Hi,

IMHO, for a person to be in a committee which will shape the movement charter, he/she needs to be experienced enough to have a broad understanding of the movement. Newcomers without any insight of the historical context will not be able to draft a charter effectively. Also, popular elections don't properly judge the weightage of different candidates; it puts every candidate to the same level, which they are not. It would be absolutely unfair to put a Wikimedian with 10-15 years of experience and having a good standing with the larger community and a complete newcomer who is almost unknown to the community on the same ballot box. It was not at all necessary to bring all the 70 candidates to the same table. A certain threshold could be determined first and then candidates could be filtered out before election. Plus, drafting movement charter is not a capacity building program for newcomers, it will shape the future of the movement, so quality control was necessary. I am not sure if these points will be taken into consideration while (s)electing the committee members, but if not, I am sure, it will frustrate many Wikimedians who care about the movement.  

Regards,
Bodhisattwa

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 11:24, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
I still believe that a screening phase where people with limited support below a certain threshold can quit the race or be removed is the best way to have a functional ballot... to me it's just simpler this way. Even at real-life elections you need to show some signatures to access the race.

If, after weeks of debate, a person get 1/5th of the support of an average candidate, it simply does not have a real chance. I point out again here, this would not be an additional phase, it's just something that can be done in parallel to the presentation of the candidates. For example, at the nth support signature, you enter the ballot.

For some reasons, some people assume that "plurality" means that everybody can join, but a crowded ballot is just chaotic. For n places to be selected, you should not give more than 2n-3n candidates on a final ballot, IMHO. Especially if you want to use certain electoral methods.

I tried to revise all 70 profiles and it was really boring. So after a while, I just put 10 names I kinda liked and that's it, I probably missed some of them. I also had negative feedback... which went wasted but could have also helped. Maybe in this scenario, the old method of "positive-neutral-negative" tipping box per each candidate could have also worked better than a STV ranking.

In any case with the other election I could more or less predict the probable final output (gender balanced, with actual limited chance for so-called GS), here it's almost impossible, the vote will be diluted so much and I really cannot focus on all the candidates. This ould probably mean that bugs of UI (fixed display of candidates, problem of selecting from menu if initial letter has an unusual accent...) might influence the outcome more than usual.

Alessandro


Il martedì 19 ottobre 2021, 06:41:56 CEST, Anupam Dutta <anupamdutta73@gmail.com> ha scritto:


Hi all,

To me, a slightly better approach would have been to divide the 70 candidates into 7 blocks of 10 each, chosen in a random way, but the block remaining fixed. Then force the voter to visit each block and view the candidates ( so that nobody has any undue advantage). After that, the voter will have the choice to choose any or all or none......

(Disclaimer : I am one of the candidates).

Anupamdutta73

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 08:55 effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
Just for quick context: I was mostly trying to say that any *simple* system may have benefits in the scenario when you don't have the resources to make a complex system work properly (read: userfriendly). A 7-member district was intended as shorthand for "out of these 70 people, pick 7 favorites". That does not allow as much nuance as ranking, but it also has much less mental load. There are more systems that would have been easier on the voter, most likely. I fear that with the 'rank these 70 people into an order of 70' will scare away too many participants.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:40 PM Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
I am curious what is meant by a "7-member district".  Lodewijk, could you explain in more detail?
<snip>


Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
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/W3XYWFSUTJ2XSFIUHZAPNMOQPECZTOTV/
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/CV3LSFVZT3GBUTV7CC752BYHFPGQFRZS/
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/M32MI4FY6EK6MGMJA52NPWBNMYT3WT5L/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org