Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
For the election committee, Philippe
________________________ Philippe Beaudette Tulsa, OK
http://www.freerice.com - play the game, feed a hungry person.
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
For the election committee, Philippe
Now I am very confused. Why was this decision "very important"?
What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?
Yours;
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
Thanks Philippe & Elections committee for taking our concerns into consideration and making this change! The new requirement sounds much more reasonable.
I also agree with Michael's last post that mail to voters + a sitenotice to try and increase turnout would be a good thing. :) Be sure to tell your friends who may be off-wiki this year as well.
I note btw that the *candidate* requirements didn't change -- so any potential candidates need to have been editing this spring. I don't have a problem with this requirement (community representatives should probably be active editors), but it does notably exclude "inactive" members from running, regardless of their former status in the community or current off-wiki participation (it'd be nice to see a developer exemption!).
As our community grows and changes, and we try to formalize community participation in governance in various ways, I think this question will come up more and more. Once a community member, always a community member? Is there something special about actively participating now vs. having actively participated in the past? Does editing one of the projects make you a member of the Foundation community? (it's certainly not just posters to foundation-l!) What *does* make for a community member? I tend to define "the community" very broadly, but realize others may not...
best, -- phoebe
Hi Phoebe;
We don't quite have a check-in from everyone on the committee yet, but it appears very likely that candidate requirements are changing as well.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "phoebe ayers" phoebe.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:55 AM To: "Philippe Beaudette" philippebeaudette@gmail.com Cc: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
Thanks Philippe & Elections committee for taking our concerns into consideration and making this change! The new requirement sounds much more reasonable.
I also agree with Michael's last post that mail to voters + a sitenotice to try and increase turnout would be a good thing. :) Be sure to tell your friends who may be off-wiki this year as well.
I note btw that the *candidate* requirements didn't change -- so any potential candidates need to have been editing this spring. I don't have a problem with this requirement (community representatives should probably be active editors), but it does notably exclude "inactive" members from running, regardless of their former status in the community or current off-wiki participation (it'd be nice to see a developer exemption!).
As our community grows and changes, and we try to formalize community participation in governance in various ways, I think this question will come up more and more. Once a community member, always a community member? Is there something special about actively participating now vs. having actively participated in the past? Does editing one of the projects make you a member of the Foundation community? (it's certainly not just posters to foundation-l!) What *does* make for a community member? I tend to define "the community" very broadly, but realize others may not...
best, -- phoebe
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 07:55 -0700, phoebe ayers wrote:
I note btw that the *candidate* requirements didn't change -- so any potential candidates need to have been editing this spring. I don't have a problem with this requirement (community representatives should probably be active editors), but it does notably exclude "inactive" members from running, regardless of their former status in the community or current off-wiki participation (it'd be nice to see a developer exemption!).
The requirement for the candidate have been updated as per for being a voter. It was a small oversight due to the initial query being made about the voter requirement. The committee noticed the issue as soon as we actually made the change for the voter, and have decided to synchronise the candidate requirement as well.
KTC
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
For the election committee, Philippe
Now I am very confused. Why was this decision "very important"?
What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?
Yours;
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 23:24 +0300, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Now I am very confused. Why was this decision "very important"?
The "important" in the statement was qualifying "current issue", i.e. Voting for someone to sit on the Board for the following year being an important issue.
What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?
In my opinion, I would prefer the decision to elect whoever to sit on the Board to have come from active community members, rather than someone who might have been inactive / left for years suddenly coming back purely to vote for/against someone they like/hate. The decision for such a criteria by the committee reflected such viewpoints by its members.
KTC
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?
In my opinion, I would prefer the decision to elect whoever to sit on the Board to have come from active community members, rather than someone who might have been inactive / left for years suddenly coming back purely to vote for/against someone they like/hate. The decision for such a criteria by the committee reflected such viewpoints by its members.
There have always been opposing schools of thought on this issue. Some people feel that allowing inactive participants to vote allows too much uninformed voting, because they're presumably less up to speed on the current situation. Or, it makes the process less resistant to "sockpuppet" voting by those who aren't truly inactive. Other people think longstanding but inactive contributors could make more knowledgeable votes, because they're familiar with more of the history. And, coming back to vote shows that they still care about Wikimedia, even though they may not edit. Similar issues are involved in the question of whether inactive administrators are allowed to retain that status; different projects have reached different conclusions here, which is entirely okay.
I gather the election committee has considered such issues, though people are welcome to raise them again to ensure the committee has made an informed judgment here. If this remains in place, I might mention that inactive contributors could still have the ability to participate in selecting the board through, dare I say it - chapters, where their membership would not lapse on account of failure to edit. Indeed, one reason to integrate chapters into the process is to provide more alternatives for people to maintain their connection to the community.
--Michael Snow
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael Snow" wikipedia@verizon.net
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
Jussi wrote:
What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?
In my opinion, I would prefer the decision to elect whoever to sit on the Board to have come from active community members, rather than someone who might have been inactive / left for years suddenly coming back purely to vote for/against someone they like/hate. The decision for such a criteria by the committee reflected such viewpoints by its members.
There have always been opposing schools of thought on this issue. Some people feel that allowing inactive participants to vote allows too much uninformed voting, because they're presumably less up to speed on the current situation. Or, it makes the process less resistant to "sockpuppet" voting by those who aren't truly inactive. Other people think longstanding but inactive contributors could make more knowledgeable votes, because they're familiar with more of the history. And, coming back to vote shows that they still care about Wikimedia, even though they may not edit. Similar issues are involved in the question of whether inactive administrators are allowed to retain that status; different projects have reached different conclusions here, which is entirely okay.
I gather the election committee has considered such issues, though people are welcome to raise them again to ensure the committee has made an informed judgment here. If this remains in place, I might mention that inactive contributors could still have the ability to participate in selecting the board through, dare I say it - chapters, where their membership would not lapse on account of failure to edit. Indeed, one reason to integrate chapters into the process is to provide more alternatives for people to maintain their connection to the community.
--Michael Snow
I believe that Michael's email clearly describes the thought process that the election committee went through. Indeed, we talked those issues over, in almost exactly those terms. I can also speak for the previous year's election committee (and I think safely infer for the year before that) when I say that suffrage requirements are usually one of the very first (and most tumultuous) conversations that an election committee has. BOLD, UNDERLINE, ITALICIZE, and FLASHING TEXT: We take very seriously the question of who may vote. It is not a decision entered into lightly, and I have an immense amount of respect for the work that my colleagues this year (and last year) and previous election committees put into it. No one has entered the discussion without a great deal of pre-formed thought and the rules as they stand now are the product of a great deal of negotiation and concession on the part of all parties involved.
This year's rules don't represent 100% of what ANY single member of the committee wanted. I daresay they don't represent what any member of the COMMUNITY wants 100%. Rather, they are - we believe - an appropriate distillation of the "ideals" of all into a situation that is workable for all.
We're always open to feedback, but as of now we think that we have a set of rules that appropriately address the feelings of the committee and the community at large although there will always be situations that are contentious. No set of rules is perfect for everyone; we believe these rules are the best compilation to reflect the feelings of the millions of people in the community at this time.
Philippe
2008/4/29 Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com:
Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
Dear ElecCom,
Thankyou for listening to concerns raised, and your prompt response on this point.
Brianna
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
On Wed, April 30, 2008 16:39, Delphine Ménard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
"at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008".
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Given that, unusually where suffrage is being determined, the closing date for the required level of activity is still over a month away (rather than in the past), and that no differentiation is made between minor wikignome edits and major copyedit rewrites, then I would expect *anyone* who wanted to ensure their ability to vote would be able to do so by finding 50 spelling and / or grammar mistakes. ie, imho, not a difficult hurdle to leap by any stretch of the imagination.
Alison Wheeler
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
On Wed, April 30, 2008 16:39, Delphine Ménard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
"at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008".
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Given that, unusually where suffrage is being determined, the closing date for the required level of activity is still over a month away (rather than in the past), and that no differentiation is made between minor wikignome edits and major copyedit rewrites, then I would expect *anyone* who wanted to ensure their ability to vote would be able to do so by finding 50 spelling and / or grammar mistakes. ie, imho, not a difficult hurdle to leap by any stretch of the imagination.
I had a short moment of 'panic' when the original election notice was posted and I saw that I had only about 35 edits on the English Wikipedia since March 1 (I'm hardly active on the German Wikipedia anyway...)
