Dear all,
Risker has prepared a detailed report of the 2013 elections outlining several of the challenges that the Elections Committee faced this year.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mor...
My report as board liaison is on the talk page at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Pos...
Both these need serious movement-wide discussion.
Please add your thoughts and comments so that we may consider various possibilities and act to strengthen the election process before it recedes from our consciousness.
Best Bishakha
As Bishakha I believe time now is ripe to strengthen the election process and that we should aim for a standing committee. In the same time I think it would be good to look into this group a bit further (technical support, how to elect the committee, split dates for FDC/board elections etc).
I have put up a proposal at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Pos...
where I differ with Bishakha on the size and think five members, more dedicated, would do
Anders
Bishakha Datta skrev 2013-07-30 08:54:
Dear all,
Risker has prepared a detailed report of the 2013 elections outlining several of the challenges that the Elections Committee faced this year.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mor...
My report as board liaison is on the talk page at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Pos...
Both these need serious movement-wide discussion.
Please add your thoughts and comments so that we may consider various possibilities and act to strengthen the election process before it recedes from our consciousness.
Best Bishakha _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Anders Wennersten, 31/07/2013 09:18:
As Bishakha I believe time now is ripe to strengthen the election process and that we should aim for a standing committee. In the same time I think it would be good to look into this group a bit further (technical support, how to elect the committee, split dates for FDC/board elections etc).
I have put up a proposal at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Pos...
where I differ with Bishakha on the size and think five members, more dedicated, would do
The proposals differ, but they all seem to share some premises that I don't understand. In my opinion: 1) if we have few candidates and few votes for the WMF board election, of course the board itself is responsible of this and has to take care of it: it's not about election processes or other superstructures; 2) if the election committee as a whole failed to do its job, its scope and recruitment should be more focused (so that people know what's important to get done and they do it), rather than its prerogatives further expanded. The two are tightly connected, see (B) below.
Two examples. A) I want the election committee to ensure that each vote is kept private and counted fairly: this year's committee didn't explain what the consequences of migrating to a WMF-hosted wiki are; a bigger committee would reduce privacy. B) I don't want the committee to decide the rules for the elections, especially during the elections. That's both wrong and a waste of time. Rules should be decided by the board (directly or not, addressing COI of course) in a way that makes them integral to a broader reasoning on what the board should be and what are the means for reaching the defined goals.
Nemo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org