Gordon,
Thanks. Unfortunately I also had a meta account under my real name
long before unified login gave me one under "BozMo" (which is my
account as admin at en and everywhere else except the foundation
site). "AndrewCates" on meta is mothballed in some sort of migration
queue.
But I signed on the guarantor list as BozMo, was logged on as BozMo
and it won't let me vote because it claimed I wasn't logged on. Not
that I have particularly strong opinions as all the candidates look
very plausible but it would be nice if it was glitch free.
Ho-hum. My experience on WP suggests try again in a day or two might work here.
Andrew
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> At 08:00 +0100 20/9/08, Andrew Cates wrote:
>>Hmm. Has anyone with SUL tried to send a vote? When I try to vote, it
>>tells me I have to be logged in with an email address registered but I
>>do appear to be logged in with an email registered. I wonder if that's
>>because these are from SUL?
>>
>>Andrew
>
> I have a unified login (based on Commons) and I have just voted
> successfully. But I had a Meta account long ago...
>
> Gordo
>
>
> --
> "Think Feynman"/////////
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
> http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
>
Owen Blacker owen at blacker.me.uk said:
No no, fair enough. I merely hadn't realised the issue had wound down.
On 9/19/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/09/2008, Owen Blacker <owen at blacker.me.uk> wrote:
>> Wasn't the issue of under-18s still under discussion?
>
> No-one on the side of allowing under-18s gave any indication of how
> they intend to satisfy the various things the charity commission
> recommends for charities with under-18 directors, so the discussion
> pretty much stopped there. The candidate list is closed now, so it's
> too late to start that discussion again - feel free to contact the
> chair prior to the AGM and have to issue put on the agenda if you want
> it reconsidered for the next board.
I agree that it should be reconsidered for the next Board but it was too late to change for the initial Board.
Regards,
Andrew
Last Sunday I wrote to the elections committee asking them what they intended to do about people who had
put themselves forward as candidates but had not either signed the declaration or provided their full name. The
community consensus appears to be that candidates have to do both or they are disqualified from the election,
but I presumed the elections committee would be the appropriate body to decide specifics. I have had no reply.
Since then everyone who has put themselves forward has either provided the details or withdrawn apart from
one person - ScribblewikiLover - who has still not provided his full name.
Voting is due to start very soon. It is unacceptable to start an election without knowing who the candidates are.
I had hoped that the election committee would resolve this question with a clear decision one way or the other
but all we have had from them is a resounding silence - they seem either unwilling or unable to make any
decisions like this. I think it falls to the community to decide in their absence.
I suggest one of two avenues:
- either we agree that s/he hasn't answered the question (which according to the timetable s/he should have
done by 13 September) and is therefore disqualified
- or we say he must answer the question by 20 September or he will be disqualified.
What do others think?
Andrew
One of the first things the new board will need to do is find a
solicitor to go over the governing documents with, so I thought I'd
ask: Does anyone know a good solicitor that specialises in charity
law? In particular, who did v1.0 use and would they recommend them?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
hi,
sorry if this has been discussed anywhere and i just missed it, but... has it
been decided what process is being used for the election? i see someone
created 'UK voteing account' (sic) on meta, which apparently [0] is a role
account people will email votes to.
if peoples' votes are going to be visible to the election committee members,
why not have a proper public vote, which is much more transparent and
verifiable?
- river.
[0] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidat…
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (SunOS)
iEYEARECAAYFAkjTrRYACgkQIXd7fCuc5vIRHACcCmE2rU0uuasgzfJCzq0B0Qp8
8PsAn37Wyc0Bwad1wZ3lP1exfWolg/Kj
=kg+h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> I am concerned about that implied definition of "voters", and the
> "they get what they deserve" throw away.
I think it's more "in the unlikely event that people go crazy and vote
for this person, they get what they deserve". I, and I think most
people, expect the community to vote sensibly.
> Wikimedia UK is meant to be open and inclusive (please correct me if I err).
>
> Hence, the ins and out of Wikimedia, Wikipedia, WMF, ARBCOM,
> checkuser, Commons etc, etc may mean very little to a diligent editor
> who works away at articles from time to time.
>
> Wikimedia UK should involve everybody, not just the hardened old
> timers, admins, and the cognicenti.
Indeed, which is why we need to make sure voters know what's going on.
Perhaps the election committee should make a brief statement on this
user's candidate statement and questions section explaining that
they've been blocked.
I am not a solicitor but I am an accountant with experience of company formation. I am willing to arrange this for
Wikimedia UK (whether or not I am on the Board) if they want - the only cost will be the £20 Companies House
registration fee. I know a friendly JP who has agreed to witness Form 12s for me in the past so that shouldn't be a problem.
Not being a solicitor I can't offer any advice on any other legal matters.
regards,
Andrew Turvey
Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton at gmail.com
<mailto:wikimediauk-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=%5BWikimediauk-l%5D%
20nominated%20candidates&In-Reply-To=29ebb7390809150756r38def9e2g4998018
c7e94f8ba%40mail.gmail.com> Wrote:
2008/9/15 Ian A. Holton <poeloq at gmail.com
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l> >:
> Just a quick question: who actually gets to vote?
The plan is to allow pretty much anyone that wants to to vote. The
election committee will give us the details soon, I imagine, but
anyone can add themselves as a potential member and there's no reason
not to allow all potential members to vote, so that means anyone can
vote. The only thing to be decided, I think, is whether or not to
impose a deadline on adding yourself to the membership list prior to
the election. I see little point in that myself, but it may make
things simpler for the committee.
====
Ultimately it is up to the election committee. This page here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_FAQs#What_are
_the_election_rules.3F states that the voters are those people who
signed their name as "guarantor members" or "supporters" but doesn't
give a deadline for signing up and I can't remember where it came from
anyway.
I suggest a deadline of 13 September so that we're encouraging people to
sign up to participate, not just signing up to vote!
Regards,
Andrew Turvey
ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC - IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This communication, and the information it contains
a) is intended for the addressee named above and for no other person or
organisation, and
b) may be confidential and/or legally privileged and/or protected in law.
Access to this communication by anyone other than the addressee is
unauthorised. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of all or part of this communication
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Unless the contrary is clear from its context, this communication does not create or modify any contract.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately
by return e-mail and destroy all copies of this communication.
This communication may contain personal data. If so, you are required to observe the provisions of any relevant data protection legislation in any processing of such data.
Although this company has taken reasonable steps to ensure that this communication and any attachments are free from computer virus, you are advised to take your own steps to ensure that they are actually virus free.
Alliance & Leicester plc is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Our FSA register number is 189099.
Alliance & Leicester plc, Registered office : Carlton Park, Narborough,
Leicester LE19 0AL.
Company No: 3263713. Registered in England.
If the decision of the elections committee is that his candidacy can stand (although he still hasn't confirmed his full
name), we need to bring the facts to the attention of the voters so that they can make an informed choice. We
shouldn't let a troll get in just because we were asleep on the job. The committee also needs to be careful who they
allow to vote - wouldn't want someone to get elected just because a load of his socks voted for him!
Going forward, I dont see how a charity whose objective is to promote the vision of wikimedia (however this is
eventually phrased) could permit someone to be a trustee who has actively undermined the project. We need to
have some kind of rules and mechanism to deal with these issues - including the ability to bar people from standing
and being able to remove trustees where new information comes to light regarding serious misconduct on wikimedia
projects.
On another point, the elections committee still haven't made a decision regarding the 50% rule. Could you do this ASAP - definitely before the voting starts.
Andrew