I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
Ant
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 01:08 +0200, Florence Devouard wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
1200 _characters_. ;)
KTC
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 01:08 +0200, Florence Devouard wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
1200 _characters_. ;)
KTC
At least one person informed ;-)
ant
<grin>
He's an election committee member.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Florence Devouard" Anthere9@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:51 PM To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pointing out to an oddity
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 01:08 +0200, Florence Devouard wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
1200 _characters_. ;)
KTC
At least one person informed ;-)
ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
Where would someone ask questions? On the candidates' meta user talk pages? I saw that question come already and may have missed a response as to where questions where to be placed.
2008/5/14 Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
Where would someone ask questions? On the candidates' meta user talk pages? I saw that question come already and may have missed a response as to where questions where to be placed.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Don't questions normally come after the submission period?
They will this year. At this point, candidates are only submitting their statements: they are not translated, and some are not fully verified. The verified candidates who meet the qualification requirements will have their statements posted on 22 May.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Majorly" axel9891@googlemail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 6:26 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pointing out to an oddity
2008/5/14 Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
Where would someone ask questions? On the candidates' meta user talk pages? I saw that question come already and may have missed a response as to where questions where to be placed.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Don't questions normally come after the submission period?
-- Alex Newman http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think you may be missing the fact that "I want members of the community (aside from those on the WMF board) to be involved in day-to-day operations" is quite distinct from "I want to participate in the regular election of Board members." I've not really been involved in this issue myself, nor do I plan to be, but those are distinct issues.
Though, of course, attention should be paid to the Board elections, as always.
You have to remember the low turnout rates in earlier board elections. My impression, based on talking to many active wikimedians at the local project level, is that whatever happens in meta is somewhat out of reach, or they don't care, or it's too much to keep track of. The local level of activity is what's important for most people. That's especially true for the smaller languages. Choosing between candidates who are [at least partly] unfamiliar to most voters is something that many people will just avoid, it may feel as a "cat in the bag" to them, or they just wouldn't care enough. People care much more about "rogue admins" in their home project than about the identity of board members. It's probably natural. Attending the panel devoted to a post-mortem of the 2007 elections at Wikimania 2007, I could just feel that this matter was of interest to a quite distinct and not very big group of people, but not to most.
Full disclosure: I am myself one of those three brave candidates :-)
Harel
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Harel Cain wrote:
You have to remember the low turnout rates in earlier board elections. My impression, based on talking to many active wikimedians at the local project level, is that whatever happens in meta is somewhat out of reach, or they don't care, or it's too much to keep track of. The local level of activity is what's important for most people. That's especially true for the smaller languages. Choosing between candidates who are [at least partly] unfamiliar to most voters is something that many people will just avoid, it may feel as a "cat in the bag" to them, or they just wouldn't care enough. People care much more about "rogue admins" in their home project than about the identity of board members. It's probably natural.
Certainly. I'll note though, that they do not fail to come voting on the petition, which might suggest the process set up to sign petition is more effective than the process for candidating or commenting. Unless it is easier to sign a petition than to start thinking of questions of course :-)
Attending the panel devoted to a post-mortem of the 2007 elections at Wikimania 2007, I could just feel that this matter was of interest to a quite distinct and not very big group of people, but not to most.
Full disclosure: I am myself one of those three brave candidates :-)
yeah, and apparently the only one on this list :-( I'll ask you questions before the 22nd. I am travelling 6 days over 7 in the "ask a question" week, so it is not super practical in terms of communication :-(
Let me start by a small one... what is your feeling with regards to transparency and confidentiality ?
Best
Ant
Harel
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
Ant
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I'll ask you questions before the 22nd. I am travelling 6 days over 7 in the "ask a question" week, so it is not super practical in terms of communication :-(
Let me start by a small one... what is your feeling with regards to transparency and confidentiality ?
Thanks for the question, Florence. Not sure we want to start a full Q&A session at this stage and in this medium, but since you asked, I'll happily answer.
My experience with the Wikimedia Israel chapter has taught me that a careful mixture of transparency and confidentiality is what works best. I'll explain: the board (or WMF staff, for that matter) have to strive to work in a transparent, accountable manner. This means for example that (final) resolutions made, formal announcements, meeting agendas, budgets, bylaws and all other paperwork have to be published in a prompt and organized manner. The real motives behind decisions have to be clearly and truthfully explained. The board has to be very responsive to inquiries and suggestions from outside and actively seek them when needed. This kind of transparency is what the community and the general public expect from an organization with values such as ours. It's really a lot about learning how to communicate and explain yourself to your "clientèle" so that they learn to trust in you. On the other hand, for the board (and WMF staff) to function efficiently there has to be a certain sphere for internal exchange of opinion, criticism and brainstorming that does not necessarily have to be very transparent. As an example, detailed word-by-word protocols of board meetings do not have to be published, whereas agendas and meeting minutes are. In cooperating with other organizations for example, a period of keeping the matter secret is sometimes necessary. Some initiatives just float around and are then quickly found to be bad or even damaging. So there has to be enough "internal room" for this kind of experimenting to happen without full immediate disclosure. Immature release of information can sometimes result in failure, as things turn out to be less promising than initially thought and the foundation can be cast in a bad light. For sure, legal matters or ethical considerations sometimes warrant an amount of confidentiality. Needless to say, the board has to make sure the foundation abides by the law.
I hope this explains my basic views about the subject without going into excessive detail.
Harel
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
Ant
Knowing that there were three (now four) candidates, it still took me ~ten minutes of clicking around to find the presentations - I had been under the impression that nobody had declared their candidacy. I've tried to fix the en one a little to make it clear any candidates have submitted. I say this as someone who signed the aformentioned petition.
Cheers WilyD
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
Ant
Knowing that there were three (now four) candidates, it still took me ~ten minutes of clicking around to find the presentations - I had been under the impression that nobody had declared their candidacy. I've tried to fix the en one a little to make it clear any candidates have submitted. I say this as someone who signed the aformentioned petition.
I must admit to me the topic starts to look like a... hmmm... post-modern piece. I did not sign the petition, but I was perfectly aware (in real time of the number of candidates submitted their presentations from the very first day, and when the question session is coming. Should we make any conclusions out of it?
Cheers Yaroslav
2008/5/14 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
I don't see any candidates on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates (the place where I would expect candicacies to show up)
greetings, elian
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:12 AM, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.com wrote:
2008/5/14 Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com:
I cannot fully reconcile requests from the community to get involved in WMF's activities; a petition from prostestors of now over 100 people... and the total absence of discussion related to this year elections.
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
I don't see any candidates on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates (the place where I would expect candicacies to show up)
greetings, elian
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_elections%2F2008%2FCandida... Apparently we're not supposed to know that they exist yet - I don't know why.
WilyD
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 17:12 +0200, elisabeth bauer wrote:
I don't see any candidates on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates (the place where I would expect candicacies to show up)
Candidate's submission is on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates/Submissions . Once the close of candidate submission period comes round, the election committee will transfer the listings of those that are verified to be eligible to the page you linked to, and translation will also begin.
Wily D wrote:
Apparently we're not supposed to know that they exist yet - I don't
know why.
They are available on the submission page if one want to see it. The committee would just prefer they not be as visibly available until we have confirmed the candidates meet the eligibility criteria and that their candidate submission meet the election regulation. This is partly to ensure fairness to all those who stand. Say a candidate submission is too long (as has been the case a couple of time), it does take time for them to correct it. In the mean time, if it were all widely visible, the other candidates can/will complain about unfair advantages gained over the exposure to the longer statement.
KTC
KTC wrote:
They are available on the submission page if one want to see it. The committee would just prefer they not be as visibly available until we have confirmed the candidates meet the eligibility criteria and that their candidate submission meet the election regulation. This is partly to ensure fairness to all those who stand. Say a candidate submission is too long (as has been the case a couple of time), it does take time for them to correct it. In the mean time, if it were all widely visible, the other candidates can/will complain about unfair advantages gained over the exposure to the longer statement.
