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> wrote:
The hard deadline to apply is sometime today (unclear exactly when), so please jump in
now so our winning candidate can register and actually attend!
See background, candidates and "Support" votes at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedians_of_Colorado_User_G…
I imagine that people can express opinions about and support as many candidates as they
like, "Approval voting style" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) 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.
We could 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 that clock.
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.
-I