joseph seddon wrote:
On behalf of British community and the election committee, I would like to thank all those who participated in this election. The committee apologises for the delay in getting these results out. Internet access and real life resulted in time not being readily available this weekend and hence the lateness. In total, 27 members of the British community voted in the election, therefore, to reach the 50% requirement, 14 votes in favour of a candidate were required.
5 candidates will head the initial board for Wikimedia UK and be responsible for its set up. Due to only 5 candidates reaching the required 50% vote the board the board will consist of those people. The board members are as follows:
KTC AndrewRT CFP Warofdreams Mike Peel.
I would like to wish the best of luck to all those who will be responsible, whether board members or not, for making Wikimedia UK a fully functional and successful chapter . In time, feedback will be passed onto the board before the next elections to hopefully improve this process.
User:Seddon @ en:wiki
Election committee ========
Many thanks for your efforts with running this election.
I would be interested to see more details of the election results (although I'd understand if you felt it wasn't appropriate to release this), particularly:
The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains) The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they voted)
Regards,
Andrew
2008/10/1 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains) The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they voted)
I would be inclined not to release this information for a few reasons: 1) We don't want this degrading into some numerical popularity contest. 2) Some of the margins were very close, and we don't need people second-guessing the way that they cast their votes because of this. 3) A list of people who did vote could be used to disenfranchise people who did not vote.
Unless there is a big issue with it, I think it's better to just keep all this information private.
--Andrew whitworth
Andrew Whitworth wrote:
2008/10/1 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains) The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they voted)
I would be inclined not to release this information for a few reasons:
- We don't want this degrading into some numerical popularity contest.
- Some of the margins were very close, and we don't need people
second-guessing the way that they cast their votes because of this. 3) A list of people who did vote could be used to disenfranchise people who did not vote.
Unless there is a big issue with it, I think it's better to just keep all this information private.
+1.
This is not a popularity contest This is simple majority voting. The intricate details are not important.
Having said that, if any candidate (successful or otherwise) would like to ask me privately what criteria I used for deciding how to vote I would be happy to share that (but not who I voted for - again, I feel that is irrelevant).
Ross
2008/10/1 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
2008/10/1 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains) The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they voted)
I would be inclined not to release this information for a few reasons:
- We don't want this degrading into some numerical popularity contest.
But that's what an election is. It's a way of working out, numerically, who is the most popular choice for a position.
- Some of the margins were very close, and we don't need people
second-guessing the way that they cast their votes because of this.
I think the electorate are smart enough to know that "what if"'s won't get them anywhere.
- A list of people who did vote could be used to disenfranchise
people who did not vote.
That's fair enough. I don't think there is anything to be gained by knowing who voted.
I think having detailed results published would be good for various reasons:
1) It satisfies my (possibly morbid!) curiosity. ;) (And it's not entirely idle curiosity - it would help me decide whether or not to stand again at the AGM.) 2) It allows the board to make an informed decision in the event that someone resigns before the AGM (I think it's unlikely to happen, but like can be unpredictable). Obviously, only the board needs the information for that, but I think it would be a very bad thing for the board to know the details and the rest of us not. 3) If the results were close, as you say, then that will encourage greater turnout at the AGM. People are less inclined to vote if they don't think their vote will make a difference. 4) It may help the board work out the best way to handle future elections - something they need to work out now, while they're writing the articles, since those set down the procedures for general meetings. (I think there is a problem with that part of the model articles - they expect only as many candidates to stand as there are seats and the membership just gets to say yes or no to each, which isn't how we will want to run things - so the board will need to consider changing them and information could only help.)
I'm happy for results to be made public, though I can't say I care massively either way. I cannot think of any elections I've ever witnessed in which vote counts are not available.
But perhaps people who stood should have the right for the number of people yes or noing them kept private if they want it so. Does anyone who stood have any strong feelings?
Tom
-----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: 01 October 2008 16:40 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Detailed results
2008/10/1 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
2008/10/1 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains) The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they
voted)
I would be inclined not to release this information for a few reasons:
- We don't want this degrading into some numerical popularity contest.
But that's what an election is. It's a way of working out, numerically, who is the most popular choice for a position.
- Some of the margins were very close, and we don't need people
second-guessing the way that they cast their votes because of this.
I think the electorate are smart enough to know that "what if"'s won't get them anywhere.
- A list of people who did vote could be used to disenfranchise
people who did not vote.
That's fair enough. I don't think there is anything to be gained by knowing who voted.
I think having detailed results published would be good for various reasons:
1) It satisfies my (possibly morbid!) curiosity. ;) (And it's not entirely idle curiosity - it would help me decide whether or not to stand again at the AGM.) 2) It allows the board to make an informed decision in the event that someone resigns before the AGM (I think it's unlikely to happen, but like can be unpredictable). Obviously, only the board needs the information for that, but I think it would be a very bad thing for the board to know the details and the rest of us not. 3) If the results were close, as you say, then that will encourage greater turnout at the AGM. People are less inclined to vote if they don't think their vote will make a difference. 4) It may help the board work out the best way to handle future elections - something they need to work out now, while they're writing the articles, since those set down the procedures for general meetings. (I think there is a problem with that part of the model articles - they expect only as many candidates to stand as there are seats and the membership just gets to say yes or no to each, which isn't how we will want to run things - so the board will need to consider changing them and information could only help.)
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
But perhaps people who stood should have the right for the number of people yes or noing them kept private if they want it so. Does anyone who stood have any strong feelings?
If anyone speaks up with strong feelings their views should certainly be listen to, but since it wasn't discussed in advance and the norm is to publish vote counts I don't think they have a leg to stand on.
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think having detailed results published would be good for various reasons:
My role in all this has basically been as an impartial vote counter, and that role is over now. Geni and Joseph both have vote counts, and if the community really does want to see them (and I agree with several of your points about why people would want to know) then they can release them. I'm glad that I could help you guys, but I don't want to overstep my bounds!
From here on out I will basically be acting only as a chapcom member
and will be willing to answer any questions or provide any guidance that pertains to that. Questions like these should be left to potential stake-holding members of Wikimedia UK, and to the newly-formed board to decide, not to outsiders like myself.
If I can be of assistance in any other ways, let me know.
--Andrew Whitworth
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org