It took me less than half an hour of Recent Changes patrolling (without any of the magic tools such as VandalProof that make the usual patrollers' life easier) to get more than enough edits and I can only recommend it...kind of take you back to the basics ;-)
Michael
On Wed, April 30, 2008 16:39, Delphine M?nard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
"at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008".
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Given that, unusually where suffrage is being determined, the closing date for the required level of activity is still over a month away (rather than in the past), and that no differentiation is made between minor wikignome edits and major copyedit rewrites, then I would expect *anyone* who wanted to ensure their ability to vote would be able to do so by finding 50 spelling and / or grammar mistakes. ie, imho, not a difficult hurdle to leap by any stretch of the imagination.
Alison Wheeler
Or wikification of Incubator articles on any active project would also do the job. And this is the work which is badly needed anyway.
Cheers Yaroslav
Practically speaking its true that qualifying for the edit requirement is pretty easy... But having to do so means that whatever your current activities are they are insufficient to make you a voting 'member of the community.'
Requiring developers or folks whose contributions don't translate well into simple edit requirements to jump through hoops to be considered "one of us" is not good even if the hoops are placed nice and low.
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On Wed, April 30, 2008 16:39, Delphine M?nard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
"at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008".
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Given that, unusually where suffrage is being determined, the closing
date
for the required level of activity is still over a month away (rather
than
in the past), and that no differentiation is made between minor
wikignome
edits and major copyedit rewrites, then I would expect *anyone* who
wanted
to ensure their ability to vote would be able to do so by finding 50 spelling and / or grammar mistakes. ie, imho, not a difficult hurdle to leap by any stretch of the imagination.
Alison Wheeler
Or wikification of Incubator articles on any active project would also do the job. And this is the work which is badly needed anyway.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
From: "Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
Hi Delphine:
Edits can not be combined from several wikis, they must be on a single wiki.
The following exceptions exist; these people may vote regardless: * Wikimedia server administrators with shell access; * paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the office before 01 March 2008; * current or former members of the Board of Trustees.
Philippe
I assume that independent contractors do not count as paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, correct?
-Dan On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
From: "Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
Hi Delphine:
Edits can not be combined from several wikis, they must be on a single wiki.
The following exceptions exist; these people may vote regardless:
- Wikimedia server administrators with shell access;
- paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the
office before 01 March 2008;
- current or former members of the Board of Trustees.
Philippe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You know, Dan, that's a good question. I wasn't aware that the Foundation had any independent contractors. If that's a situation that is actual, then I'll check in with the election committee. Are you asking hypothetically, or are there actually some that we need to think about?
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Dan Rosenthal" swatjester@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:58 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Election rules modification regardingsuffrageissues raised on this list
I assume that independent contractors do not count as paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, correct?
-Dan On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
From: "Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
Hi Delphine:
Edits can not be combined from several wikis, they must be on a single wiki.
The following exceptions exist; these people may vote regardless:
- Wikimedia server administrators with shell access;
- paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the
office before 01 March 2008;
- current or former members of the Board of Trustees.
Philippe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In the past, Delphine as well as a few others (mainly technical people, names escape me at the moment) were listed as independent contractors. I've seen no indication that has actually changed (i.e. nobody saying X, a past contractor, has been hired as an actual employee).
-Dan
On Apr 30, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
You know, Dan, that's a good question. I wasn't aware that the Foundation had any independent contractors. If that's a situation that is actual, then I'll check in with the election committee. Are you asking hypothetically, or are there actually some that we need to think about?
Philippe
From: "Dan Rosenthal" swatjester@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:58 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Election rules modification regardingsuffrageissues raised on this list
I assume that independent contractors do not count as paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, correct?
-Dan On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
From: "Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
Hi Delphine:
Edits can not be combined from several wikis, they must be on a single wiki.
The following exceptions exist; these people may vote regardless:
- Wikimedia server administrators with shell access;
- paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at
the office before 01 March 2008;
- current or former members of the Board of Trustees.
Philippe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
In the past, Delphine as well as a few others (mainly technical people, names escape me at the moment) were listed as independent contractors. I've seen no indication that has actually changed (i.e. nobody saying X, a past contractor, has been hired as an actual employee).
