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?
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Thomas
Sent: 01 October 2008 16:40
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Detailed results
2008/10/1 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>om>:
2008/10/1 Andrew Turvey <raturvey(a)yahoo.co.uk>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
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.
But that's what an election is. It's a way of working out,
numerically, who is the most popular choice for a position.
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.
I think the electorate are smart enough to know that "what if"'s won't
get them anywhere.
3) A list of people who did vote could be used to
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