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(a)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(a)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(a)googlemail.com>om>:
of course no no 1. is this "poll"
supposed to be secret for any reason?
azdiyy
On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen <oscarvandillen(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l