A lot depends on the reason for having an independent contractor. A person working outside the United States is better treated as an independent contractor to avoid complications with United States employment and taxation laws. The distinction can be defined differently for election purposes than for employment law purposes.
Ec
That seems awfully shady to me, and may cause issues with its definition as related to, say, the non-disparagement agreements.
-Dan On May 1, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
In the past, Delphine as well as a few others (mainly technical people, names escape me at the moment) were listed as independent contractors. I've seen no indication that has actually changed (i.e. nobody saying X, a past contractor, has been hired as an actual employee).
A lot depends on the reason for having an independent contractor. A person working outside the United States is better treated as an independent contractor to avoid complications with United States employment and taxation laws. The distinction can be defined differently for election purposes than for employment law purposes.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That's what I was thinking. Classifying a worker as a contractor who holds substantially the same position as another worker you classify as an employee, is a good way to rack up a hefty bill with the IRS (for employment taxes, penalties, and interest).
See http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
That seems awfully shady to me, and may cause issues with its definition as related to, say, the non-disparagement agreements.
-Dan
On May 1, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
In the past, Delphine as well as a few others (mainly technical people, names escape me at the moment) were listed as independent contractors. I've seen no indication that has actually changed (i.e. nobody saying X, a past contractor, has been hired as an actual employee).
A lot depends on the reason for having an independent contractor. A person working outside the United States is better treated as an independent contractor to avoid complications with United States employment and taxation laws. The distinction can be defined differently for election purposes than for employment law purposes.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anthony wrote:
That's what I was thinking. Classifying a worker as a contractor who holds substantially the same position as another worker you classify as an employee, is a good way to rack up a hefty bill with the IRS (for employment taxes, penalties, and interest).
See http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html
Non-resident aliens performing duties outside of the United States are not subject to United States tax.
Ec
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
That's what I was thinking. Classifying a worker as a contractor who holds substantially the same position as another worker you classify as an employee, is a good way to rack up a hefty bill with the IRS (for employment taxes, penalties, and interest).
See http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html
Non-resident aliens performing duties outside of the United States are not subject to United States tax.
So what are the "complications with United States...taxation laws"?
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
You know, Dan, that's a good question. I wasn't aware that the Foundation had any independent contractors. If that's a situation that is actual, then I'll check in with the election committee. Are you asking hypothetically, or are there actually some that we need to think about?
Philippe
I think the guy who wrote the software which is going to be used for the board elections, might be one.
Yours;
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
You know, Dan, that's a good question. I wasn't aware that the Foundation had any independent contractors.
I would love to note * [[Foundation:Current staff]] list some of those contractors but * not all *. I don't know why but the office do not like to list some of them ... * Oversee people are defined as "contactors" iirc, while, well, Tim Starling may vote only with his edit counts ... I don't know if it is the case too for Mark and Delphine, though. * As an example of such contractors who are not listed on the page, we know Frank as outreach coordinator (his hiring was announced on this list). * There are at least two more contractors for technical issues whose names didn't appear on that page, although I don't know those contractors are still working for WMF right now.
If that's a situation that is actual, then I'll check in with the election committee. Are you asking hypothetically, or are there actually some that we need to think about?
Philippe
From: "Dan Rosenthal" swatjester@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 1:58 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Election rules modification regardingsuffrageissues raised on this list
I assume that independent contractors do not count as paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, correct?
-Dan On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
From: "Delphine Ménard" notafishz@gmail.com
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
Hi Delphine:
Edits can not be combined from several wikis, they must be on a single wiki.
The following exceptions exist; these people may vote regardless:
- Wikimedia server administrators with shell access;
- paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the
office before 01 March 2008;
- current or former members of the Board of Trustees.
Philippe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
You know, Dan, that's a good question. I wasn't aware that the Foundation had any independent contractors. If that's a situation that is actual, then I'll check in with the election committee. Are you asking hypothetically, or are there actually some that we need to think about?
No, I am one of them :-), actually, the only one.
The following exceptions exist; these people may vote regardless:
- Wikimedia server administrators with shell access;
- paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the
office before 01 March 2008;
- current or former members of the Board of Trustees.
And I am none of those. Not a server administrator and not a "paid staff who started working at the office before 01 March 2008". I am staff, though, kind of, but I don't work "at the office".
