* I like the idea of being able to vote for extra sites in regions according to personal preference, but I imagine this could be rather challenging for Els/Nan to implement from a coding perspective.
If our proposals are going to be limited to UNESCO regions of the country that owns a territory rather than geographical region, then I am absolutely in favor of additional region-free sites. Europe and North America is a challenging enough UNESCO region without having to consider territories that exist in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Still, fifteen region-free sites seems a bit high; I'd prefer something more like nine per region (minimum four natural/mixed), leaving five region-free sites.