Hi Florence, I can bring my experience in organizing Wiki Loves Monuments and Wiki Loves Earth in Switzerland and recently being member of the international team.
The big constraint of WLX is the timeframe. In one month the local teams have to send the list of winners and in few months the international jury to select the winners.
Last year in Switzerland we have received the same comments about transparency, I agree with them but it's difficult to find a good balance between time and transparency.
As member of the international jury we gave also a list of potential jury tools to be used but at the moment WLX jury tool is the more flexible even if not the most complete.
Within IEG program there was a discussion about the financial support to improve the old jury tool used by WLM (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Modernize_the_Wiki_Loves_Monument...), but this option has been excluded because Narvaez sent the information to discontinue the development of the old jury tool, at the moment the tool of Ilya is a good option and the international team of WLM asked to use it also for this contest.
At the moment I think that it makes sense to support better the WLX jury tool, but I have to add that the technology used by Ilya is not simple (it uses Scala, for instance, and this is a new language with small group of developers).
Kind regards
On 14.03.2016 12:14, Florence Devouard wrote:
Hello guys
I wanted to give you a first feedback regarding the organization of WLA and in particular the organization of the jury and of the global vote.
The reason why I offer this feedback now is because I read in the local teams feedback that the votes should be more transparent.
I could not agree more...