Hello, I am unable to report which chapters voted. The voting process is closed. Right now I have to recommend encouraging all chapters to vote. The election rules are decided by chapters and chapters have said closed election. I do not think this was a well-discussed rule, but whatever the case, it cannot be changed by the community and needs to be changed by chapters. Community discussion could influence it. I think that it is a rule that could change. Asking chapters to have open voting could be another reason to contact chapters, or open voting might be a problem - I am not sure. Even if voting were not completely open, there could be other kinds of openness, like just a list of who voted. Right now, I cannot provide that. Any chapter can look at the list and see who voted and who did not. For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual chapters seem to want to self-disclose. yours, On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote: -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com

Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 08.05 -0400, Lane Rasberry ha scritto: At the end of 2015, before starting the election process, there has been some discussion about this on Meta. The result was in favour of publishing, after the end of the election, the list of affiliates who voted. The idea of publishing a partial list during the voting process was not proposed; personally I think it's fine and it makes sense, but I'd like to hear a few opinions about this from the involved affiliates. Lorenzo

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip <attolippip(a)gmail.com> wrote: Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr Skype chats, one with each chapthorg? That sounds grueling. I thought the value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead of 40 times. Sam

Dear Sam, dear all, It was mainly my idea that we decided to talk to all candidates. I was under impression that we would have the opportunity to talk with all candidates in Berlin. I did get the reasoning that it would be too expensive to do it (in fact, all you have to do to get to WMCON is to apply for BoT and be endorsed by some chapter), but I really wanted to make the decision at least fairly... If we are not interested in people who may be our future members of WMF Board, how can we expect that they are interested in us? There are some excellent people nominating themselves, asking for our trust that they can do better, but we do not know them at all. And if we are voting only based on our personal connections, we would always vote for the same people. I thought it was wrong. We have struggled to find the balance between talking to people via skype/hangouts and not doing that. And this is the best solution we came up with. Maybe if I did not have the idea that we are going to have all candidates present during WMCON, I would try to do something else... But I did have that impression. We understand the difficulties of the process we decided to follow. I understand the concerns. But some crucial things about the candidates you can learn only in such a way: - are they willing to communicate with affiliates? - how they answer in real life? - how clearly they explain their thoughts? etc. And even the level of English is important. These people are going to represent (to some extent) our movement. Best regards, Ilya / ILLIA KORNIIKO Chair Wikimedia Ukraine З повагою, Ілля Корнійко Голова Правління ГО «Вікімедіа Україна» +38 067 65 66 177 http://ua.wikimedia.org On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Sam Klein <sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:

Hello, Actually I favor very much the idea that, after the election, there is a public list of the chapters that did cast the vote. (Not necessarily, which chapter supported which candidate, but that is another discussion. In 2012, the list of candidates was not published at all, by the way.) I remember from 2012 that, shortly before the elections, I heard a chairman from a specific chapter talking with very, very strong opinions about the movement. It struck me to find out later that that chapter didn't cast its vote. Isn't it important for a chapter to influence the movement as a whole? Also from the year 2012 (and 2013) I remember that many chapters that we from the WCA contacted did not respond at all. So I am not surprised to read now that only one third did vote until now. Lane wrote: "Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support less organized chapters in voting." I usually agree with Lane, but in this case I don't see that "duty". It is the responsibility of each and every chapter to become active, not anybody else's responsibility. Possibly, if a chapter board did not cast a vote, it is interesting for the members of the chapter to know that. Maybe the board can come up with a good reason. Kind regards Ziko 2016-05-03 17:40 GMT+02:00 Laurentius <laurentius.wiki(a)gmail.com>om>:

It is possible to self disclose now - it is a wiki. The problem is that there is no table set up for anyone to do it, and then it is confusing to tell people to report in two places. We could ask now, "who wants to self-disclose?" then copy those votes into a public space. The ideal way would be to have a way to note intent to self disclose in the one voting location, then anyone on the chapters wiki could report those votes publicly. I think it is too much to ask to have voting organizations take more than one action to vote. I do not want voting to be complicated. On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:09 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com

Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 19.09 +0700, John Mark Vandenberg ha scritto: This is still possible, of course! Any chapter can choose its internal processes: whether to have a discussion in their board, in the members' mailing list, or in the general assembly, or whether to publicly publish their vote or not. Laurentius

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel < itzik(a)wikimedia.org.il&gt; wrote: Itzik, just for clarity - I think Lane suggested that it would be optimal to release the information WHO voted (to enable encouraging those who have not), rather than HOW they voted. dj

It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same time: - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or after the election has finished) - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted* right now. It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made, and it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election works (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private. So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of Chapters in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so, would it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they have indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for] Thanks, -Liam -- wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata

In fact, for those who have access to it, there is a list of statements at the bottom of that page, listing statements from each chapthorg on their method and time of voting: https://chapters.wikimedia.ch/Appointment_process/2016/Voting#Statements For example, our entry says: "NYC: Decided by open public meeting on April 13, 2016." I think it might be best to make that whole section publicly viewable. Thanks, Pharos On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Gray &lt;andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; wrote:

