[Foundation-l] Unable to vote

[Chad]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I cannot support a requirement of adminship. That would disenfranchise a significant portion of the community.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ryan <wiki.ral315 at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 7:38:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Unable to vote
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Adminship is politicized on all the larger projects, causing a lot of
>> experienced, competent, deeply invested users to have zero interest in
>> adminship.  It's a mismatch.
>>
>> The point of the edit count limit is to include all regular editors
>> not just a cabal, but to add some friction against someone minting a
>> lot of sock accounts. Its fine that it includes a few crazy people,
>> since they should be offset by the large number of fairly sane people.
>>
>
> I don't think that including administrators is a problem so long as we
> include non-administrators as well.  But that doesn't mean we can't give
> administrators a little boost, like saying "you don't have to get the 50
> edits" or whatever it may be.  Cabalism worries aside, administrators are
> trusted users, and that's really the only metric to test whether a user is
> "trusted".  I think that trusted users should get the benefit of the doubt
> regarding activity.
>
> For future elections, I'd change the "X edits since January 1" to instead
> reflect "X edits since June 31 of last year", which gives more leeway.  I'd
> also add in the following additions to suffrage (pick any or all):
>
> * Adminship on any project, combined with the 600 edits, gives a user voting
> rights.  This requires admins to have been active once, but ensures that
> users who we know are trusted and valuable members of the community can vote
> regardless of their activity in the prior 6-12 months.
>
> * Membership on any Wikimedia board, committee, or on OTRS.  No edit count
> requirements.
>
> * Any developers, chosen by the Chief Technical Officer (brion) who have
> shown sufficient dedication to the project that he feels they deserve
> suffrage.  I'm not sure if there are any devs like this who don't already
> make it by edit count, or because they have shell access, but this could
> conceivably come up.
>
> * I don't know how we would develop a metric for mailing list suffrage, and
> I'm not sure it's ideal to do so.  Open to suggestions, of course, but I'm
> not sure "X posts" is a good metric.
>
> Anyone who meets these requirements could petition the Committee up until
> about a week before the election, and they would be added to the valid voter
> list prior to voting starting.
>
> Let's remember, of course, that those denied suffrage are a small minority
> of the community.  They're of course a very valid part of the community, and
> I think we should try to fix this situation, but this is not, for example,
> likely to affect the election significantly, and certainly it won't affect
> the fairness of the election.
>
> --
> [[User:Ral315]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Not to mention, sysops+friends screams of cabalism...

-Chad