One problem with Oppose in that electoral system is that unlike say RFA you don't know why individual people are opposing, though you can make deductions from patterns. For example, as one might have expected the tension between the WMF and the community over the last two years resulted in a lot of oppose votes for incumbents.

I would like to hope we don't have anyone who simply opposes or indeed supports based on gender, but one of the drawbacks of that system is that people can anonymously do that.

But the biggest drawback of having oppose in that system is that you can't differentiate between people who are voting oppose because they have something against a particular candidate, and people who know one candidate and vote in the logical way to give most effective support for that candidate. ie support the one candidate you know and oppose all the others. I prefer more proportional systems such as the STV system used in Ireland, aside from encouraging people to vote "positively" such systems also tend to elect a more diverse set of candidates.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


On 8 Jun 2015, at 18:57, attolippip <attolippip@gmail.com> wrote:

Pardon me, Zana, but why?
Oppose is just as good as Support, I believe. It means that people have feelings about you.
And you can change that. Indifference is the problem, imho

<small>And I still cannot understand why the voting is not open and public...
We are supposed to get used to express our opinions without fear being (mostly) Wikipedians, aren't we?

If I vote against someone and it means anything to him/her, (s)he can just ask me why and we can talk (we can do it beforehand, of course :))
The same thing is about voting for smb. Is it not interesting to know who supports you and why?
And the other way around. I would love to know what motivates people to vote against me.
It helps to see if one is going in the right direction, whatever they may think about it</small>

Best regards,
antanana
ED of Wikimedia Ukraine

2015-06-08 20:37 GMT+03:00 Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>:

On 6 June 2015 at 18:32, Zana Strkovska <777.zana@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everybody,

Thank you Anne for mention "only one woman candidate for FDC this year", it was me.
I would like to say something: not time, not money is issue for me (I am free lancer, meaning I can manage my time). My theory is that I didn't pass because I didn't answer questions in the way the community wanted.
 
I am not sure how many woman we have who are free to help, serve and travel. But, what I found discourage after mine failure is the oppose votes. One thing is to see how many Wikipedians voted for you, but it's not so pleasant to count oppose votes.

I hope my words could help on why women aren't generally volunteering to run.

Regards,
Zana
(user:Violetova)
 
 
Zana - I would really like to encourage you to post that at the election post-mortem page, perhaps in the section about voting methodology (which is titled "Electoral system").[1]  Your perspective, as a candidate, is really important on this issue.   I have said for a while now that I am unlikely to ever participate in another WMF-related election, but it was only on reading what you wrote here that I realized how demoralizing the opposes are in any of these elections for me as well. 
 
 
Risker/Anne
 

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap