Yet another hugely surprising decision from the Board, I’m sorry to say.
Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it fair to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community legitimacy whatsoever. As a then-active member of the Board of Trustees, Maria stood in the elections, and lost in a vote that was equal and fair for every candidate. For the Board to now appoint María to fill in the vacancy created upon James’s removal from the Board stands in the face of that clear and unequivocal community decision.
This is particularly worrying given the high number of “oppose” votes that María received during the election — over 200 more than Dariusz, James, Denny and Mike (Taketa) each; indeed, more than any other candidate in the top 10.
What is more, the fact that María was specifically voted down from the Board by the community is a clear signal that the electorate did not want her to continue in that role. To see her return to the Board in a “community-selected” seat is just absurd.
What the Board should have done is organise a by-election. If María wants to be a community-selected Trustee, she should earn the seat. Let her run, and convince the community that the reasons she was not re-elected in May are no longer valid. Let her answer questions openly and transparently, and discuss issues with her rivals – the way that by-elections everywhere are run.
Of course, not organising a by-election avoids these highly unpleasant obligations.
But then, maybe that’s the point.
Tomasz
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski tomasz@twkozlowski.com wrote:
Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it fair to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community legitimacy whatsoever.
I have to disagree with this statement. Please see my analysis of the election, where I show that Sefidari would have been the top-ranked candidate if we had counted votes equally.[1] The "oppose" votes you refer to are not serving the purpose you imagine they are, of weeding out controversial candidates.
Yet another hugely surprising decision from the Board, I’m sorry to say.
That's another story... It would be nice to read the minutes of this Board discussion, to see what alternatives were raised and how they were evaluated. It would be even nicer if the broader community had been directly involved in deciding how to backfill their hatcheted representative's seat.
-Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis
So, why not make the best of both worlds?
If you need another Trustee immediately, well...I don't really think that, you have a quorum without it. And an appointed trustee who lost a community election is not a community elected trustee. It is insulting to say that they are. James Heilman was the community trustee, and we still have been given absolutely no specifics about his removal, just vague handwaves at "lack of trust". Why, specifically, did he lose your trust? What, specifically, did he supposedly do wrong?
But if the seat absolutely must be filled, make this an interim appointment until a new election is complete, and hold such an election as soon as possible. A new election is necessary, and not having one is unacceptable. A lot has changed since the last one, and the individual you appointed did not pass the previous election.
Or in other words: This is still not acceptable.
Todd
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Adam Wight adam.m.wight@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski < tomasz@twkozlowski.com> wrote:
Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it fair to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community
legitimacy
whatsoever.
I have to disagree with this statement. Please see my analysis of the election, where I show that Sefidari would have been the top-ranked candidate if we had counted votes equally.[1] The "oppose" votes you refer to are not serving the purpose you imagine they are, of weeding out controversial candidates.
Yet another hugely surprising decision from the Board, I’m sorry to say.
That's another story... It would be nice to read the minutes of this Board discussion, to see what alternatives were raised and how they were evaluated. It would be even nicer if the broader community had been directly involved in deciding how to backfill their hatcheted representative's seat.
-Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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
Welcome back Maria. Recent events have shed a much-needed bright light on the board, and it would have been good to hold a community election in that light. We do have a limited volunteer capacity to manage elections, though, and I can understand the desire not to impose too much on volunteer goodwill. A shame, though. We all might have learned something from the process.
On Saturday, 30 January 2016, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
So, why not make the best of both worlds?
If you need another Trustee immediately, well...I don't really think that, you have a quorum without it. And an appointed trustee who lost a community election is not a community elected trustee. It is insulting to say that they are. James Heilman was the community trustee, and we still have been given absolutely no specifics about his removal, just vague handwaves at "lack of trust". Why, specifically, did he lose your trust? What, specifically, did he supposedly do wrong?
But if the seat absolutely must be filled, make this an interim appointment until a new election is complete, and hold such an election as soon as possible. A new election is necessary, and not having one is unacceptable. A lot has changed since the last one, and the individual you appointed did not pass the previous election.
Or in other words: This is still not acceptable.
Todd
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Adam Wight <adam.m.wight@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski < tomasz@twkozlowski.com javascript:;> wrote:
Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it
fair
to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community
legitimacy
whatsoever.
I have to disagree with this statement. Please see my analysis of the election, where I show that Sefidari would have been the top-ranked candidate if we had counted votes equally.[1] The "oppose" votes you
refer
to are not serving the purpose you imagine they are, of weeding out controversial candidates.
Yet another hugely surprising decision from the Board, I’m sorry to say.
That's another story... It would be nice to read the minutes of this
Board
discussion, to see what alternatives were raised and how they were evaluated. It would be even nicer if the broader community had been directly involved in deciding how to backfill their hatcheted representative's seat.
-Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Congratulations Maria!
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Welcome back Maria. Recent events have shed a much-needed bright light on the board, and it would have been good to hold a community election in that light. We do have a limited volunteer capacity to manage elections, though, and I can understand the desire not to impose too much on volunteer goodwill. A shame, though. We all might have learned something from the process.
On Saturday, 30 January 2016, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
So, why not make the best of both worlds?
If you need another Trustee immediately, well...I don't really think
that,
you have a quorum without it. And an appointed trustee who lost a
community
election is not a community elected trustee. It is insulting to say that they are. James Heilman was the community trustee, and we still have been given absolutely no specifics about his removal, just vague handwaves at "lack of trust". Why, specifically, did he lose your trust? What, specifically, did he supposedly do wrong?
But if the seat absolutely must be filled, make this an interim
appointment
until a new election is complete, and hold such an election as soon as possible. A new election is necessary, and not having one is
unacceptable.
A lot has changed since the last one, and the individual you appointed
did
not pass the previous election.
Or in other words: This is still not acceptable.
Todd
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Adam Wight <adam.m.wight@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski < tomasz@twkozlowski.com javascript:;> wrote:
Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it
fair
to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community
legitimacy
whatsoever.
I have to disagree with this statement. Please see my analysis of the election, where I show that Sefidari would have been the top-ranked candidate if we had counted votes equally.[1] The "oppose" votes you
refer
to are not serving the purpose you imagine they are, of weeding out controversial candidates.
Yet another hugely surprising decision from the Board, I’m sorry to
say.
That's another story... It would be nice to read the minutes of this
Board
discussion, to see what alternatives were raised and how they were evaluated. It would be even nicer if the broader community had been directly involved in deciding how to backfill their hatcheted representative's seat.
-Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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 and welcome back Maria!
best, Subha
On 1/30/2016 1:44 PM, Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive) wrote:
Congratulations Maria!
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
Welcome back Maria. Recent events have shed a much-needed bright light on the board, and it would have been good to hold a community election in that light. We do have a limited volunteer capacity to manage elections, though, and I can understand the desire not to impose too much on volunteer goodwill. A shame, though. We all might have learned something from the process.
On Saturday, 30 January 2016, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
So, why not make the best of both worlds?
If you need another Trustee immediately, well...I don't really think
that,
you have a quorum without it. And an appointed trustee who lost a
community
election is not a community elected trustee. It is insulting to say that they are. James Heilman was the community trustee, and we still have been given absolutely no specifics about his removal, just vague handwaves at "lack of trust". Why, specifically, did he lose your trust? What, specifically, did he supposedly do wrong?
But if the seat absolutely must be filled, make this an interim
appointment
until a new election is complete, and hold such an election as soon as possible. A new election is necessary, and not having one is
unacceptable.
A lot has changed since the last one, and the individual you appointed
did
not pass the previous election.
Or in other words: This is still not acceptable.
Todd
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Adam Wight <adam.m.wight@gmail.com javascript:;> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:09 PM Tomasz W. Kozlowski < tomasz@twkozlowski.com javascript:;> wrote:
Considering the results of the 2015 May Board elections, I think it
fair
to say that María’s appointment to the Board lacks any community
legitimacy
whatsoever.
I have to disagree with this statement. Please see my analysis of the election, where I show that Sefidari would have been the top-ranked candidate if we had counted votes equally.[1] The "oppose" votes you
refer
to are not serving the purpose you imagine they are, of weeding out controversial candidates.
Yet another hugely surprising decision from the Board, I’m sorry to
say.
That's another story... It would be nice to read the minutes of this
Board
discussion, to see what alternatives were raised and how they were evaluated. It would be even nicer if the broader community had been directly involved in deciding how to backfill their hatcheted representative's seat.
-Adam [[mw:User:Adamw]]
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:;
?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Anthony Cole _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 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