Greetings,
If it is promotion on mailing lists, it is still open and people can see that post. I have been more concerned about the numerous one-to-one communication over different social networking and communication platforms (chats) and votstacking attempts. In many of the cases, it is just asking for votes as favour, and it ends up being how many people one knows and can contact.

I believe, any process where "vote count" is the "only" way to decide the winners, appropriate canvassing policy should be a behavioral guideline.

ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত
(মাতৃভাষা থাক জীবন জুড়ে)


শনি, ২৬ জুন, ২০২১ তারিখে ৩:৩৮ AM টায় এ Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> লিখেছেন:
Speaking personally only, I'd prefer not to have candidate statements or self-promotion on this mailing list, although I'd be fine if candidates announced their candidacy and gave a link to their statements on Meta.  We have to keep in mind that the majority of potential voters do not read this mailing list, and it's worthwhile for both the voters and the candidates to ensure that all members of the community have an equal opportunity to assess each candidate fairly and fully. 

Ultimately, this is a decision for the list moderators; however, it's also a decision of the readers whether or not to read these statements. 

Risker/Anne

On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 15:06, Benjamin Lees <emufarmers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:05 AM টিটো দত্ত Tito Dutta <trulytito@gmail.com> wrote:
In such a situation there is a possibility that if a candidate has many social media or contacts and friends (Wimimedian), they will end up getting more votes than someone who entirely relied on their nomination and performance.

Is this a problem?  That's normally how an election works.  You participate in public debates, Q&As, or other events to present yourself to voters who have come to look at all the candidates, and then you reach out and try to engage voters who haven't engaged themselves.

WP:CANVASS exists in the Wikipedia milieu that proclaims that discussions are not votes, and hence discourages ordinary election behaviors in order to promote consensus-based decision-making. (I don't recall offhand whether or how WP:CANVASS has been applied to the one thing that even the English Wikipedia acknowledges is an election: the ArbCom election.)

Nevertheless, I think it would be appropriate for particular venues to consider whether they want to permit themselves to be used for campaigning.  For instance, a couple people announced their candidacies or intended candidacies for things on this mailing list earlier this month, which is fine, I think, but you could imagine it becoming disruptive to the list if it devolved into electioneering by a hundred different candidates. Likewise, the English Wikipedia might not permit a candidate to post a vote-for-me message on the talk pages of all eligible voters.  That's really a question of disruptiveness to the forum, though, not fairness of the election.

Benjamin
_______________________________________________
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/PKRNPMQS6DPULWRI74FXX3KDGX3JEM57/
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/L5GHKVH3HBPX4BXMFFIR627CIWYYLFF5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org