As you know, the Wikimedia Foundation elections is approaching. As always, the voters will be the community, developers, current board member and.. WMF staff and contractors. Nothing changed. same as two years ago.
But I wonder - we had this policy when the chapters and others recognized Wikimedia organization doesn't been really part of the equation.
Yes, many of the chapters board and staff are community members and have the right the vote - but this is also the case with many of the WMF employees, but still we giving some of them the right to vote even if they hardly ever edit on the projects. But we not giving the same right to our's board and chapters staff, who are also part of the movement.
I'm raising this issue, and asking if should chapter (and thematic organization) staff and board members should be granted the right to vote in the movement elections, in the same way as Foundation staff and board members have right now? To me it's making sense.
Itzik WMIL
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
Most chapter members and representatives participate not only in the community elections but also in the selection of chapter-nominated board seats. It doesn't seem like chapters as a group are at all disenfranchised.
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active on the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
rupert.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active on the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
agreed - I actually don't see a reason why the elections should not be limited to Wikimedia editors with some edit count. I would assume that if there are people in other categories currently eligible to vote, who would lose this privilege if they were required to do some minimal amount of editing, it is not too much of a burden to ask them to start editing, if they indeed want to participate in the community also through elections.
best,
dj / pundit
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:15 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
rupert.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active
on
the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
nemowiki@gmail.com>wrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:15 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
In the 2011 election, anyone active with commit access (that is, the ability to change code in the software repository) also got a vote. It looks like that will be the case for this election, too.
In principle, I would expect more people to be eligible to vote as developers this time, because the new version control system (Git instead of Subversion) doesn't have the same barriers to access.
On 28/04/2013 06:15, rupert THURNER wrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
Erm...
"Developers qualify to vote if they:
....
Have commit access and have made at least one merged commit in git between 1 May 2012 and 30 April 2013."
On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
So we've already got those in :-)
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections)
- Andrew.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active on the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway.
Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
So we've already got those in :-)
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections)
- Andrew.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active
on
the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
nemowiki@gmail.com>wrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l%3E
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think it's a good idea Sue. Wikipedians are different than Wikimedians, etc.. There are many people on boards of chapters and involved in the community that might not "edit" on wiki spaces, making them perhaps unable to vote. And there are a lot of people involved in the community that aren't editors or active on wiki, but, are strong voices involved in helping to shape the movement into what it is.
I also think, culturally, it's critical that we consider moving away from assuming people with high edit counts are more "important" than those without. (bytes versus edit counts)
Regarding staff members who vote - I have a feeling most staff members who do not contribute to the projects outside of their work obligations probably won't vote. Just a guess (based on what I gather around the office - just because you work for Wikimedia doesn't mean you contribute to our projects outside of work hours).
-Sarah
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway.
Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
So we've already got those in :-)
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections)
- Andrew.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not
active
on
the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
the
chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
nemowiki@gmail.com>wrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while
complicating
them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l%3E
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2013/4/28 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org
If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
Yes, that would be a very good solution!
Pavel
Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
So we've already got those in :-)
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections)
- Andrew.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not
active
on
the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
the
chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
nemowiki@gmail.com>wrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while
complicating
them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l%3E
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2013/4/28 Pavel Richter pavel.richter@wikimedia.de
2013/4/28 Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org
If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to
lower
the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
Yes, that would be a very good solution!
Pavel
That's probably why edits on all wikis count already.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013#Requirem...
I'd actually suggest the opposite: That the only people eligible to vote for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia projects. That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board eligibility. Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter staff....but eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election every year that involves the entire community.
Risker
On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway.
Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
So we've already got those in :-)
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections)
- Andrew.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not
active
on
the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
the
chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
nemowiki@gmail.com>wrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while
complicating
them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l%3E
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sunday, April 28, 2013, Risker wrote:
I'd actually suggest the opposite: That the only people eligible to vote for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia projects. That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board eligibility. Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter staff....but eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election every year that involves the entire community.
Risker
Speaking personally, I agree with Risker.
On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff
had
been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would
qualify
under the edit count requirement anyway.
Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would
qualify.
If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to
lower
the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com
wrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for
all
elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
So we've already got those in :-)
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections)
- Andrew.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov <abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not
active
on
the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
the
chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
nemowiki@gmail.com>wrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the
election
> for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer > community. Presumably that would include most members of most > organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid >
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'd actually suggest the opposite: That the only people eligible to vote for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia projects. That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board eligibility. Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter staff....but eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election every year that involves the entire community.