___________________________
KTC appropriate conveys the feelings of the committee on this one. These presentations are currently being SUBMITTED; not PRESENTED. At this point, they're being given to the committee so that we can begin things like qualification of the candidate, translation of the statements, etc. Once they are released, they'll be in much wider distribution. This is a slightly different process from last year.
Philippe
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Philippe Beaudette < philippebeaudette@gmail.com> wrote:
KTC wrote:
They are available on the submission page if one want to see it. The committee would just prefer they not be as visibly available until we have confirmed the candidates meet the eligibility criteria and that their candidate submission meet the election regulation. This is partly to ensure fairness to all those who stand. Say a candidate submission is too long (as has been the case a couple of time), it does take time for them to correct it. In the mean time, if it were all widely visible, the other candidates can/will complain about unfair advantages gained over the exposure to the longer statement.
KTC appropriate conveys the feelings of the committee on this one. These presentations are currently being SUBMITTED; not PRESENTED. At this point, they're being given to the committee so that we can begin things like qualification of the candidate, translation of the statements, etc. Once they are released, they'll be in much wider distribution. This is a slightly different process from last year.
If the intent is to wait until the end of the submission period before releasing any of them, then I think this process does considerable harm by discouraging additional volunteers for the position. While there may be a mild advantage to the candidate to submitting early, I think there is a bigger advantage to Wikimedia in presenting candidacies on a rolling acceptance basis.
-Robert Rohde
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 17:12 +0200, elisabeth bauer wrote:
I don't see any candidates on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates (the place where I would expect candicacies to show up)
Candidate's submission is on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates/Submissions. Once the close of candidate submission period comes round, the election committee will transfer the listings of those that are verified to be eligible to the page you linked to, and translation will also begin.
Wily D wrote:
Apparently we're not supposed to know that they exist yet - I don't
know why.
They are available on the submission page if one want to see it. The committee would just prefer they not be as visibly available until we have confirmed the candidates meet the eligibility criteria and that their candidate submission meet the election regulation. This is partly to ensure fairness to all those who stand. Say a candidate submission is too long (as has been the case a couple of time), it does take time for them to correct it. In the mean time, if it were all widely visible, the other candidates can/will complain about unfair advantages gained over the exposure to the longer statement.
KTC
Then you should remove submissions that are too long (that part at least is trivial to check), or take less time promoting the ones that are okay, or handle all submissions in private. However, hiding all of the ongoing submissions on a somewhat hard to find subpage is not a good answer in my opinion. Seeing who intends to stand for the elections and why has an important influence on recruiting others.
Incidentally, my instinct was the same as WilyD's, and I added another link to the submissions page prior to seeing this discussion.
-Robert Rohde
--- On Wed, 5/14/08, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
From: Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pointing out to an oddity To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2008, 10:55 AM On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 17:12 +0200, elisabeth bauer
wrote:
I don't see any candidates on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates
(the place where I would expect candicacies to
show up)
Candidate's submission is on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates/Submissions. Once the close of candidate submission period comes round, the election
committee will transfer the listings of those that are
verified to be
eligible to the page you linked to, and translation
will also begin.
Wily D wrote:
Apparently we're not supposed to know that
they exist yet - I don't
know why.
They are available on the submission page if one want
to see it. The
committee would just prefer they not be as visibly
available until we
have confirmed the candidates meet the eligibility
criteria and that
their candidate submission meet the election
regulation. This is partly
to ensure fairness to all those who stand. Say a
candidate submission is
too long (as has been the case a couple of time), it
does take time for
them to correct it. In the mean time, if it were all
widely visible, the
other candidates can/will complain about unfair
advantages gained over
the exposure to the longer statement.
KTC
Then you should remove submissions that are too long (that part at least is trivial to check), or take less time promoting the ones that are okay, or handle all submissions in private. However, hiding all of the ongoing submissions on a somewhat hard to find subpage is not a good answer in my opinion. Seeing who intends to stand for the elections and why has an important influence on recruiting others.
Incidentally, my instinct was the same as WilyD's, and I added another link to the submissions page prior to seeing this discussion.
I imagine keeping submissions private would hurt translation efforts. I don't see the harm in having them somewhere hard to find so they are available to be worked on before they are advertised as being available.
Birgitte SB
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 5/14/08, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
From: Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pointing out to an oddity To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2008, 10:55 AM On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 17:12 +0200, elisabeth bauer
wrote:
I don't see any candidates on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates
(the place where I would expect candicacies to
show up)
Candidate's submission is on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Candidates/Submissions .
Once the close of candidate submission period comes round, the election
committee will transfer the listings of those that are
verified to be
eligible to the page you linked to, and translation
will also begin.
Wily D wrote:
Apparently we're not supposed to know that
they exist yet - I don't
know why.
They are available on the submission page if one want
to see it. The
committee would just prefer they not be as visibly
available until we
have confirmed the candidates meet the eligibility
criteria and that
their candidate submission meet the election
regulation. This is partly
to ensure fairness to all those who stand. Say a
candidate submission is
too long (as has been the case a couple of time), it
does take time for
them to correct it. In the mean time, if it were all
widely visible, the
other candidates can/will complain about unfair
advantages gained over
the exposure to the longer statement.
KTC
Then you should remove submissions that are too long (that part at least is trivial to check), or take less time promoting the ones that are okay, or handle all submissions in private. However, hiding all of the ongoing submissions on a somewhat hard to find subpage is not a good answer in my opinion. Seeing who intends to stand for the elections and why has an important influence on recruiting others.
Incidentally, my instinct was the same as WilyD's, and I added another link to the submissions page prior to seeing this discussion.
I imagine keeping submissions private would hurt translation efforts. I don't see the harm in having them somewhere hard to find so they are available to be worked on before they are advertised as being available.
You missed my point. If they are going to be kept online, then I think they should be easy to find as this encourages further participation in the process. Incomplete or problematic submissions might be handled offline, but in my opinion, the completed submissions should be publicized on an ongoing basis to encourage others to think seriously about participating in the process before the close of the candidate submission window.
-Robert Rohde
Just to comment about the "hidden" submissions, they haven't been that well protected - there has been a link in the sitenotice area on watchlists at en.wikipedia since the process was opened to submissions. Looks like its been taken down yesterday or today, but I don't think you can hide something by advertising it on the watchlist of the largest project's participants!
To Florence's original point - I haven't even bothered to look at the petition, but I think folks interested in participating will get involved with the election when it appears the time to do so has come ;-) I hadn't seen it noted, but does the lack of a submission from you mean that you have decided not to stand for re-election?
Nathan
Just to comment about the "hidden" submissions, they haven't been that well protected - there has been a link in the sitenotice area on watchlists at en.wikipedia since the process was opened to submissions. Looks like its been taken down yesterday or today, but I don't think you can hide something by advertising it on the watchlist of the largest project's participants!
There was always (and is now) a link from the page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Translation
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I hadn't seen it noted, but does the lack of a submission from you mean that you have decided not to stand for re-election?
If I remember correctly, Ant decided long ago that she did not wish to run for re-election.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I hadn't seen it noted, but does the lack of a submission from you mean that you have decided not to stand for re-election?
If I remember correctly, Ant decided long ago that she did not wish to run for re-election.
According to one "IF" at the email about the next Board meetings, she is doubtful :)
2008/5/14 Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
If I remember correctly, Ant decided long ago that she did not wish to run for re-election.
And if *I *remember correctly, Ant has always said she hadn't decided yet. ;-)
They are available on the submission page if one want to see it. The committee would just prefer they not be as visibly available until we have confirmed the candidates meet the eligibility criteria and that their candidate submission meet the election regulation. This is partly to ensure fairness to all those who stand. Say a candidate submission is too long (as has been the case a couple of time), it does take time for them to correct it. In the mean time, if it were all widely visible, the other candidates can/will complain about unfair advantages gained over the exposure to the longer statement.
KTC
I can also add to this that the translation effot of the candidate presentations will only start after May 22. By chance, all four candidates presented themselves in English - but it would be perfectly legal to them to do it in other languages, and indeed the mothertongues of two of them is not English. A premature exposure of the presentation in different languages (i.e. before the translation is completed) would also make the chances unequal.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:08 AM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
There are now three candidates. Does no one feel like asking them questions beyond their 2000 words candidate statements ?
I'd like to state, as one of the candidates, I am more than happy to accept and answer any questions posted to any of my talk pages, but preferably to my Wikinews talk page [1], as I check that most often.
I have already been asked a few questions on my Wikinews talk page, and I am more than happy to answer any other questions you may have before the official grilling begins.
~ Paul Williams ~ [[User:Skenmy]]
Hello,
The candidate submissions page is linked to: * prominently in a big red box at the top of every election page, * in the section about submitting candidates in the rules, * in the candidate instructions section on the candidates page, * and indirectly in an announcement to virtually every mailing list for the Wikimedia Foundation.
It's not well-advertised to voters, but it's certainly not hidden. We could add a link to it from the navigation menu; we only decided not to so we could spare the translation updates for something that didn't seem to need any extra linking to.
There is this question I've been wanting to ask, and I might as well ask it pose it here to representatives of the election committee : I have seen on the meta RC a draft of an e-mail to eligible voters being drafted. Is there really an intention to mass mail this e-mail to (all eligible) voters (in all languages)?
Harel
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
The candidate submissions page is linked to:
- prominently in a big red box at the top of every election page,
- in the section about submitting candidates in the rules,
- in the candidate instructions section on the candidates page,
- and indirectly in an announcement to virtually every mailing list for the
Wikimedia Foundation.
It's not well-advertised to voters, but it's certainly not hidden. We could add a link to it from the navigation menu; we only decided not to so we could spare the translation updates for something that didn't seem to need any extra linking to.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/5/14 Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com:
There is this question I've been wanting to ask, and I might as well ask it pose it here to representatives of the election committee : I have seen on the meta RC a draft of an e-mail to eligible voters being drafted. Is there really an intention to mass mail this e-mail to (all eligible) voters (in all languages)?
Hopefully. E-mailing voters last year did wonders for turn-out (though it was patchy, due to translation, sadly).
Yours,
Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen on the meta RC a draft of an e-mail to eligible voters being drafted. Is there really an intention to mass mail this e-mail to (all eligible) voters (in all languages)?
We're hoping to do that, but it depends on technical feasibility. We need to send emails directly to the registered email addresses (we can't realistically use [[Special:Emailuser]] for such a large-scale mailing without many problems), which requires either access to the email addresses or a system administrator willing to do the mailing for us.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
And...of course...the translation issues.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Jesse Plamondon-Willard" pathoschild@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:49 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pointing out to an oddity
Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen on the meta RC a draft of an e-mail to eligible voters being drafted. Is there really an intention to mass mail this e-mail to (all eligible) voters (in all languages)?
We're hoping to do that, but it depends on technical feasibility. We need to send emails directly to the registered email addresses (we can't realistically use [[Special:Emailuser]] for such a large-scale mailing without many problems), which requires either access to the email addresses or a system administrator willing to do the mailing for us.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Harel Cain harel.cain@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen on the meta RC a draft of an e-mail to eligible voters being drafted. Is there really an intention to mass mail this e-mail to (all eligible) voters (in all languages)?
We're hoping to do that, but it depends on technical feasibility.
This is (*frankly*) not good enough. The whole point of this excercise is that it was not technically *unfeasible* for a single actor on the english language Wikipedia to mass spam all the editors on that wikipedia (and with a generous offer to help - but not initiate - efforts on other languages).
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The whole point of this excercise is that it was not technically *unfeasible* for a single actor on the english language Wikipedia to mass spam all the editors on that wikipedia (and with a generous offer to help - but not initiate - efforts on other languages).
Certainly, but doing so on 700 or so more wikis using the Special:Emailuser interface has some complications. For example, it would result in many editors getting multiple notification emails if they have several eligible accounts with different names (which is common). For another, none of us have the time to do it by loading Special:Emailuser for every eligible user (unless you're offering to do so).
The ideal solution is to send a single notification email to a list of the confirmed addresses belonging to eligible voters, filtered to remove duplicates. This is easy and efficient and resolves the above problems, but we need help from a system administrator to do so since we don't have access to those email addresses. We have a system administrator who will generate the list of eligible accounts, so getting the list of emails should be relatively easy (although we may not see them ourselves, depending on privacy considerations).
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
This is (*frankly*) not good enough.
This frankly is good enough. We're not obliged to even try; we are only volunteers serving in our free time, and sending email notification is purely an extra service beyond what we were asked to do. You're welcome to mention any suggestions, but I think starting a conversation like that is inappropriate.
Hoi, I do have a profile on probably all Wikipedias and Wiktionaries... I would be positively aghast if I am spammed everywhere. It was a bad idea at the time and imho it still is a bad idea to mail all people urging them to get an interest in the voting process for a new board member.. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:11 AM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard < pathoschild@gmail.com> wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
The whole point of this excercise is that it was not technically *unfeasible* for a single actor on the english language Wikipedia to mass spam all the editors on that wikipedia (and with a generous offer to help - but not initiate - efforts on other languages).
Certainly, but doing so on 700 or so more wikis using the Special:Emailuser interface has some complications. For example, it would result in many editors getting multiple notification emails if they have several eligible accounts with different names (which is common). For another, none of us have the time to do it by loading Special:Emailuser for every eligible user (unless you're offering to do so).
The ideal solution is to send a single notification email to a list of the confirmed addresses belonging to eligible voters, filtered to remove duplicates. This is easy and efficient and resolves the above problems, but we need help from a system administrator to do so since we don't have access to those email addresses. We have a system administrator who will generate the list of eligible accounts, so getting the list of emails should be relatively easy (although we may not see them ourselves, depending on privacy considerations).
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
This is (*frankly*) not good enough.
This frankly is good enough. We're not obliged to even try; we are only volunteers serving in our free time, and sending email notification is purely an extra service beyond what we were asked to do. You're welcome to mention any suggestions, but I think starting a conversation like that is inappropriate.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I do have a profile on probably all Wikipedias and Wiktionaries... I would be positively aghast if I am spammed everywhere. It was a bad idea at the time and imho it still is a bad idea to mail all people urging them to get an interest in the voting process for a new board member.. Thanks, GerardM
I'm sure this problem is being considered. It's certainly possible to remove all duplicate e-mail addresses from the database, so that each e-mail address gets one message.
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 21:39 +0300, Harel Cain wrote:
There is this question I've been wanting to ask, and I might as well ask it pose it here to representatives of the election committee : I have seen on the meta RC a draft of an e-mail to eligible voters being drafted. Is there really an intention to mass mail this e-mail to (all eligible) voters (in all languages)?
From our weekly report: "Two discussions are currently on hold while we examine technical feasibility: * sending an official notification email to all eligible voters;"
Regards,
KTC
Hello,
The candidate submissions page is linked to: * prominently in a big red box at the top of every election page, * in the section about submitting candidates in the rules, * in the candidate instructions section on the candidates page, * and indirectly in an announcement to virtually every mailing list for the Wikimedia Foundation.
It's not well-advertised to voters, but it's certainly not hidden. We could add a link to it from the navigation menu; we only decided not to so we could spare the translation updates for something that didn't seem to need any extra linking to.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org