Oh well.
Oh, does contributing a few images to commons (that took about 10 hours of work alone to draw) actually count as more than the one edit it takes to upload them?
Delphine
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
You know, Dan, that's a good question. I wasn't aware that the Foundation had any independent contractors. If that's a situation that is actual, then I'll check in with the election committee. Are you asking hypothetically, or are there actually some that we need to think about?
No, I am one of them :-), actually, the only one.
Meaning, I am not the only contractor, but I believe I am the only one with no shell access that has been around since earlier than March 01. I think. :-)
Delphine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Delphine Ménard wrote: | On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote: |> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Philippe Beaudette |> philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote: |> > You know, Dan, that's a good question. I wasn't aware that the Foundation |> > had any independent contractors. If that's a situation that is actual, then |> > I'll check in with the election committee. Are you asking hypothetically, |> > or are there actually some that we need to think about? |> |> No, I am one of them :-), actually, the only one. | | Meaning, I am not the only contractor, but I believe I am the only one | with no shell access that has been around since earlier than March | 01. I think. :-) | | Delphine
I would like to mention that Delphine has over 50 edits in the time period on at least one "private" internal wiki, so she does meet the technical requirements regardless.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
From: "Cary Bass" cbass@wikimedia.org
I would like to mention that Delphine has over 50 edits in the time period on at least one "private" internal wiki, so she does meet the technical requirements regardless.
Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
If she has at least 50 edits on an internal wiki, she can vote.
Philippe
Although i hate to fight your authority here, the website [1] states there are three contractors currently: Mark Bergsma, Delphine Ménard and Tim Starling. Is the page outdated, or am I misreading something here maybe?
Lodewijk
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Current_staff
2008/5/1, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
You know, Dan, that's a good question. I wasn't aware that the Foundation had any independent contractors. If that's a situation that is actual, then I'll check in with the election committee. Are you asking hypothetically, or are there actually some that we need to think about?
No, I am one of them :-), actually, the only one.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, does contributing a few images to commons (that took about 10 hours of work alone to draw) actually count as more than the one edit it takes to upload them?
Yes. It counts as 11. But then you have to subtract 10 for asking this question.
Wait a second. Did you draw them in 2007, or 2008?
Seriously, if you want to get 50 easy contributions to commons, go nominate for deletion, 17 of the images I uploaded, as "doesn't list a source". I think that requires 3 edits each.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
(unofficial comment) In previous years, the election committee/medium has allowed voting from external wikis. I would be surprised if they didn't this year.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
(unofficial comment) In previous years, the election committee/medium has allowed voting from external wikis. I would be surprised if they didn't this year.
erm, make that internal.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
--- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
(unofficial comment too)
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
(unofficial comment) In previous years, the election committee/medium has allowed voting from external wikis. I would be surprised if they didn't this year.
No external wikis of WMF were allowed to vote. Private wikis which WMF ran are. Private wikis are not necessarily "external".
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 13:40 +0900, Aphaia wrote:
(unofficial comment too)
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
(unofficial comment) In previous years, the election committee/medium has allowed voting from external wikis. I would be surprised if they didn't this year.
No external wikis of WMF were allowed to vote. Private wikis which WMF ran are. Private wikis are not necessarily "external".
Casey did note in a later email that "internal" was what was meant to be written.
KTC
On 30/04/2008, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
Delphine - it's seriously not difficult to get 50 edits. I myself have made over 1000 in one hour just on recent changes patrol. 50 edits is tiny, and considering all the tools available, it really shouldn't be very difficult to get 50 edits.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 30/04/2008, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
Delphine - it's seriously not difficult to get 50 edits. I myself have made over 1000 in one hour just on recent changes patrol. 50 edits is tiny, and considering all the tools available, it really shouldn't be very difficult to get 50 edits.
Well, I just took an hour to make 18 edits ;) But then, I was doing research to source a biography. I have been known to take an hour to make just one or two edits, doing the same kind of work. 50 edits may or may not be a lot of work, depending on just what it is you're doing onwiki and how familiar you are with the tools.
