*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel (40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time, and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot. Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some voters misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood. Regards, Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief [5] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback*
The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our movement. I thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked restlessly to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful. Congratulations!
From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through such
a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
Cheers,
João User:Joalpe
Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org escreveu:
*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel (40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time, and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot. Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some voters misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood. Regards, Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
[5] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board members who took the initiative and launched this process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election facilitators as well.
Best Regards, Rajeeb Dutta. (U: Marajozkee). Sent from my iPhone
On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski joalpe@gmail.com wrote:
The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our movement. I thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked restlessly to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful. Congratulations! From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through such a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
Cheers,
João User:Joalpe
Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org escreveu:
*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel (40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time, and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot. Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some voters misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood. Regards, Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
[5] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Congratulations to the new members!
Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής
Στις Πέμ, 13 Ιουν 2019 - 6:16 π.μ. ο χρήστης Rajeeb Dutta < marajozkee@gmail.com> έγραψε:
Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board members who took the initiative and launched this process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election facilitators as well.
Best Regards, Rajeeb Dutta. (U: Marajozkee). Sent from my iPhone
On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski joalpe@gmail.com
wrote:
The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our
movement. I
thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked
restlessly
to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful.
Congratulations!
From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through
such
a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
Cheers,
João User:Joalpe
Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org escreveu:
*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and
Shani
Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143
eligible
to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted
under a
variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated
votes
were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result.
In
the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard
Knipel
(40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that
others
can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some
time,
and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a
ballot.
Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can
result
in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some
voters
misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as
opening
votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred
candidate) to
11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with
the
number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done because of the specific situation of this election, since the process
was
complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion
were
a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a
new
ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have
been
available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best
at
answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on
our
experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized
the
entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a
next
ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to
a
feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.
Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
[5] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
First of all congratulations to all candidates, it's hard to put your name forward, it takes courage and time to write a candidacy. I also want to thanks Christophe for his 3 years term.
And last but not least, Nataliaa and Shani, I wish you all the best for your role as Trustees (and congrats for being elected!).
Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 13:43, Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής < anonymuswikipedian@gmail.com> a écrit :
Congratulations to the new members!
Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής
Στις Πέμ, 13 Ιουν 2019 - 6:16 π.μ. ο χρήστης Rajeeb Dutta < marajozkee@gmail.com> έγραψε:
Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board members who took the initiative and launched this process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election facilitators as well.
Best Regards, Rajeeb Dutta. (U: Marajozkee). Sent from my iPhone
On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski <
joalpe@gmail.com>
wrote:
The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and
important
step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our
movement. I
thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked
restlessly
to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful.
Congratulations!
From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through
such
a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
Cheers,
João User:Joalpe
Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven <ad@huikeshoven.org
escreveu:
*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and
Shani
Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143
eligible
to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted
under a
variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated
votes
were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final
result.
In
the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard
Knipel
(40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that
others
can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some
time,
and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of
the
WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result
in
them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a
ballot.
Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can
result
in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in
which
every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some
voters
misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as
opening
votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred
candidate) to
11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with
the
number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should
be
respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a
new
ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done because of the specific situation of this election, since the process
was
complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion
were
a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a
new
ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have
been
available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our
best
at
answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based
on
our
experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened
for
modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized
the
entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a
next
ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates
to
a
feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate
Nataliia
Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.
Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
[5] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
These result fully confirm our initial decision https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne/ASBS_2019_Endorsement_Decision, so we cannot be happier than this. So many congrats to Nat & Shani 💚 💙. We congratulate all the candidates for their wiki commitment. A big thank you to the facilitators; their help was essential for better understand and the good development of this process.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno gio 13 giu 2019 alle ore 14:11 Pierre-Selim < pierre-selim@huard.info> ha scritto:
First of all congratulations to all candidates, it's hard to put your name forward, it takes courage and time to write a candidacy. I also want to thanks Christophe for his 3 years term.
And last but not least, Nataliaa and Shani, I wish you all the best for your role as Trustees (and congrats for being elected!).
Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 13:43, Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής < anonymuswikipedian@gmail.com> a écrit :
Congratulations to the new members!
Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής
Στις Πέμ, 13 Ιουν 2019 - 6:16 π.μ. ο χρήστης Rajeeb Dutta < marajozkee@gmail.com> έγραψε:
Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board members who took the initiative and launched this process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election facilitators as well.
