It is very very important that everyone vote.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that community but who does not have broad exposure in the English Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some votes.
There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly unable to work well with the community.
Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust and care about as human beings.
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
--Jimbo
Hmmm ... well up to now I did not say who I really strongly support to anyone, because I thought it would mean to influence people - in particular those who do not really know well the candidates.
If you say that it is not a problem to do so, well then .... I believe anyone of us can do that if he/she wishes so.
Uhmmm .....
Asking everyone to vote is ok, but preferring some and telling this publicly? I am not so sure about this.
Will see what to write during the day and publish it.
Sorry.
Best, Sabine
Jimmy Wales schrieb:
It is very very important that everyone vote.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that community but who does not have broad exposure in the English Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some votes.
There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly unable to work well with the community.
Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust and care about as human beings.
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
--Jimbo
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
Sabine Cretella wrote:
Hmmm ... well up to now I did not say who I really strongly support to anyone, because I thought it would mean to influence people - in particular those who do not really know well the candidates.
If you say that it is not a problem to do so, well then .... I believe anyone of us can do that if he/she wishes so.
Uhmmm .....
Asking everyone to vote is ok, but preferring some and telling this publicly? I am not so sure about this.
I think it is important because some candidates who are known to good people, and very trustworthy and loving and kind, are not known internationally as well as they could be. If we do not communicate to the broader community, we will end up with a candidate who is not really supported by the broad and very active community.
--Jimbo
"Jimmy Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote in message news:450BA573.2000104@wikia.com...
Sabine Cretella wrote:
Hmmm ... well up to now I did not say who I really strongly support to anyone, because I thought it would mean to influence people - in particular those who do not really know well the candidates.
If you say that it is not a problem to do so, well then .... I believe anyone of us can do that if he/she wishes so.
Uhmmm .....
Asking everyone to vote is ok, but preferring some and telling this publicly? I am not so sure about this.
I think it is important because some candidates who are known to good people, and very trustworthy and loving and kind, are not known internationally as well as they could be. If we do not communicate to the broader community, we will end up with a candidate who is not really supported by the broad and very active community.
--Jimbo
So - is this god-king Jimbo telling us who to vote for... ;-)
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is very very important that everyone vote.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that community but who does not have broad exposure in the English Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some votes.
There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly unable to work well with the community.
Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust and care about as human beings.
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
--Jimbo
Hoi, Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia. You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly introducing either.
Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions. It is said that an electorate gets the representation that it deserves. It is for the people that are elected and who are not elected to work together. When this is entirely unacceptable, the notion of people being elected and being able and allowed to make a difference in that role will not be fulfilled. It will be a mockery of democracy.
When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation, it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT about Wikipedia.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia. You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly introducing either.
Yes! Well, I hope that others can do a better job than I can. :)
Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions.
Not at all. I meant that some of the candidates are entirely unacceptable _from the point of view of the active Wikimedia community_.
When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation, it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT about Wikipedia.
No, I did not mean to imply that. She is very very famous in the English Wikipedia, but she is much more than that. I do not think it should count against her that she is an English Wikipedian. :)
--Jimbo
On 9/16/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*, life members of the board . Daniel Mayer and Angela Beesley.
Please, no... I left for a reason. Well, about 10 reasons actually. I'm very pleased I won't be doing this in a week's time. :)
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of having any positive influence within the current Board. Later, when that Board is expanded and the continuous internal conflicts are resolved, I would agree that Mindspillage and Oscar may be good candidates in future. I would also trust Steve Dunlop and Juan David Ruiz in the role, but right now - Erik is what the Board and Foundation needs.
It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006
I strongly support this platform and as I said at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Endorse_2006 I believe Erik is the best candidate to represent the community in the development of the Wikimedia Foundation over the coming year. Erik has shown a continued commitment, not only to Wikipedia but to the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. Erik's commitment to the sort of openness that will ensure the community will have an influence in ensuring the Foundation meets its goals makes me happy to endorse him as the person to replace me on the Board.
Angela
Well, as we are talking about this... the person I feel is the best candidate, and who I have just voted for, is Mindspillage.
She is someone I trust totally, to do the job well and to do it for everyone in the community. I have great respect for her, and for her ability to work with others, effectively and with diplomacy. This is a big factor in my decision, the board does not need someone who will go their own way regardless of the opinions of others.
Mindspillage is smart, hard working, thoughtful, and has a clear understanding of the foundation and it's future. I think she is the ideal candidate.
Regards,
-- sannse
Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is very very important that everyone vote.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that community but who does not have broad exposure in the English Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
Mindspillage is Mindspillage. We all know and love her. Give her some votes.
There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly unable to work well with the community.
Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust and care about as human beings.