Generally, editcountitis is a fairly poor measure of community participation -- it's just the only readily accessible metric we've got. Nathan said it very well up-thread -- people whose contributions don't translate into edits shouldn't be penalized. It seems pretty obvious to me that Delphine, and the volunteer sysadmins, and others in a similar position are clearly community members and should clearly have the right to vote regardless of their RC patrolling skills. It seems like there's a few classes of exceptions that could be easily made in the election rules without over-compromising the process; developers and sysadmins are the people that have come up the most so far.
Regardless, thanks to the election committee for explaining your reasoning on the matter.
-- phoebe
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:48 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
50 edits may or may not be a lot of work, depending on just what it is you're doing
For example, I have yet to port the following article to Wikipedia, and by the time I do, it will be a finished product which nets me 1 or 2 edits. I'm not the only one who edits in this manner.
http://grey.colorado.edu/emergent/index.php/Comparison_of_Neural_Network_Sim...
Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
50 edits may or may not be a lot of work, depending on just what it is you're doing
For example, I have yet to port the following article to Wikipedia, and by the time I do, it will be a finished product which nets me 1 or 2 edits. I'm not the only one who edits in this manner.
http://grey.colorado.edu/emergent/index.php/Comparison_of_Neural_Network_Sim...
JFTR: I (and probably some others as well) appreciate that behaviour very much as it keeps recent changes and watch lists nice and tidy and shows that the editor has looked at the article as an article and not as a concatenation of words.
Tim
I'd just like to highlight (so no one is confused) that there actually '' is '' an exception for sysadmins.
In the past couple of years that I've been on the committee, I haven't been told of an issue with developers having the required edits (yes, I agree, poor thing to judge upon but just about all we have). If that's an issue and there actually are developers who are disenfranchised (as opposed to hypotheticals), please encourage them to email me or any member of the committee and we'll see what we can do to work with them.
Philippe
-------------------------------------------------- From: "phoebe ayers" phoebe.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 7:48 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Election rules modification regarding suffrageissues raised on this list
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 30/04/2008, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
Delphine - it's seriously not difficult to get 50 edits. I myself have made over 1000 in one hour just on recent changes patrol. 50 edits is tiny, and considering all the tools available, it really shouldn't be very difficult to get 50 edits.
Well, I just took an hour to make 18 edits ;) But then, I was doing research to source a biography. I have been known to take an hour to make just one or two edits, doing the same kind of work. 50 edits may or may not be a lot of work, depending on just what it is you're doing onwiki and how familiar you are with the tools.
Generally, editcountitis is a fairly poor measure of community participation -- it's just the only readily accessible metric we've got. Nathan said it very well up-thread -- people whose contributions don't translate into edits shouldn't be penalized. It seems pretty obvious to me that Delphine, and the volunteer sysadmins, and others in a similar position are clearly community members and should clearly have the right to vote regardless of their RC patrolling skills. It seems like there's a few classes of exceptions that could be easily made in the election rules without over-compromising the process; developers and sysadmins are the people that have come up the most so far.
Regardless, thanks to the election committee for explaining your reasoning on the matter.
-- phoebe
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 30/04/2008, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
Delphine
Delphine - it's seriously not difficult to get 50 edits.
It depends, and it is not same for you and her. You have no kid, and can afford more time, for example.
Too much personalization like "it is not hard because it is easy for me" is no good argument. She lives her own life, and you your own. And we each are invididual whose life cannot completely exchangeable.
dit eI myself have made
over 1000 in one hour just on recent changes patrol. 50 edits is tiny, and considering all the tools available, it really shouldn't be very difficult to get 50 edits.
-- Alex (Majorly)
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 Wed, 2008-04-30 at 17:39 +0200, Delphine Ménard wrote:
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
With the admin group trial and impending global launch of SUL, the committee had hoped to allow counting of edits across multiple wikis that are linked to a single global account.
Unfortunately, as SUL isn't fully launched yet and we are getting to candidates acceptance time, the rule have to be as in previous years where only edit on one wiki count.
KTC
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across different projects? Do internal wikis count?
I think it is worthy to note: last year we had at least one employee who had voting eligibility only in this way before "employee clause" was introduced. She had 400+ edits on internal wiki.
I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to vote.
I expect you are eligible to vote regardless with your edit counts, but I am not sure this year employee clause is extended to contractors / oversee employees. Further explanation will be useful.
Delphine
~notafish http://blog.notanendive.org
NB. This gmail 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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org