Risker
Also speaking personally I'd completely agree. I think the chapter community, while different, certainly deserves a role in the elections but have never been fully comfortable with the separation of "chapter seats" (or, I imagine if they were kept 'organization seats for movement groups would probably be included too) and 'community seats'. Rather then push the different community groups apart let us push them together and have them all vote on all 5 of the community seats. Our community is spread out in to many different areas but I'd say they are all part of the wider community and I do not think any one deserves special recognition or status over the others. These are 'your' board members compared to 'our' board members, they should all be there to work for the foundation (as they are required by law to do) and the movement as a whole.
James
Absolutely! If there would be some always available public interface to check if a user has voting right then this could be used on other votes and elections in various languages as well, a little like the German wikipedias "stimmberechtigung". This then could later on be adjusted to consider code contributions to repositories important to wikimedias mission as well.
Rupert Am 28.04.2013 22:43 schrieb "Sue Gardner" sgardner@wikimedia.org:
Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway.
Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray" andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included.
The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011."
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
So we've already got those in :-)
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections)
- Andrew.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not
active
on
the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
the
chapter-selected board seats.
A.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
nemowiki@gmail.com>wrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while
complicating
them for a few dozens voters is not.
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l%3E
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections)
I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members). Moving this discussion on-wiki would definitely be good, to reduce the chances of this discussion being forgotten about next time around...
BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.
Thanks, Mike (personal viewpoint)
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nl wrote:
With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3 by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the board members would be not directly coopted. Many other varieties are possible, of course. The staff could together vote one elector who would take part in the selection by the chapters, the same for the Wikimedia User Groups. But then, this voting group should select ultimately not 2 but 3 seats. People who don't edit but belong to the movement can have their influence via the chapters and in future the thorgs.
On 30 April 2013 11:54, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members). Moving this discussion on-wiki would definitely be good, to reduce the chances of this discussion being forgotten about next time around...
BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.
An alternative proposal, as suggested by Risker and James above is that even if you don't necessarily edit substantially, you can still be part of the movement, so lowering edit requirements to allow *all *staff and board members of the WMF, Chapters and other thematic organisations (and everyone else that's part of the movement) to elect all 5 of the "community" seats (3 community + 2 chapters) would bring everyone in the movement closer together.
This would arguably be the most fair option, can someone summarise the justification for chapters to be able to exclusively select 2 of out 5 community seats through a much less-transparent process?
On 30 Apr 2013, at 14:30, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Ziko van Dijk vandijk@wmnederland.nl wrote:
With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3 by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the board members would be not directly coopted. Many other varieties are possible, of course. The staff could together vote one elector who would take part in the selection by the chapters, the same for the Wikimedia User Groups. But then, this voting group should select ultimately not 2 but 3 seats. People who don't edit but belong to the movement can have their influence via the chapters and in future the thorgs.
On 30 April 2013 11:54, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members). Moving this discussion on-wiki would definitely be good, to reduce the chances of this discussion being forgotten about next time around...
BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.
An alternative proposal, as suggested by Risker and James above is that even if you don't necessarily edit substantially, you can still be part of the movement, so lowering edit requirements to allow all staff and board members of the WMF, Chapters and other thematic organisations (and everyone else that's part of the movement) to elect all 5 of the "community" seats (3 community + 2 chapters) would bring everyone in the movement closer together.
This would arguably be the most fair option, can someone summarise the justification for chapters to be able to exclusively select 2 of out 5 community seats through a much less-transparent process?
I'm not sure how low the edit requirements would have to be in order to allow all staff + board members to vote - has anyone looked at the statistics of edit counts of staff + board members to quantify this? It would also need to be balanced against the increased risk of election fraud (it's easier to create more new accounts with a smaller number of edits without being spotted).
My understanding of the chapter-selected seats is that those were intended to bring in people from the chapters' sphere of contacts who were unlikely to want to stand through very public elections, hence the reduced transparency involved in their appointments. So I'd personally view them as a sort of cross-over between expert and community seats, rather than simply as community seats (e.g. they wouldn't necessarily be filled by a Wikimedian).
Thanks, Mike (personal viewpoint)
On 4/30/2013 3:54 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections)
I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members).