I invite an open discussion here of the candidates. This is your community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
It is very very important that everyone vote.
Yes, absolutely.
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
I think that's a very important, and valuable, statement. I am on the record as stating that the majority of any future expanded Board should be elected by the community (possibly through a membership model, but not necessarily so). However, in that model, sitting Board members can provide balance and reason by endorsing particular candidacies. Angela has endorsed me, and I think it is vital for you, Anthere and Michael to also share your views on the candidates.
I don't think a public, cross-posted mailing list thread is necessarily the best way to do so, as it might turn into an exchange of negativity. In the future, perhaps each candidate statement should have a "slot" for endorsements. That way, Board members and others could easily make their opinions known.
I for one welcome and encourage questions and comments about my candidacy at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eloquence/Platform_2006
For those who do not wish to vote for me, I support the candidacies of Arnomane, Mindspillage, AaronSw, and UninvitedCompany. I do not support Oscar at this point in time; even though he is a very pleasant and experienced person, I think his skills are primarily in the area of diplomacy and negotiation, and will be more useful when the Board is larger and the structures of the Foundation have stabilized. However, I will probably support him for an expanded Board.
The voting system used in this election, approval voting, allows anyone to vote for as many candidates as they want, and I would be pleased to receive the support of you, the reader. I would also be happy if one of the other candidates listed above won, as I think that each one of them will do a great job at representing and helping to run and oversee the Foundation in this critical period of its history.
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
Angela wrote "My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of having any positive influence within the current Board."
Erik Moeller wrote and asked:
I am on the record as stating that the majority of any future expanded Board should be elected by the community (possibly through a membership model, but not necessarily so). However, in that model, sitting Board members can provide balance and reason by endorsing particular candidacies. Angela has endorsed me, and I think it is vital for you, Anthere and Michael to also share your views on the candidates.
My answer
Several people have asked me publicly or privately who I was endorsing.
I have been wondering as early as july whether I would/should publicly endorse candidates and if so, how I should do it.
After careful thinking, I have decided against providing any public endorsement.
I believe the board can provide balance either through appointment of new members, or through the people it chooses to trust to help with Foundation organisation. The elections rest in editors hands and I trust editors to make a good choice themselves.
Last point: even if I had decided to endorse one or several candidates, it would have been, at latest, on the first day of election. Never three days before the end of it. I view endorsing candidates in the last few days of elections as a most inappropriate attempt of manipulation of the elections outcome.
Florence Devouard
----- Исходное сообщение ----- От: "Anthere" Anthere9@yahoo.com Кому: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Копия: wikien-l@wikipedia.org; foundation-l@wikimedia.org; wikifr-l@wikipedia.org Отправлено: 16 сентября 2006 г. 20:49 Тема: [Wikipedia-l] Endorsement
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and Mindspillage.
Angela wrote "My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of having any positive influence within the current Board."
If you care about the POV of a user from the virtual street... I voted for Erik, for the simple reason that I know him (although very superficially) and I had a few chances to work in projects where he is involved, so I can at least have a personal opinion about him. I do not even know WHO the other candidates are, therefore I won't try to judge them at all. I believe that such a lack of information is far from being uncommon among us voters.
When we have a flyer calling up people to vote, we should also have the very same flyer point the people to SOME information about the candidates (projects in which they were/are involved, personal background, etc). If the info was there, I absolutely miss it, and many others may have missed it much in the same way. I did not look for further info myself, but that's just my own life style. I stopped voting for political elections *many* years ago, because I won't choose anyone who I do not personally know and trust. Nevertheless many people on this planet seem to vote anyway, even just based on a supermarket-style approach. So possible any relevant info would be useful for them, as a minimal consumer's rights protection.
From a personal "political" POV I will add is that I shall not vote for
anyone working on *en-wiki only* or being limited to english only, as far as communication is concerned. IMHO, the community needs bridges and interlanguage co-operation, and anyone being uncapable to address this won't be of any use in the WMF's Board, because he/she will biased from the very start. He/she is welcome to be elected as the "emperor of en-wiki" and even to be given the royal privilege to trasmit such a title to his/her son (since life memberships have already been called for), but WMF has a much larger set of activities and members, than just "en-wiki and a few weird guests".
Even just by focusing on 3 main language areas as spanish, russian and chinese we get the potential for multiplying our audience and communities by 3 or 4 times in the next decades. As a matter of fact, a board member unable to address such an option will only play a purely conservative game. Too bad that passive defense won't take us much far from where already we got to be, while our competitors will not sleep at all. I invest my time in this thing, and as an investor I want to make sure that the Board will produce interesting dividends. Nothing personal, business is business.
My five-pence worth :) Bèrto
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org