Ideally I would like to see six candidates in the "finals" when there
are three seats to be elected. At the moment, there are already 5
candidates with >30, and Yann will get to the 30 soon too. Maybe it
wouldn't be that weird to state that the required number can be raised
next time?
In my opinion, a good and serious candidate (as in: would make a good
chance in the elections, because that is what we are selecting on),
shouldn't have much trouble in getting 15-20 endorsements in 24 hours
(if (s)he tries a bit). In a week such a candidate should be able to
get 50 endorsements imho.
Maybe it would be a good idea to have the candidate collecting the
endorsements on beforehand next time, he could send them privately to
the committee, they would be validated, and could be put online "en
block". That way you work around several problems like "vote-like",
having them to be confirmed on beforehand etc. One disadvantage is the
confirmation of the endorsers though, maybe someone can come up with a
good way of validating these endorsements? I.e. should they be made on
a saperate page, with signature, should they consist of emails,
whatever? Should the endorsers confirm their endorsement? I admit it
makes it a littlemore fuzzy, please come with better procedures :)
Lodewijk
2007/6/20, Azdiyy <azdiyy(a)googlemail.com>om>:
of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed
to be secret for any reason?
azdiyy
On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen <oscarvandillen(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller
<erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next time?
"next time" meaning *next elections* in 2008 of course: i do not suppose
you
propose to now suddenly start erasing people's endorsements?
best wishes,
oscar
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l