On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
John, please explain what your point is here. I mean
really, picking on
individual people who voted in the election? That's crossing the line,
especially as they met the voting eligibility criteria for the election
involved, which happened 16 months ago. I expect better from you.
My data is exhaustive, picking on _all_ voters (that I could find) who
were eligible via the WMF staff criteria or used their WMF staff
account to vote, so we can see the utility that criteria had last
It was in response to Marc asking a question, which I roughly
answered. Itzik's initial email said that WMF now has a voting power
of 12%, if the 2015 WMF election has the same turnout as last time.
IIRC, the WMF voting power for the 2013 election was around 9%. That
is enough voting power to control who is on the board. Even only
counting the WMF staff who actually voted in 2013, IIRC they had a
realised voting power which was able to determine which of three
candidates was in slot #2 and #3. I am not suggesting that they voted
as a bloc, and do I believe they are the largest potential bloc of
As Marc suggests many of those people are also community members who
would be eligible due to the community edit count based criteria. I
have quantified it to ~5 votes in the 2013 election which used the WMF
staff eligibility criteria, which is 0.27% of the 1809 total votes.
If you would like to propose different voting
eligibility criteria for
future elections, including the one that will take place some time around
June 2015, please do so
I already did that: 50 edits for each year of employment, and be
inclusive of all public wikis.
- perhaps consider offering to chair the election
committee for next year.
IMO the election must be run by a third party, as happened prior to
2013, by SPI.
Adequate staff support from WMF is also needed.
But insinuating that some people didn't deserve
to vote, or shouldn't have been allowed to vote using a staff account, when
that was in the eligibility criteria for many previous elections (not just
the 2013 one) is just rude. As best I can tell, there were no concerns
expressed in the lead-up the 2013 election about WMF staff having franchise.
If I am insinuating anything by providing data with a bit of
commentary, it is the opposite.
Any concerns about a WMF 'staff eligible' criteria voting bloc in 2013
are not well founded, but the list of who voted from a staff account
last time strongly suggests very few people would be affected by
removing that criteria. Removing the WMF staff criteria does adjust
the *potential* voting bloc (213 votes) down to a more palatable
number, being only those that are active within the community, which I
think is a good thing to do.
However as I have said in earlier emails, I would prefer that we
refine the criteria such that more of the WMF and affiliate staff &
boards who are active within the community can vote in 2015.