Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34: I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election 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(a)lists.wikimedia.**org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

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 &lt;abartov(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: on nemowiki(a)gmail.com&gt;wroteote: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://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.

On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER &lt;rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. wrote: on nemowiki(a)gmail.com&gt;wroteote: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> the -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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!

Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray" &lt;andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; wrote: active the complicating _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)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" &lt;andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; wrote: active the complicating _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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

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)

On 29 April 2013 21:01, Ziko van Dijk &lt;vandijk(a)wmnederland.nl&gt; 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 &lt;michael.peel(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; 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 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

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 Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri &lt;itzik(a)infra.co.il&gt; wrote: the want 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.

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 &lt;abartov(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

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, ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.**org &lt;Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists…

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 &lt;wing.philopp(a)gmx.de&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

(Remember that we've had an entire project, Wikiversity, pretty much taken over by disgruntled Wikipedia trolls.)

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.