Which of your arguments here depend on the result to be made?

The result is if we cant talk about a process and review its outcome, why even start the process? This is the first of many formal authoritative laws from the movement strategy 2030 process that began back in 2017. We absolutely need to make sure that the intent of the planning is what we are creating and that in doing so it brings the whole community along.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 23:16, Chico Venancio <chicocvenancio@gmail.com> wrote:
>Unfortunately you cant talk about the outcome of a result prior to it taking place.

Which of your arguments here depend on the result to be made?

Moving goalposts after a vote has been taken seems very problematic, and may be at the heart of many of the issues we have with participation in these kinds of discussions. 

Chico Venancio 


Em sex., 17 de fev. de 2023 às 00:47, Gnangarra <gnangarra@gmail.com> escreveu:
Unfortunately you cant talk about the outcome of a result prior to it taking place.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 07:55, Chico Venancio <chicocvenancio@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm a bit disappointed that we're discussing the results of a vote after it was taken, these things have to be voiced and discussed before the voting begins, not after a result you may disagree with has been tallied.

Chico Venancio

Em qui., 16 de fev. de 2023 às 19:51, Joe Sutherland <jsutherland@wikimedia.org> escreveu:
Hi there,

There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the conversation/statistics:
- is the approval rating significantly different among voters from smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. 
- are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to the populations in their respective communities. 

Unfortunately this kind of breakdown data isn't possible with SecurePoll - that's by design, since the system anonymises votes as they're placed. So there would be no way to know who exactly a "yes" or a "no" came from in the data, and thus no way to get more granular data (at least as things are set up right now).

best,
Joe

--
Joe Sutherland (he/him)
Lead Trust and Safety Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation


On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 10:59, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree that these are valid concerns, as is the point that we should consider how the 'homewiki' (or whatever demographic you choose to follow) distribution across those votes impacts the outcome. I think there will be general agreement that more participation would be great (although I feel that I have to admit, that this time around I didn't vote myself: just didn't get to reading the proposals carefully enough this time.)

There are a few things I do wonder about, which are not clear from the conversation/statistics:
- is the approval rating significantly different among voters from smaller projects than in larger projects? I don't know if the voting infrastructure even allows for such a breakdown. 
- are within projects, certain types of users over represented? For example, I would love some breakdown along tenure (how long have editors been around), rights holders (admin, arbcom, etc) and how those compare to the populations in their respective communities. 

A turnout this size is maybe not a high percentage of eligible voters, but note that we intentionally set our eligibility criteria low. A low percentage is then only a natural outcome. I do wonder: what kind of percentage would make colleagues more confident? And how could we realistically achieve those percentages?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:55 PM <Adel.nehaoua.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
مرحبًا، لست معترضًا على النتائج أو السياسة، بل العكس هو أمر جيد من الناحية التنظيمية ومكافحة التحرش والإساءة لكن لدي بعض الملاحظات حول العملية وليس على المحتوى:
* نسبة المشاركة تعد ضئيلة جدًا مشاركة 3097 ناخباً  من بين 68745 ناخب مؤهل
* عدد الموافقين على الإنفاذ 2,290 ناخب بمعنى  بمعنى أقل 4% من المجتمع العالمي النشط
* استحوذت 3 مجتمعات فقط على أكثر من نصف الأصوات وهذه المجتمعات معظمها من أوربا الغربية وأمريكا الشمالية
والتساؤل:
* لماذا لا يتم ذكر هذه الإحصائيات وتحليلها واستنباط الأثر منها على المستقبل؟ وذلك لأن باقي المجتمعات لم تشارك أو كانت  مشاركتها   ضئيلة فهي غير مهتمة أو لم يكن هنا حملة قوية لجلب الاهتمام أو غيرها من الأمور مما قد يؤدي في الأخير عدم تبني السياسة أصلًا أو قد يتعاملون معها كقانون جبري
* هل مشاركة المجتمعات القوية فقط  لا يُعزز المفهوم الغربي لطريقة الانفاذ؟
* هل عدم اهتمام المجتمعات الأخرى نذير بوجود فجوات كبيرة وجب إصلاحها أو نستمر وكأن الأمر ليس ذو شأن؟
تمنيت لو كانت قراءة عميقة نستخلص بها النتائج لتطويلا مستقبلي للحركة ودفعها للأمام بدل الجداول والأرقام التي قد لا يفقهها الكثير منا وقد تُعطي انطباعا خاطئا
تحياتي
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BITDAPENFZSAYHRFR3HDPNNLOD54TWWR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MK2R3FD2LRBGXU5OXB6QMSX57JFL2YHP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W4I3D34W3ZLMNSU73AYUTFY2V47DJ77J/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/S2OBIY4LPB32KGOMIWQ3EH6K4FHQMHIP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org


--
Boodarwun
Gnangarra
'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon ngalang Nyungar koortaboodjar'
  
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7MWI2JWJKYVNUOZQA4D6LE5IEQC5ZKXN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/M5JQD4DZK5F255PGVTDQ5ADVTSC4QZKQ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org


--
Boodarwun
Gnangarra
'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon ngalang Nyungar koortaboodjar'