We should be careful in not shaming communities to vote poorly to save face, or even vote for people they dont want as some may truly feel that the candidates who have nominated wont be a good representative of the community. The individual votes are visable to every affiliate who has access to vote and we all know that the more people who have access the more likely it'll be shared anyway either in part or in full. On 4 May 2016 at 00:24, Andrew Gray &lt;andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; wrote: -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

I think it is rather a subject that there are chapters which are "zombies" - I mean having no or very little activity. On the other hand we have a number of quite active usergroups which cannot vote. By the way, the overal number of non-voting chapters can be a good measure of the number of "zombie" chapters... 2016-05-03 21:14 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray &lt;andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt;uk>: -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/

Consistent with our commitment to openness, WMUK published our vote on our website last Friday, the day it was agreed by the board. It's at https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Minutes_2016-04-29 for anyone who may be interested. Best regards Michael Wikimedia_UK_logo_40px.png Michael Maggs Chair, Wikimedia UK Liam Wyatt wrote:

As with the community elections, the WMF board needs to appoint the elected candidates by resolution, and reserves the power not to do so. (I'd be surprised if as keen an observer of the WMF board as yourself wasn't already aware of this - it is quite well documented.) Indeed, there are some circumstances where they should definitely not do so. Imagine a candidate won in the election and then it was subsequently revealed they had committed a serious fraud. It would be ridiculous to expect the WMF Board to seat them in the light of that news. I take the point that the WMF is not greatly clear about its expectations of trustee behaviour and a lot of it appears to rely on unwritten rules and the views of other Board members. As a result it is not particular clear in what range of circumstances the WMF board might exercise its power not to appoint a candidate who'd been successful in the election, or to remove a sitting Board member. (We have one case recently where people have been outraged that someone was removed, and another case where people have been outraged that it took a matter of weeks to remove someone else). However, I think addressing that issue is rather more important than splitting the semantic hairs about "selection", "election" and the like. Regards, Chris (selection/election/suggestion/whatever facilitator)

There are actually no eligibility criteria for this election, except that candidates have received at least one endorsement from a Wikimedia chapter or Thematic Organisation. Given sufficient common sense from both the voting affiliates and the WMF board itself, this isn't a problem. Chris

@Andreas - I am serving as an election facilitator in this process. That means I volunteer to organize the election, but not that I have any rank or power to set rules or to interpret the process. I have read what I can, and talked to people, and I can probably answer easy questions about the election and the nature of the board. I cannot give any authoritative answer to deep questions like the one you asked. My perspective is that no one can directly answer your question - not even the WMF board itself. Whatever else the WMF board is legally, it is also accountable to the Wikimedia community and must align itself to Wikimedia community culture every three years or otherwise it seems positioned because of this election structure to be completely replaced with radical quickness. If the WMF board takes a position that conflicts with the Wikimedia community then it could be elected out if the community wants to correct the perspective. There are no other institutions like this anywhere that elect 5 of ten board members then appoint the other 4, and have no permanent touchstone with the board or institution itself. The board was designed to be elected by Wikimedia community control from inception - 3 directly elected, 2 by authorized organizations, and those 5 appoint another 4 and they better make a choice the community likes to fulfill election promises. If I were to answer your question, I would say to call this process an election. It was intended to be an election at its founding. The community of voting organizations and Wikimedia community stakeholders perceive it as an election, even if some individuals have questions. The nature of the board is to originate from elected approval from the Wikimedia community and their closely watched representatives. People can imagine nuance in the word "election" if they like but I do not know of a better word to call this than "election". I think it is good to call the community selected members "elected", despite what happened, and good for the community to keep rather than divest the power it has always recognized and claimed to elect the WMF board. The reason why it is hard to answer your question is because you are asking a legal question, and Wikimedia processes are designed to be human understandable even if less legally precise. In human terms, "election" is what this is called and how it should be imagined. I do not think that anyone benefits from trying to legally analyze this and instead people should emphasize the humanity of the process and build the precedent of what this means in simple, human terms that everyone accepts as a cultural norm. "Election" yours, On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com

Given the quickly approaching deadline, and the general support for affiliates voluntarily sharing if they voted (not who they voted for) - I went ahead (after chatting with folks that attended WikiCon) and setup a Meta-Wiki page to allow folks to voluntarily report back over the next couple of days: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Voted <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Voted> -greg (User:Varnent)

Just for ask: the final day to cast a vote, is tonight (May 6 23:59:59 UTC) or May 7 23:59:29 UTC? El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:55, Andrew Gray < andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; escribió: -- Dennis Tobar Calderón (Enviado desde un móvil, lamento lo breve o los errores de ortografía)

Chris: Thanks for the clarification. When I read Andrew's message "tonight ends", I'm read it like as "the end of the world is near", because we will cast our vote tonight. Regards! El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:59, Chris Keating < chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; escribió: -- Dennis Tobar Calderón (Enviado desde un móvil, lamento lo breve o los errores de ortografía)

We are now up to 36 votes and 3 more are expected today. Still haven't heard from Hungary, Macedonia or Macau but this is now the best turnout in an ASBS process. Chris On 6 May 2016 16:59, "Andrew Gray" &lt;andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; wrote: