thomas.dalton at gmail.com
Sat Apr 7 13:33:12 UTC 2007
> It is maybe not good idea, but we could create 2 level elections in such a way:
> *First level - candidate has to win local election on one of the
> projects - the rules for this local elections should be similar on all
> projects, the number of candidates per projects might depend on the
> size of the project. Smaller projects may create an "alliance" to be
> able to propose a candidate.
> *Second level - 7-10 days elections on meta of the candidates
> preselected on projects.
I like this idea (and was going to suggest it myself before reading
your email). If done correctly, it should give candidates from smaller
projects a more reasonable chance of winning. In the previous
elections, there were too many candidates, so I think knowing lots of
people (ie. being from a big project) was an unfair advantage, since
people just voted for who they knew. If we reduce the number of
candidates, while still ensuring that there are candidates from
smaller projects (which is exactly what this idea does) should allow
people to make informed decisions about such candidates.
The hardest part of this idea is working out the alliances - there are
too many projects to give each project a candidate of their own, so
some kind of alliance system is essential. I would suggest grouping
smaller projects first by language (so the wikipedia and the
wikitionary in a medium sized language would get one candidate between
them) and then by language groups (so all the projects in native
american languages [that's a random example, I'm guessing there are
lots of small projects in such languages] would get one candidate
between them). Determining alliances by language reduces the need for
translating candidate statements for the pre-elections.
More information about the foundation-l