(Appologies if this comes through twice - I have concerns about my e-mail service)
I feel very strongly that we should not change the rules after the election. We voted for two board members and we have two. If it's decided that we need another then we should vote again. There is every possibility that the results will change with the changed situation - for example, it's been pointed out that many people felt that there should be a non-en. board member. As Anthere is a member already this may influence votes. I for one think that a U.S. user representative would be a balance in the current board.
Regards
sannse
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 at 21:52 +0000, sannse wrote:
(Appologies if this comes through twice - I have concerns about my e-mail service)
I feel very strongly that we should not change the rules after the election. We voted for two board members and we have two. If it's decided that we need another then we should vote again. There is every possibility that the results will change with the changed situation - for example, it's been pointed out that many people felt that there should be a non-en. board member. As Anthere is a member already this may influence votes. I for one think that a U.S. user representative would be a balance in the current board.
re-doing a vote just mean: "We don't like results so we redo a vote", I don't understand at all the purpose of this thread. Can someone clarify where is really the problem ?
regards, Philippe Elie
Hi all,
I really don't understand all this. Since when the rules get changed AFTER the election?
I have always thought that 5 members are not enough, especially because only 2 members are elected. But this has to be decided BEFORE the vote takes place.
Changing the rules after the election is a very bad start for the foundation, and doing so BECAUSE of the results is even worse. It damages the credibility of the voting procedure, and therefore of the representativity of the board.
I am sure there are other ways to accomodate the participation of everybody in the project.
Regards, Yann Forget
Since several people have expressed skepticism about doing this I withdraw my support for this approach (substitute trustee). It would have questionable legitimacy, and I don't want that.
I will take a wiki vacation for about two weeks and then I will decide how and whether I will continue to participate in Wikimedia. I may make edits here and there but I won't be watching the mailing lists so if there's anything important please contact me at my other email address, moeller@scireview.de
Regards,
Erik
I think the scepticism, certainly from my point of view, is not in the idea of having a substitute member but in the idea of using the results of one vote to decide on a new issue. I think it is possible that if we had been voting for two members plus a substitute the voting pattern may have been different. I don't know that it is so of course, and perhaps the closeness of the final result indicates that it wouldn't have been - but my belief in the principle is strong. I do know that my own vote was influenced in part by the number of people we were voting for.
A straightforward ratification vote would be too limited in my view (from my understanding of how this might work). A "yes/no" vote would not allow for other possibilities, such as a holding a new vote specifically for this position with more than one candidate. Perhaps a wider vote on the issues might be helpful (although I'm aware of the problem of too many votes).
-- sannse
(copied privately to Erik)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de To: foundation-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Re: Erik as backup trustee
Since several people have expressed skepticism about doing this I withdraw my support for this approach (substitute trustee). It would have questionable legitimacy, and I don't want that.
I will take a wiki vacation for about two weeks and then I will decide how and whether I will continue to participate in Wikimedia. I may make edits here and there but I won't be watching the mailing lists so if there's anything important please contact me at my other email address, moeller@scireview.de
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org