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
2008/9/17 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
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!
We certainly need to do something - I understand the user is currently blocked on meta, which makes answering questions rather challenging. I suggest the election committee offer to post answers sent to them via email.
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.
I agree, but the decision about what constitutes undermining the projects should lie with the community, not a meta admin. Following my previous comments on the subject of removing trustees, I've done a little reading of the Companies Act 2006 (I really don't recommend acts of parliament as light bedtime reading!) and it explicitly gives members the right to dismiss trustees at AGMs and EGMs. A simple majority of members present at the meeting is required, if memory serves.
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.
Excellent point. I don't think we've heard anything from the committee yet, which suggests they are still in the discussion stage - I'm sure they'll speak up soon with their final decisions (I gave Seddon a long list of things they need to decide!).
2008/9/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com
Excellent point. I don't think we've heard anything from the committee yet, which suggests they are still in the discussion stage - I'm sure they'll speak up soon with their final decisions (I gave Seddon a long list of things they need to decide!).
A fully working outline on how it is currently planed the elections will be conducted can be found at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_FAQs#What_are_the...
A fully working outline on how it is currently planed the elections will be conducted can be found at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_FAQs#What_are_the...
Ah, I missed you adding that - thanks! It all looks good. You're sticking with the proposed timetable for the elections, then?
geni wrote:
A fully working outline on how it is currently planed the elections will be conducted can be found at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate_FAQs#What_are_the...
I'm simply posting this under a more meaningful subject header to bring it to the attention of people.
Folks, there has been some discussion under the previous subject (preserved above) I'm afraid you'll need to refer to that thread for the discussion. I just wanted to flag this important announcement in a way that won't slip past as easily.
Ross
On 17 Sep 2008, at 16:20, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/17 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
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!
We certainly need to do something - I understand the user is currently blocked on meta, which makes answering questions rather challenging. I suggest the election committee offer to post answers sent to them via email.
We should probably consider moving the WMUK stuff onto a seperate wiki/server at some point in the future, to avoid this issue (and similar/related issues) in the future.
Mike
We should probably consider moving the WMUK stuff onto a seperate wiki/server at some point in the future, to avoid this issue (and similar/related issues) in the future.
Absolutely. I would suggest asking the WMF to host a wiki for us at uk.wikimedia.org (with wikimedia.org.uk redirecting to it) - I think we may need to wait until we actually have chapter status for that, though (anyone from WMF or ChapCom reading this, please feel free to clarify that!).
2008/9/17 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
We should probably consider moving the WMUK stuff onto a seperate wiki/server at some point in the future, to avoid this issue (and similar/related issues) in the future.
I'd suggest that Meta is the right place for it, actually.
- d.
2008/9/17 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/9/17 Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net:
We should probably consider moving the WMUK stuff onto a seperate wiki/server at some point in the future, to avoid this issue (and similar/related issues) in the future.
I'd suggest that Meta is the right place for it, actually.
Meta is the best place for the moment, but it's really for things directly relating to the projects. Chapters are meant to be somewhat independent, so we will need our own place for actual chapter discussions. During the planning stages, meta will do just fine, though.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:05 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd suggest that Meta is the right place for it, actually.
- d.
Wikimedia Pennsylvania have their own wiki: http://pa.us.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page I don't see why we can't.
2008/9/17 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
Wikimedia Pennsylvania have their own wiki: http://pa.us.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page I don't see why we can't.
The mistake we made with WIkimedia PA was that we created the wiki before we had any reasonable use or it. Hence, the wiki is basically abandoned. If you want to go this direction it's relatively easily to set up if you talk to one of the techs.
--Andrew Whitworth
2008/9/17 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
2008/9/17 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
Wikimedia Pennsylvania have their own wiki: http://pa.us.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page I don't see why we can't.
The mistake we made with WIkimedia PA was that we created the wiki before we had any reasonable use or it. Hence, the wiki is basically abandoned. If you want to go this direction it's relatively easily to set up if you talk to one of the techs.
We have no need of a wiki yet, but when we do is asking the techs all that's required? We don't need the approval of the board or anything?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/17 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
2008/9/17 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
Wikimedia Pennsylvania have their own wiki: http://pa.us.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page I don't see why we can't.
The mistake we made with WIkimedia PA was that we created the wiki before we had any reasonable use or it. Hence, the wiki is basically abandoned. If you want to go this direction it's relatively easily to set up if you talk to one of the techs.
We have no need of a wiki yet, but when we do is asking the techs all that's required? We don't need the approval of the board or anything?
All you need to do is ask, which I believe is what happened with us-pa wiki. It will all depend on developer time, but filing a bug is the standard (and best) approach.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
On 17 Sep 2008, at 19:11, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/17 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
2008/9/17 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
Wikimedia Pennsylvania have their own wiki: http://pa.us.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page I don't see why we can't.
The mistake we made with WIkimedia PA was that we created the wiki before we had any reasonable use or it. Hence, the wiki is basically abandoned. If you want to go this direction it's relatively easily to set up if you talk to one of the techs.
We have no need of a wiki yet, but when we do is asking the techs all that's required? We don't need the approval of the board or anything?
Which board?
It's pretty trivial to get Mediawiki installed; if we decide that we want one, Wikimedia don't want to install / host one, then I would be willing to set one up and host it.
Mike
We have no need of a wiki yet, but when we do is asking the techs all that's required? We don't need the approval of the board or anything?
Which board?
WMF, since they control the servers. Cary says we just need to file a bug report, though, which we can easily do.
It's pretty trivial to get Mediawiki installed; if we decide that we want one, Wikimedia don't want to install / host one, then I would be willing to set one up and host it.
Yeah, I've run Mediawiki installations for testing purposes, it's easy enough. I don't see any reason why WMF would reject our request, though.
2008/9/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
It's pretty trivial to get Mediawiki installed; if we decide that we want one, Wikimedia don't want to install / host one, then I would be willing to set one up and host it.
Yeah, I've run Mediawiki installations for testing purposes, it's easy enough.
Yep. One thing about Mediawiki: it's *incredibly* easy to set up.
I don't see any reason why WMF would reject our request, though.
Indeed.
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Peel:
It's pretty trivial to get Mediawiki installed; if we decide that we want one, Wikimedia don't want to install / host one, then I would be willing to set one up and host it.
i think it's probably a bad idea to have critical infrastructure in the hands of a single person. if we did want to host our own things, it should be under some kind of company account, not an individual person's account. (and, of course, more than one person should have access.)
(of course, since there is no company yet, that would mean asking the WMF to host a wiki if we want one now - i see no problem with that though, it's a lot less effort than running our own.)
- river.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org