The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of vacation which he is entitled to).
This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy. Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
* Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions * Endorsements and chance to ask questions * Vote
None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap between them as an amnesty.
Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
I agree that removing and prohibiting endorsements before a candidate has been confirmed is unnecessary; if the candidate is not confirmed for some reason, those endorsements could simply have been ignored. At the very least, the endorsement period needs to be extended by a few days.
On 6/18/07, Robert Leverington lcarsdata@googlemail.com wrote:
The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of vacation which he is entitled to).
This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy. Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
- Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
- Endorsements and chance to ask questions
- Vote
None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap between them as an amnesty.
Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
-- Robert http://roberthl.wikitest.co.uk/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Several more candidates have just been confirmed and are open for endorsement.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Erik Moeller To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board election endorsements
I agree that removing and prohibiting endorsements before a candidate has been confirmed is unnecessary; if the candidate is not confirmed for some reason, those endorsements could simply have been ignored. At the very least, the endorsement period needs to be extended by a few days.
On 6/18/07, Robert Leverington lcarsdata@googlemail.com wrote:
The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of vacation which he is entitled to).
This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy. Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
- Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
- Endorsements and chance to ask questions
- Vote
None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap between them as an amnesty.
Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
-- Robert http://roberthl.wikitest.co.uk/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
- Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
- Endorsements and chance to ask questions
- Vote
I would prefer to swap the first two. Candidates should get the endorsements themselves before submitting their candidacy - I believe that's the way it works in the real world where there are similar systems. That way, the people endorsing are going to actually know the candidate and will be able to make a meaningful statement of support rather than endorsements just being a first stage of voting which it is now. I would also suggest only allowing people to endorse one candidate (although the fact that there are 3 seats means it does make a certain amount of sense to allow 3 endorsements, so it's not a major issue).
hmmmm ? Well, this is not disastrous. Surely, this can be flexible. Either get 24-48 hours more, or put the endorsement on the talk page until they are confirmed, or endorsement could be open but candidate labelled non confirmed.
I'll tell you... I think that whatever the little mistakes, the current situation looks good; Is that due to the endorsement ? I dunno, but this year, we only have "serious" (real) candidates. I also think there is a very active questionning of the candidates, and this is fabulous. A unique opportunity to see where the current board is not very good :-)
All in all, I find the situation rather positive. Do not worry about bureaucracy. I do not think any candidate will be left aside because of a short deadline for endorsement.
Ant
Robert Leverington wrote:
The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of vacation which he is entitled to).
This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy. Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
- Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
- Endorsements and chance to ask questions
- Vote
None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap between them as an amnesty.
Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
Endorsements are now open for all candidates. Any endorsements for candidates who do not confirm are, of course, contingent upon confirmation.
Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Florence Devouard To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board election endorsements
hmmmm ? Well, this is not disastrous. Surely, this can be flexible. Either get 24-48 hours more, or put the endorsement on the talk page until they are confirmed, or endorsement could be open but candidate labelled non confirmed.
I'll tell you... I think that whatever the little mistakes, the current situation looks good; Is that due to the endorsement ? I dunno, but this year, we only have "serious" (real) candidates. I also think there is a very active questionning of the candidates, and this is fabulous. A unique opportunity to see where the current board is not very good :-)
All in all, I find the situation rather positive. Do not worry about bureaucracy. I do not think any candidate will be left aside because of a short deadline for endorsement.
Ant
Robert Leverington wrote:
The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of vacation which he is entitled to).
This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy. Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
- Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
- Endorsements and chance to ask questions
- Vote
None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap between them as an amnesty.
Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would also like to comment that like it is now with the endorsements the look a lot like a vote. A candidate needs to get 12 users to support there candidacy.
Currently the record is 65.
When a candidate has his 12 users for support, or a few more if there where a dispute about some votes, then the endorsement could be closed and that candidate labeled as confirmed for the actual vote. Like it now you have two votes: a public one and a private one.
That's true. This is especially misleading because the candidates start at different times and therefore are always going to collect different numbers of endorsements. It's turning into a very odd kind of popularity contest.
Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next time?
On 6/19/07, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
I would also like to comment that like it is now with the endorsements the look a lot like a vote. A candidate needs to get 12 users to support there candidacy.
Currently the record is 65.
When a candidate has his 12 users for support, or a few more if there where a dispute about some votes, then the endorsement could be closed and that candidate labeled as confirmed for the actual vote. Like it now you have two votes: a public one and a private one.
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community English - Español - Deutsch - Indonesia
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next time?
I would cap them at twelve. Don't cap them automatically, but rather have one of the people on the election committee close the endorsements for each candidate once they've verified that all the endorsers are eligible and haven't endorsed too many candidates.
On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@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
of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed to be secret for any reason?
azdiyy
On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen oscarvandillen@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@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
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@googlemail.com:
of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed to be secret for any reason?
azdiyy
On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen oscarvandillen@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@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@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Getting endorsements for candidates prior to launching a bit is a valid strategy. However, for this to work the current practice of removing endorsements before a candidacy has been approved has to end. I do think that getting endorsements prior to asking for approval for the candidacy is good. It does however not mean that having the endorsements prior to asking for approval for a candidacy need to coincide.
What is essential is that prior to the start of the election the candidature has been approved and, that it comes with a sufficient number of endorsements. When there is a need for twelve, it does not make sense to have more than twelve. Voting is done in secret and endorsements are only to show that there is sufficient support. However, if getting endorsements is seen and appreciated as a political instrument, then it should also be considered as such.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/20/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
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@googlemail.com:
of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed to be secret for any reason?
azdiyy
On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen oscarvandillen@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@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@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Just a quick response, without making any judgment on the rest of the proposal (indeed, it's one that deserve more thorough study): The practice of removing endorsements before a candidacy has been removed ended days ago. Since then, candidates have been able to be listed and endorsed from the minute they make their candidacy known. There is a note, however, that says that endorsements are subject to the identity process being completed.
There are currently two candidates listed who are not yet confirmed.
Philippe
----- Original Message ----- From: GerardM To: effeietsanders@gmail.com ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:11 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board election endorsements
Hoi, Getting endorsements for candidates prior to launching a bit is a valid strategy. However, for this to work the current practice of removing endorsements before a candidacy has been approved has to end. I do think that getting endorsements prior to asking for approval for the candidacy is good. It does however not mean that having the endorsements prior to asking for approval for a candidacy need to coincide.
What is essential is that prior to the start of the election the candidature has been approved and, that it comes with a sufficient number of endorsements. When there is a need for twelve, it does not make sense to have more than twelve. Voting is done in secret and endorsements are only to show that there is sufficient support. However, if getting endorsements is seen and appreciated as a political instrument, then it should also be considered as such.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/20/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
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@googlemail.com:
of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed to be secret for any reason?
azdiyy
On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen oscarvandillen@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller erik@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@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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?
Six candidates doesn't sound like enough to allow the smaller projects to be represented. If only candidates that can get a large number of endorsements are allowed to stand then only candidates that are known by a large number of people (ie. contribute to large projects) will be able to stand. While you can vote for someone you don't know (since you can find out about them during the election), you can't really endorse them.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org