Alright, it's almost 8pm MT, so I think we should call this. As of
the winning candidate is Abhay Natu with three votes. Every candidate
got at least two votes, which I think is a testament to the strengths
of all of them. Thanks to everybody who applied, voted or discussed
Abhay: you need to apply at
-- hopefully you'll still make it before anybody shows up at the
office Monday morning (in around four hours!). Congratulations, and we
look forward to hearing from you once you get back!
On 8 January 2017 at 14:52, Isarra Yos <zhorishna(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/01/17 19:22, Neal McBurnett wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:04:23PM -0500, Gaurav Vaidya wrote:
On 8 Jan 2017, at 1:54 PM, Neal McBurnett <neal(a)bcn.boulder.co.us>
The hard deadline to apply is sometime today (unclear exactly when), so
please jump in now so our winning candidate can register and actually
See background, candidates and "Support" votes at
I imagine that people can express opinions about and support as many
candidates as they like, "Approval voting style"
) so I've done so. If folks
think we should have different ground rules, please speak up about that also
Yay, thanks! How does Approval Voting work if you vote for all the
candidates, though? Doesn’t that mean that only my (old-fashioned,
first-past-the-post) vote counts?
Good question. All votes of support count. Supporting everyone is a
valid opinion (and the world would be a better place with more widespread
support of each other ;). The winner (if we use this process, vs random
selection) would simply be the candidate with the most support.
But even as an election geek, I haven't dug properly in to the various
ways decisions are made in Wikimedia-land, so I welcome insights and
alternative proposals. If more of us had responded back when you brought
this all up, Gaurav, we might have done something more sensible. E.g. does
it make more sense to have public votes, or a secret ballot for this sort of
thing? Hopefully our delegate will find out more at the conference ;)
Generally speaking, if it works at all, you can be pretty sure at least SOME
group within wikimedia does it. It's a wide and very diverse movement, so I
don't think we need to worry about being strange, at least...
And I see no problem with approval voting, at least.
set a deadline for 5pm or 7pm MT unless we hear back from your
query to the Foundation. If we don’t have enough votes for a winning
candidate (maybe three?), it might be more fair to pick one randomly, which
I’d have no problem with — all three candidates are GREAT, and I’d no
problem with sending any of them to this meeting!
Great questions and ideas. Thanks again, Gaurav!
Yeah, sure, unless either you or Abhay feel particularly inclined (more than
the other, I mean) to put in a very rushed official registration thing.
Given they didn't specify a time zone, we can probably get away with using
MST, but normally it probably would be UTC, and it's already pretty late on
So, uh, let's just move forward and send a thorough prodding to the unlucky
winner (you're going to have to do work, you know) around 18:00 local.
EVERYONE ELSE VOTE NOW THANKS.
Wikimedia-US-CO mailing list