As a candidate, I would be happy to work with the full list of questions,
and to choose which ones I want to answer. Whether we each prioritize the
harder or easier questions could be useful information for the electors.
Potential drawbacks are that our responses might be harder to compare if
the questions are less standardized, and that some might feel obliged to
answer the full set, which would be a heavy burden.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 8:55 AM Nosebagbear <nosebagbear(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the
questions selected by the Elections Committee <
from the broader Community-created list <
has not been well-chosen, on several grounds.
First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant
Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so
strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be
grounds for presumptive inclusion.
The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As
a role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it
seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be
answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions
in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA
candidates who answer well over 20, on average.
A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions
on the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult
left off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it
is also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from
individually seeking answers from candidates.
Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am
unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the
original Q&A talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given
for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list.
There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I
look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org