As I said in my earlier post, nominations for the interim Board close in a few days and I think we should firm up a couple of details for the election ASAP.
So far we seem to have:
1. Voters will be all those who sign up to the potential guarantor or supporting members list (meta page)
I think it should be restricted to UK residents To prevent sockpuppets we should adopt the same (or similar) rules as per [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en#Requirements] with dates advanced by 3 months I suggest we apply a cut off date of 13 September
2. Number of Board members will be five (meta page)
Now I understand the rationale, I agree with this - does everyone else?
3. Voting will be via the approval system (5 highest winning; all elected have to get >50% approval) (meta)
I have no opinion here - is this usual?
4. If <3 candidates election, election is restarted (meta)
5. Election will be secret (consensus from this list)
I agree - if people want it secret, it should be secret.
6. Election will be run by a election committee
Sounds like overkill to me. Who will 'elect' this committee? I think all we need is an independent reliable trusted person who could be a Teller / Returning Officer to send out the votes, add them up and publish them. How about Anders Wennersten or someone else at ChapCom? Alternatively, I know Andrew Whitworth has volunteered - is everyone happy with him? Andrew, do you have any credentials on wikimedia?
7. Candidates will be ineligible for election if they do not or cannot sign the Declaration (meta - not explicit)
I think we should make this explicit - we can't have a situation where someone gets elected and then refuses to sign the form to be a Companies Houes director because they forgot to mention they were bankrupt.
8. Vacancies
Can I propose an addition: in the event of resignations or vacancies, the Board will invite the person who received the next highest number of votes to join. Or alternatively: the Board may co-opt up to two additional members.
Anything I've missed?
Andrew
- Voters will be all those who sign up to the potential guarantor or
supporting members list (meta page)
I think it should be restricted to UK residents
I think anyone with an interest in the UK should be eligible - for example, we have British citizens living abroad that want to see a flourishing UK chapter, I see no reason to exclude them. I think it best to be an open as possible when it comes to suffrage.
To prevent sockpuppets we should adopt the same (or similar) rules as per [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en#Requirements] with dates advanced by 3 months I suggest we apply a cut off date of 13 September
Is that worth it? Is anyone likely to stuff the ballot boxes for something like this?
- Number of Board members will be five (meta page)
Now I understand the rationale, I agree with this - does everyone else?
I haven't heard any objections.
- Voting will be via the approval system (5 highest winning; all elected
have to get >50% approval) (meta)
I have no opinion here - is this usual?
It's one of the simplest ways for this kind of election. Any kind of preference voting requires more effort to count. The only viable alternative I can see if to give everyone 5 votes and use a first five past the post system. I have no strong feelings either way.
If <3 candidates election, election is restarted (meta)
Election will be secret (consensus from this list)
I agree - if people want it secret, it should be secret.
- Election will be run by a election committee
Sounds like overkill to me. Who will 'elect' this committee? I think all we need is an independent reliable trusted person who could be a Teller / Returning Officer to send out the votes, add them up and publish them. How about Anders Wennersten or someone else at ChapCom? Alternatively, I know Andrew Whitworth has volunteered - is everyone happy with him? Andrew, do you have any credentials on wikimedia?
I think it's best to have more than one person counting, just to take the pressure off them if nothing else.
- Candidates will be ineligible for election if they do not or cannot sign
the Declaration (meta - not explicit)
I think we should make this explicit - we can't have a situation where someone gets elected and then refuses to sign the form to be a Companies Houes director because they forgot to mention they were bankrupt.
I agree.
- Vacancies
Can I propose an addition: in the event of resignations or vacancies, the Board will invite the person who received the next highest number of votes to join. Or alternatively: the Board may co-opt up to two additional members.
You mean prior to incorporation? I think selecting the next person on the list (if they are willing) is a good idea in the unlikely event that someone drops out in the next couple of months. Once we're incorporated, the articles have provisions for appointing interim board members until the next AGM and we should probably let the board use their discretion. I expect they would use the election results as a guideline, but we shouldn't tie their hands.
- Election will be run by a election committee> >> > Sounds like overkill to me. Who will 'elect' this committee? I think all we> > need is an independent reliable trusted person who could be a Teller /> > Returning Officer to send out the votes, add them up and publish them. How> > about Anders Wennersten or someone else at ChapCom? Alternatively, I know> > Andrew Whitworth has volunteered - is everyone happy with him? Andrew, do> > you have any credentials on wikimedia?