I also agree that it would be best to treat all staff the same in this regard, whether they technically work for a chapter or the global foundation. I think that's particularly true because the technical employment arrangements don't necessarily line up with true function, and could lead to rather odd results in specific cases. As we've seen or could easily imagine, staff might be designated as temporary contractors, be delegated to work at another organization, or have their salary paid by one entity while working for another. All of these things could happen for perfectly good reasons in operational terms, but have no bearing on whether that person should be able to participate in these elections.
BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.
This is a valid consideration, but I'd like to offer a counterargument, which is (at least in my mind) an important reason the rotation of board seats was set up the way it is now. As we've seen, the process of organizing and conducting these elections is a significant burden, especially on the volunteers doing the work but also for the candidates who choose to participate. I would suggest that it also imposes costs on the community at large in terms of the attention and energy directed to the election. I consider those costs well worth paying overall, but believe that it's also better not to run them up too often. I'm not sure that the benefits of this change warrant effectively doubling the load the process creates.
--Michael Snow
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
Most chapter members and representatives participate not only in the community elections but also in the selection of chapter-nominated board seats. It doesn't seem like chapters as a group are at all disenfranchised.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I would say my view on the voting rules also, like last year where I was a active editor but wasn't allowed to vote because of the rule that you can't be blocked on more then one project.
I was that year a administrator, list administrator and member of the LangCom. But was blocked on a project where I was active before and on a project where I never editted.. This made me not able to vote.
With the rule of being blocked it will be very EASY to remove people you don't want to vote... Just block them for a while and they can't vote.
The rules of the voting should be changed, so that it would be more easy for people to vote and not let there be a change that people can be excluded from voting by just random facts.
Huib
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers.
Most chapter members and representatives participate not only in the community elections but also in the selection of chapter-nominated board seats. It doesn't seem like chapters as a group are at all disenfranchised.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
A.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
the
first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
want
to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
N.B. the discussion page for the election is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013
-- phoebe
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
the
first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
want
to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).
I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time.
Risker (Election Committee Member)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mort...
Hello dear all,
I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
the
first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
want
to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).
I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time.
Risker (Election Committee Member)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mort... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Ting, Risker,
1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be volunteer in the committee.
2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue
Itzik
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Hello dear all,
I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
the
first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
want
to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and
staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election
started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).
I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time.
Risker (Election Committee Member)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** elections_2013/Post_mortemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hello Itzik
yes, you are right.
But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is also a volunteer driven committee. It is a tremendous effort. They have weekly meeting since February, and they did a lot of things. It is unfair to stand out now and say you are doing a bad job.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri:
Ting, Risker,
- To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be
volunteer in the committee.
- I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the
voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue
Itzik
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Hello dear all,
I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
the
first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
want
to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and
staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election
started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).
I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time.
Risker (Election Committee Member)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** elections_2013/Post_mortemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Ting,
I don't think that Itzik has said anywhere that the election committee is doing a bad job. I think he is simply saying that you shouldn't have to commit to having a meeting every week since February just to have an opinion on the topic that is taken seriously.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 30 April 2013 19:40, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Itzik
yes, you are right.
But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is also a volunteer driven committee. It is a tremendous effort. They have weekly meeting since February, and they did a lot of things. It is unfair to stand out now and say you are doing a bad job.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri:
Ting, Risker,
- To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to
be volunteer in the committee.
- I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read
the voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue
Itzik
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Hello dear all,
I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
the
first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
want
to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their
"bosses"..
That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and
staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election
started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).
I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time.
Risker (Election Committee Member)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/****wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_**http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** elections_2013/Post_mortem<htt**p://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/** Wikimedia_Foundation_**elections_2013/Post_mortemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem
______________________________****_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________****_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________**_________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Ting, you completely twisted things. I didn't criticize Election Committee, or blamed them. Especially I didn't said they doing a bad job. I didn't even mentioned them. I just raised the issue and said clearly that it is something that has been around from the previous elections and wondered whether we should consider the issue. Your offended tone and defensiveness is not helpful to the discussion.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Itzik
yes, you are right.
But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is also a volunteer driven committee. It is a tremendous effort. They have weekly meeting since February, and they did a lot of things. It is unfair to stand out now and say you are doing a bad job.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri:
Ting, Risker,
- To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to
be volunteer in the committee.
- I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read
the voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue
Itzik
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Hello dear all,
I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
the
first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
want
to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their
"bosses"..
That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and
staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election
started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).
I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time.
Risker (Election Committee Member)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/****wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_**http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** elections_2013/Post_mortem<htt**p://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/** Wikimedia_Foundation_**elections_2013/Post_mortemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem
______________________________****_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________****_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.****org <Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**** mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l <h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________**_________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
And to come back to the topic.
At least in the theory, if someone is blocked in a project, than he has a serious problem with that community. And the reason that his block is not lifted should be a serious one. And if someone has a serious problem with more than one community, than it is questionable if he should be eligible to take part in the decision of such an office. So from the theory I think the rule is ok.
If in the praxis someone is blocked by a project arbitrarily and he is not able to appeal by that community, than that community and that project has a real problem. And we should look into detail what is going wrong in that project and in that community. But this is not an issue of the election committee.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri:
Ting, Risker,
- To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be
volunteer in the committee.
- I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the
voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue
Itzik
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Hello dear all,
I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded.
Greetings Ting
Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri itzik@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
the
first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
want
to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and
staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election
started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).
I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time.
Risker (Election Committee Member)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** elections_2013/Post_mortemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 30 April 2013 10:47, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
At least in the theory, if someone is blocked in a project, than he has a serious problem with that community. And the reason that his block is not lifted should be a serious one. And if someone has a serious problem with more than one community, than it is questionable if he should be eligible to take part in the decision of such an office. So from the theory I think the rule is ok.
So if two trolls have admin rights on three tiny wikis, and block you because they don't like you, then you'd be fine with being disenfranchised by that? (Remember that we've had an entire project, Wikiversity, pretty much taken over by disgruntled Wikipedia trolls.)
- d.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:08 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Remember that we've had an entire project, Wikiversity, pretty much taken over by disgruntled Wikipedia trolls.)
Very side note: I'm not sure if you're talking in the past sense or not here but I did want to stick up for Wikiversity a bit here in the more presente tense. I don't think I've checked in the past couple weeks but I've trolled the recent changes there every month or so for a while and have been really excited to see it doing some cool looking work for a while now. It seems that many of the issues in the past have been mostly resolved. I am sure, like us all, they still have some skeletons they would like to get rid of but it seems that the internal process there did end kicking into gear some. </offtopic>
James
On 30.04.2013 12:14, James Alexander wrote:
Very side note: I'm not sure if you're talking in the past sense or not here but I did want to stick up for Wikiversity a bit here in the more presente tense. I don't think I've checked in the past couple weeks but I've trolled the recent changes there every month or so for a while and have been really excited to see it doing some cool looking work for a while now. It seems that many of the issues in the past have been mostly resolved. I am sure, like us all, they still have some skeletons they would like to get rid of but it seems that the internal process there did end kicking into gear some. </offtopic>
James _______________________________________________
The founder and guru of the Russian Wikiversity was banned from Russian Wikipedia several years ago for trolling and disruptive behavior, and also made himself infamous for introducing obligatory "user reputation" template on the talk pages and blocking users with zero contribution (some of them indefinitely).
Cheers Yaroslav
On 30 April 2013 10:47, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
And to come back to the topic.
At least in the theory, if someone is blocked in a project, than he has a serious problem with that community. And the reason that his block is not lifted should be a serious one. And if someone has a serious problem with more than one community, than it is questionable if he should be eligible to take part in the decision of such an office. So from the theory I think the rule is ok.
If in the praxis someone is blocked by a project arbitrarily and he is not able to appeal by that community, than that community and that project has a real problem. And we should look into detail what is going wrong in that project and in that community. But this is not an issue of the election committee.
Certainly that is a theory. However we also have people that are voluntarily blocked as part of an enforced wiki-break, and we also have examples of Wikimedians who were blocked on a project years ago, and never could be bothered to go through the pain of an appeal but instead successfully focus on some of the other Wikimedia projects and leave that pain behind. In neither of these examples would it be fair to claim that such folks are so set against our mission that they must not have a vote. Perhaps we ought to separate these things and allow individuals to apply for a right to vote if they can provide a case of unusual circumstances that may make a waiver against the basic rules seem reasonable to a panel?
As for when a block might be "arbitrary", I don't believe the WMF or the community has any way of determining when this is the case. Certainly some rationales for blocks appear arbitrary.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org