[Foundation-l] elections

geni geniice at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 18:26:11 UTC 2007

On 4/6/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see roughly two ways to go there:
> 1.1) Pre-elections
> We could have, like in many presidential elections, have two
> elections. The first would be to decrease the number of candidates.
> The candidates we want in the final elections would be selected by an
> election. For instance, we have three seats available. We could have
> then select the six best in the pre-election, and let them go on the
> the "Finals". Disadvantage is that you still have to read everything
> (but maybe not that thorougly) in the first round.

To an extent this is what already happens with no hoper candidates in
en arbcom elections generaly getting low vote counts after getting
largely negative votes in the first 24 hours.

> 1.2) Pre-*s*election
> We could state extra conditions to become candidate. For instance, you
> need 25 or 50 supports of your candidature by different Wikimedians
> with >1000 edits and 9 months experience on one project. Just for
> instance, the numbers can easily be changed. It's about the idea.
> Every serious candidate should be able to get these endorsements, and
> the candidates who won't state any chance, wont get these
> endorsements. Disadvantage is that you won't be able to foresee how
> many candidates there will be. Another disadvantage is that you will
> have bureaucratic problems with the checking of the endorsements.

Forces a type of campaining that we probably don't want.

> 2) the time
> Last year, the elections took three whole weeks. I think it should be
> possible to shorten this period. In real life elections usually take
> one day. I can understand that it should take some longer in an online
> community, as people can be at work, temporarily very busy etc. But on
> the other hand, these elections demand quite a work from the
> candidates, and I think it will also mean usually that the board will
> not decide a lot of things. (As it is not very good to decide while
> being voted on you) Thus, a three week period seems a bit long to me.
> I think it should be possible to have the final elections in 3-10 days
> on the condition that it is outside the summer vacation.
Experence from en arbcom elections suggests a full week is needed (two
is the current standard) . After thay votes really only trickle in.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list