I have been in communication with chapcom, they have said that they want members from the uk community to oversee the election. Both I, giano and Andrew Whitworth have all volunteered on list so thats our team. I would be grateful if I could have some sort of on wiki background for Andrew. Even if this is done privately, just so that any concerns can be put at rest.
_________________________________________________________________ Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354033/direct/01/
2008/9/9 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:
I have been in communication with chapcom, they have said that they want members from the uk community to oversee the election. Both I, giano and Andrew Whitworth
For the record, I'm part of the ChapCom and am not from the UK. I was volunteering my services in an attempt to bring an impartial outsider to the process. If you still want some of my on-wiki background let me know. I love talking about my work on the wiki :)
--Andrew Whitworth
2008/9/10 Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com:
2008/9/9 joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk:
I have been in communication with chapcom, they have said that they want members from the uk community to oversee the election. Both I, giano and Andrew Whitworth
For the record, I'm part of the ChapCom and am not from the UK. I was volunteering my services in an attempt to bring an impartial outsider to the process. If you still want some of my on-wiki background let me know. I love talking about my work on the wiki :)
Sounds good to me, I'd be glad to have someone from ChapCom (and outside the UK) on the committee, even if they aren't functioning as an official representative of ChapCom.
2008/9/10 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I think anyone with an interest in the UK should be eligible - for example, we have British citizens living abroad that want to see a flourishing UK chapter, I see no reason to exclude them. I think it best to be an open as possible when it comes to suffrage.
Yes please, unless there's some overwhelming reason that's not feasible. (c.f. I keep abreast of WM Australia.)
- d.
2008/9/10 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/9/10 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I think anyone with an interest in the UK should be eligible - for example, we have British citizens living abroad that want to see a flourishing UK chapter, I see no reason to exclude them. I think it best to be an open as possible when it comes to suffrage.
Yes please, unless there's some overwhelming reason that's not feasible. (c.f. I keep abreast of WM Australia.)
At the moment we're just talking about an online election, so there certainly isn't a reason to say "no" to anyone. Once we're talking about actual membership of a UK charity, there may be issues, but I can't think of any (we may concievably have to require people to pay their membership fees in sterling, but even that seems unlikely).
I think it should be restricted to UK residents
Is there any reason for the restriction? Why not open it up but have a different membership fee for non-residents if it's going to cost more to post them stuff (unless everything can be done by email).
- Voting will be via the approval system (5 highest winning; all elected
have to get >50% approval) (meta)
That might not be workable. Most of the people to the Foundation's Board of Trustees got less than 50%.
Angela
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 10:53 +1000, Angela wrote:
I think it should be restricted to UK residents
Is there any reason for the restriction? Why not open it up but have a different membership fee for non-residents if it's going to cost more to post them stuff (unless everything can be done by email).
- Voting will be via the approval system (5 highest winning; all elected
have to get >50% approval) (meta)
That might not be workable. Most of the people to the Foundation's Board of Trustees got less than 50%.
That had a much larger number of voters, and as I recall, were limited to a maximum of 3 votes per voter for a long list of candidates.
KTC
2008/9/10 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
- Voting will be via the approval system (5 highest winning; all elected
have to get >50% approval) (meta)
That might not be workable. Most of the people to the Foundation's Board of Trustees got less than 50%.
That had a much larger number of voters, and as I recall, were limited to a maximum of 3 votes per voter for a long list of candidates.
I was talking about the previous years where approval voting was used. In 2004, there were 11 candidates and you could vote for as many people as you wanted. There were only a few hundred voters. It's quite possible Wikimedia UK would get that many voters and easily possible that all candidates will get <50% approval.
Angela
2008/9/10 Angela beesley@gmail.com:
I think it should be restricted to UK residents
Is there any reason for the restriction? Why not open it up but have a different membership fee for non-residents if it's going to cost more to post them stuff (unless everything can be done by email).
I expect everything can be done by email (we may need to add something to the articles of association saying that notification of AGMs, etc. can be electronic, I'm not sure what the standard definition of "notify" is).
- Voting will be via the approval system (5 highest winning; all elected
have to get >50% approval) (meta)
That might not be workable. Most of the people to the Foundation's Board of Trustees got less than 50%.
It may be worth removing that clause, I can't see it having much benefit - if we don't get at least 3 people with 50% support and have to have a new vote it's just going to waste time and there's no reason to believe a 2nd vote would be any more successful. I think the best of a bad lot is better than no-one at all at this stage.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org