Best Regards, Rajeeb Dutta. (U: Marajozkee). Sent from my iPhone
On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski <
joalpe@gmail.com>
wrote:
The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and
important
step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our
movement. I
thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked
restlessly
to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful.
Congratulations!
From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone
through
such
a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for
you!
Cheers,
João User:Joalpe
Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven <
ad@huikeshoven.org
escreveu:
*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and
Shani
Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143
eligible
to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted
under a
variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated
votes
were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final
result.
In
the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard
Knipel
(40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that
others
can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for
some
time,
and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of
the
WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very
small
margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would
result
in
them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a
ballot.
Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can
result
in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in
which
every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some
voters
misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as
opening
votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions
were
visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred
candidate) to
11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received
a
confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted
with
the
number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters
should
be
respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a
new
ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done because of the specific situation of this election, since the
process
was
complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and
inclusion
were
a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who
got a
new
ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have
been
available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our
best
at
answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based
on
our
experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community
to
respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing
any
modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened
for
modification with or without publishing vote results, that would
have
caused significant confusion and criticism that could have
jeopardized
the
entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations
for a
next
ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates
to
a
feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate
Nataliia
Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.
Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett,
Abhinav
Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
[5] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Pierre-Selim _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi All
Thanks to the election committee for facilitating this election, and all those who voted. And as Pierre said: thanks to all those who put their name forward, it is a lot of work and involves a lot of responsibility.
Congrats to Nataliia and Shani!
And thank you so much to Christophe for serving!
Jan-Bart “recycled” de Vreede ;) Board Member Wikimedia Netherlands
On 13 June 2019 at 00:56:18, Ad Huikeshoven (ad@huikeshoven.org) wrote:
*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel (40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time, and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot. Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some voters misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood. Regards, Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
[5] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all,
I just wanted to note that the facilitators have now posted their meeting notes from the election process:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/notes
These clearly raise some issues. Hopefully these issues can be addressed before any future similar elections (in fact, I think some solutions are relatively simple):
1) Evidently not all voters understood the voting system - a small number appear to have allocated 'points' rather than preferences e.g. "this candidate got 10 votes from our members so we are putting 10 in the box" - which had the effect of giving them 10th preference (pretty low) - This can probably be addressed by improving ballot paper design, e.g. by asking voters to select "First" "Second" etc etc rather than type numbers into boxes.
2) There seem to have been some issues around affiliates realising they had mis-voted, and then changing their minds and asking for replacement ballot papers. This is kind of what you'd expect, but there appears to have been at least one case where a replacement ballot was requested using an unexpected channel and then not issued. - I'm not sure how thorough the instructions/communication on this issue were but strikes me as a learning point for the future.
3) There appear to have been some challenges in the relationship between the WMF staff involved and the election facilitators, including (apparently) at one point a possibly inaccurate election result being circulated within WMF before the facilitators had counted it - This was the first time the WMF staff had assisted with the ASBS process and I'm not sure how clear the boundaries of the different roles were. Certainly one to clarify in future...
If I read these notes correctly, it is the case that if the election facilitators had taken different interpretations of how to handle points 1 and 2, the result might well have been different.
However, so far as I can see the facilitators have done as much as they can to report the result accurately. Ultimately, facilitators can only count the votes that are actually received through the election process, and can't start double-guessing voters' intentions.
Chris
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:59 PM Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi All
Thanks to the election committee for facilitating this election, and all those who voted. And as Pierre said: thanks to all those who put their name forward, it is a lot of work and involves a lot of responsibility.
Congrats to Nataliia and Shani!
And thank you so much to Christophe for serving!
Jan-Bart “recycled” de Vreede ;) Board Member Wikimedia Netherlands
On 13 June 2019 at 00:56:18, Ad Huikeshoven (ad@huikeshoven.org) wrote:
*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel (40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time, and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot. Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some voters misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood. Regards, Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20... <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball... <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
[5] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Congratulations to Nat and Shani! And big thanks to Christophe for your energy and care.
Being on the Board is a very tough job and a huge commitment of time and energy, and thanks to all who ran.
I'm also glad the voting has been expanded; in addition to the points Chris Keating makes about improving the election, I hope that in the next round we will share good practices for how affiliates can use the elections to get their members and friends more involved in thinking about strategy and Wikimedia. It's a great opportunity for groups!
Thanks to everyone involved, Phoebe
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:56 PM Ad Huikeshoven ad@huikeshoven.org wrote:
*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel (40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time, and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot. Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some voters misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood. Regards, Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball... < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ball...
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
[5] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org