And what about the people reading all the mail of all the mailing list, they know
Wikimedia damn, they too should be allowed to vote.
And the people making donations, they're supporting the projects too, they should get
Or not. I'm not fond of the idea. Contributors to the project elect part of the board.
If you don't meet the criteria then you can't vote.
You need a solid and strong criteria, I don't think the number of sent mails is one.
Envoye depuis mon Blackberry
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:07:00
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How was the "only people who averaged two edits
a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Gerard
When it is agreed that people can vote based on their mail contributions,
the one thing necessary is connecting people to their WMF user. When this
information is available on a user, the global user may be made known as a
voter. In my opinion you do not want to involve people when there is no
need. Automate what can be automated and through a link to a user it can be
While I agree that this makes sense, I doubt very much that many people will
have a vote as a result of this and even more, I doubt people will cast
their vote because they can in this way.
It is for this reason that it would be extra-ordinary. Most people
who send email to foundation-l would meet the normal suffrage
All I am saying is that _if_ we do agree that emails should be counted
as edits, *I* can count them or publish stats that allow others to
more easily count them.
We have the technology.
Do we have the need?
Each year there are people who should have suffrage that do not.
If I remember correctly, last year the techies were allowed to vote
even if they didnt meet the edit criteria. We should learn from the
previous elections, and have a panel that reviews extra-ordinary
It is worth the effort.
foundation-l mailing list