Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
What is the
vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive
editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?
In my opinion, I would prefer the decision to elect whoever to sit on
the Board to have come from active community members, rather than
someone who might have been inactive / left for years suddenly coming
back purely to vote for/against someone they like/hate. The decision for
such a criteria by the committee reflected such viewpoints by its
members.
There have always been opposing schools of thought on this issue. Some
people feel that allowing inactive participants to vote allows too much
uninformed voting, because they're presumably less up to speed on the
current situation. Or, it makes the process less resistant to
"sockpuppet" voting by those who aren't truly inactive. Other people
think longstanding but inactive contributors could make more
knowledgeable votes, because they're familiar with more of the history.
And, coming back to vote shows that they still care about Wikimedia,
even though they may not edit. Similar issues are involved in the
question of whether inactive administrators are allowed to retain that
status; different projects have reached different conclusions here,
which is entirely okay.
I gather the election committee has considered such issues, though
people are welcome to raise them again to ensure the committee has made
an informed judgment here. If this remains in place, I might mention
that inactive contributors could still have the ability to participate
in selecting the board through, dare I say it - chapters, where their
membership would not lapse on account of failure to edit. Indeed, one
reason to integrate chapters into the process is to provide more
alternatives for people to maintain their connection to the community.
--Michael Snow