Personally, I'm less concerned about staff votes than I am about having
only a relatively small number of community members vote. If there is a
substantial turnout of community votes then the enfranchisement of staff is
a non-issue. I think there would be more cause for concern if is only 1800
total votes and of those 400 are from WMF and affiliate staff. I would hope
that community participation would be much higher so that the vote total is
at least 8,000, or around 10 percent of the active editor population.
I say this as someone who was too occupied with other matters to vote last
year, but does plan to vote this year and is encouraging new candidates to
On Apr 22, 2015 9:11 AM, "Marc A. Pelletier" <marc(a)uberbox.org> wrote:
On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
I fully support allowing our talented and
dedicated WMF staff to have the
opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in
administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other
perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable.
But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the
ideals behind the movement. They wouldn't be working at the Foundation
if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about
Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: