Hi,
Simple and straigthforward message...
We need to have new elections for the board of directors soon.
Which implies at the same time very probably some technical set up as well as election administrators to organise it. In the same way than last year, we would need a couple of volunteers who are not running for election to serve as election administrators. Translations work will also be needed.
Please volunteer!
Elections details are not fixed yet, but I guess we need to start make things move :-) Jimbo will keep you informed on the matter in a little while and will very likely handle most of its organisation as a neutral party.
Ant
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 4/26/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
We need to have new elections for the board of directors soon.
[...]
Please volunteer!
For those thinking of volunteering to organize these elections, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Election_Official for details on what this role involves, or http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests for details of how the translations of the elections could be handled.
Thanks.
Angela.
Anthere wrote:
We need to have new elections for the board of directors soon.
Which implies at the same time very probably some technical set up as well as election administrators to organise it. In the same way than last year, we would need a couple of volunteers who are not running for election to serve as election administrators. Translations work will also be needed.
Please volunteer!
Elections details are not fixed yet, but I guess we need to start make things move :-) Jimbo will keep you informed on the matter in a little while and will very likely handle most of its organisation as a neutral party.
When the by-laws were accepted they provided that the elected representatives would be one for all contributors and one for paid-up members. What is the current status of that distinction? Have we abandoned the idea of paid members?
Ec
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
We need to have new elections for the board of directors soon.
Which implies at the same time very probably some technical set up as well as election administrators to organise it. In the same way than last year, we would need a couple of volunteers who are not running for election to serve as election administrators. Translations work will also be needed.
Please volunteer! Elections details are not fixed yet, but I guess we need to start make things move :-) Jimbo will keep you informed on the matter in a little while and will very likely handle most of its organisation as a neutral party.
When the by-laws were accepted they provided that the elected representatives would be one for all contributors and one for paid-up members. What is the current status of that distinction? Have we abandoned the idea of paid members?
Ec
HIya
Good question
I do not think we have abandonned the idea of paid members, though it is still not planned in the near future.
What we agreed on though, is that there will be no distinction between a representative of members and representative of editors. Both roles will be the same.
Ant
Anthere, Danny et al.,
I have three requests regarding the organization of this year's election:
1) Translations. We need - the announcement that people can stand for election, and how - the 1000 character candidate profiles - the announcement of the actual vote to be translated into as many languages as possible. To avoid candidate bias, a translation of candidate profiles should only be allowed if all profiles are included.
If Sj is not going to stand, I think he would make an excellent organizer for this. Getting longer platform statements translated could remain within an individual candidate's responsibility.
2) I would like the candidate profiles to be displayed *on the voting page* in the language set in the user preferences. This should be doable as a hack by putting them in the language files or the MediaWiki namespace(s); I can write a script to assist with that.
Why? Because this way, voters will not have to seek out information in their language about who they are voting on, which should lead to a much better informed choice.
3) Given the growing importance of Wikimedia and the Board, I'd like the integrity of this election to be closely watched. This should include a post-election analysis of the data: checking for sock puppets, double votes on multiple wikis, etc. This could be a collaborative effort. I'd like to ask the organizers to make this part of their election planning.
I think at least two developers who are not going to stand should serve as security advisors to the organizers. Let's also carefully define the requirements for being allowed to vote. This should be done in private by the organizers and the advisors and published only shortly before the vote to avoid trickery.
All best,
Erik
Erik Moeller a écrit:
Anthere, Danny et al.,
I have three requests regarding the organization of this year's election:
- Translations. We need
- the announcement that people can stand for election, and how
- the 1000 character candidate profiles
- the announcement of the actual vote
to be translated into as many languages as possible. To avoid candidate bias, a translation of candidate profiles should only be allowed if all profiles are included.
Since I complained about that last year, I am not gonna criticise this :-)
If Sj is not going to stand, I think he would make an excellent organizer for this. Getting longer platform statements translated could remain within an individual candidate's responsibility.
- I would like the candidate profiles to be displayed *on the voting
page* in the language set in the user preferences. This should be doable as a hack by putting them in the language files or the MediaWiki namespace(s); I can write a script to assist with that.
Why? Because this way, voters will not have to seek out information in their language about who they are voting on, which should lead to a much better informed choice.
why not ? But it will never be translated in all languages. Nevertheless, I have no opposition to this.
- Given the growing importance of Wikimedia and the Board, I'd like the
integrity of this election to be closely watched. This should include a post-election analysis of the data: checking for sock puppets, double votes on multiple wikis, etc. This could be a collaborative effort. I'd like to ask the organizers to make this part of their election planning.
I think this was done last year...
Anyway, this requires work... we currently have 4 candidates organisers. We wait about 24 more hours and will check for each of those. We probably need more than 2 people, but I will be glad to have Danny feedback on this.
I think at least two developers who are not going to stand should serve as security advisors to the organizers. Let's also carefully define the requirements for being allowed to vote. This should be done in private by the organizers and the advisors and published only shortly before the vote to avoid trickery.
All best,
Erik
Sure. I would like to see at least one technical organiser. Anyone ?
Ant
On 4/26/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I have three requests regarding the organization of this year's election:
- Translations. We need
- the announcement that people can stand for election, and how
- the 1000 character candidate profiles
- the announcement of the actual vote
to be translated into as many languages as possible. To avoid candidate bias, a translation of candidate profiles should only be allowed if all profiles are included.
Well said. In the interests of speed, it might make sense to have a public place for initial profiles, before they are translated, and to add translations one language at a time, for all profiles at once. That way translations need not wait on a multitude of languages all being finished at the same time.
If Sj is not going to stand, I think he would make an excellent organizer for this. Getting longer platform statements translated could remain within an individual candidate's responsibility.
Thank you, Erik, you are kind to suggest me. I am sure that most of this list would like to see the upcoming elections showcase the projects' many languages and projects. Perhaps the organization can be distributed more broadly than a single person. I would like to see coordinators on each project engaged to help out; see my separate email about election translations.
As to my standing, I have some ideas about possible roles of the member representatives that I would like to share, particularly with the community members who do not frequent the meta-watering holes like this list; a candidate's statement seems a good forum for that. However, the beginning of my statement would be a request to re-elect Angela and Anthere. We were lucky to have chosen so well last year. I doubt anyone could have foreseen that the Board's first year would proceed so smoothly, so calmly, or with so much transparency, despite many growing pains and opportunities for conflict and crisis.
- I would like the candidate profiles to be displayed *on the voting
page* in the language set in the user preferences. This should be doable as a hack by putting them in the language files or the MediaWiki namespace(s); I can write a script to assist with that.
This would be great.
- Given the growing importance of Wikimedia and the Board, I'd like the
integrity of this election to be closely watched. This should include a post-election analysis of the data: checking for sock puppets, double votes on multiple wikis, etc. This could be a collaborative effort. I'd like to ask the organizers to make this part of their election planning.
A non-technical hack to help ensure the reliability of the elections: Have a known contact from each project who is willing to comment on the history/identity of each voting user.
Cheers, SJ
Sj a écrit:
On 4/26/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de
wrote:
If Sj is not going to stand, I think he would make an excellent organizer for this. Getting longer platform statements translated could remain within an individual candidate's responsibility.
Thank you, Erik, you are kind to suggest me. I am sure that most of this list would like to see the upcoming elections showcase the projects' many languages and projects. Perhaps the organization can be distributed more broadly than a single person. I would like to see coordinators on each project engaged to help out; see my separate email about election translations.
Good point Erik.
I may answer on this.
Why is not Sj one of the organisers ?
Well, first, and that might be the best reason of all : because he did not candidate when I asked :-)
But even if he had asked, I think I would not have put him in.
Why so ?
Well... a team must not be build uniquely based on what one think a person will be good at doing.
A team is more than that.
Each person individually must be good at something useful. Each person individually must feel motivated to do precisely what he is good at doing. At least one person of the team must be able to take care of an absolutely required task (while keeping that number low).
However, on top Each person must be in a cooperative mood and ready to work with happiness with each of the other team members As much as possible, the work done should be more than the addition of each individual member work.
All this requires to know people as much as possible. And to my belief, this is true not only for the election organisation, but for most of the board activities.
At least when one considers it a team work, not a one man show :-)
So, in this case...
I think we needed to keep a core of organisers to run the elections, and a core must be small to be workable. I thought of 3 to 4 people. We finally have 4 people and this is a good number. Britty was asked to help though she did not volunteer, because of her skills on managing translations and her easiness to communicate (plus, she is a woman :-)).
This absolutely does not mean no one else should help. Quite the opposite. We need help from people to translate statements. We need help to inform everyone. We need some people to ask us questions (including the unconfortable ones). And we need people to comment on organisation itself.
Second, I know Sj will participate in his way even if he is not in the list of organisers. I know he will ask questions. To ask these questions, it is actually best that he is not in the team. Sj is great (imho) but I do not think organising the elections would be his best work. He holds a different inner truth. Which has more to do with creativity, energy, cheerfulness.
Third because Sj is already busy with other things, such as the Quarto. Hopefully, the issue number 3 will be out before the elections and Sj is extremely important here. Aphaia will already not be so much available, removing another pillar would not have been wise.
I think the way Sj can help best is by making people understand more what board activities are. Most of what Angela and I did all year long is totally unknown by most editors. Quarto helps to clarify this a little bit, for editors as well as for current board candidates. Angela and I made the board be a certain thing, which only few people could see (those involved in meta issues). Maybe the next board will do its job in a totally different way.
Fourth reason for not having Sj in the organisation committee is because I love very very very much both Sj and Danny, but know they both have not so easy relationships together. I think elections will be a tensed time for some of us, and I have no desire to do anything that might cause more troubles. I do not think making them team there would be wise :-)
Just knowing people, right ? :-)
Hope not to disturb anyone here. Do not want to.
Ant
On 5/1/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote: [snip]
Each person individually must be good at something useful. Each person individually must feel motivated to do precisely what he is good at doing. At least one person of the team must be able to take care of an absolutely required task (while keeping that number low).
I find it excellent that Danny and others have volunteered to do the work, and the more I see *us* working and the more I analyze in my own little way the way we work, I support this point of view. In a volunteer-based community, there is nothing more important than to let people step forward to do the things that interest them, and which they are good at. Not everything can be done by just one person, and nothing should be either. I was not around at the times of elections last year, so as a *newbie* I find it reassuring that someone who's gone through the whole process of organizing those is still here this year and can give "inside" kind of input.
[snip]
I think we needed to keep a core of organisers to run the elections, and a core must be small to be workable. I thought of 3 to 4 people. We finally have 4 people and this is a good number. Britty was asked to help though she did not volunteer, because of her skills on managing translations and her easiness to communicate (plus, she is a woman :-)).
I am glad Britty agreed, for indeed she has proven her value in that task on many many occasions.
Second, I know Sj will participate in his way even if he is not in the list of organisers. I know he will ask questions. To ask these questions, it is actually best that he is not in the team. Sj is great (imho) but I do not think organising the elections would be his best work. He holds a different inner truth. Which has more to do with creativity, energy, cheerfulness.
And he has proved that already, by questioning and answering this thread and its clone). We ned to talk about the good food though. /me thinks it's really the wine that does the trick ;)
Third because Sj is already busy with other things, such as the Quarto. Hopefully, the issue number 3 will be out before the elections and Sj is extremely important here. Aphaia will already not be so much available, removing another pillar would not have been wise.
An we need him for Wikimania also, he can't be everywhere ;-).
This said, I wish tons of courage to those who have volunteered to coach those elections, as I believe (but can only imagine) this is no small task.
Cheers,
Anthere, you are right: I would not want to organize an election, even if I were not already terribly overcommitted. :-)
It didn't sound to me as though Erik was suggesting this, however. Different roles related to a big event do not need to officially (or unofficially!) be on a team. Just as with articles and wikiprojects, people should be able to work effectively with the same event without getting in eachother's way.
If the goal is to have people *among* the Election Officials who can manage translations, then Aphaia (and Danny too) have long experience with this. If the goal is to have third parties managing translations, in coordination with the officials or organically, please consider my earlier suggestion.
As to me and Danny...
On 5/1/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I love very very very much both Sj and Danny, but know they both have not so easy relationships together.
You seem to be right about this, in one direction. It is a daily mystery to me. I like Danny as a person, respect his opinions and understanding of the world, and admire his energy and his work. His recent animosity towards me is completely baffling... I don't know what has changed since we were on good terms; and would like nothing better than to find out.
SJ
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org