[Foundation-l] elections

GerardM gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sun Apr 8 16:13:57 UTC 2007

When the candidates are offered a platform, it is for them to make use of
it. When the platform allows for a certain amount of content that will be
translated, this is what is on offer. When the format includes a fixed set
of questions, that is what is on offer.

When you make it "rules" it means that the candidates are bound by this
format. The reason for this format is practical from the organisational
point of view. I do not see a reason why people cannot do more over and
above what is on offer to them. If the argument is that this will benefit
the English speaking candidates, I agree. This is not a bad thing when you
consider that the lingua franca of our organisation is English.

One other reason why I would like an imaginative campaign is because we need
imaginative people in our board.


On 4/8/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Note that a short statement doesnt exclude a longer statement. I think
> it would be very good too if there would be a set of standard
> questions asked to every candidate, and answered upon. But that kind
> of stuff is finally up to the community to ask. What we are discussing
> here is the set of rules. I think it is a very good thing to ask the
> candidates to summerize shortly their ideas, and 50 or 100 words are
> not a bad idea for such a summery. It might actually say a lot about a
> candidate, as (s)he would have to characterize him/herself, and could
> lift out the points (s)he finds the most important.
> It is of course possible that candidates have besides that a longer
> statement, but that should not be on the election page, but maybe on
> some seperate page. I can imagine that that should be hosted on meta,
> maybe somewhere central with for every candidate a page being set up
> so it would be easy to find.
> On the part of election officials, I think it is a good idea to ask
> organizations such as debian to help us. I think it would mean a good
> deal for trustworthy however, if multiple outside parties would be
> involved. I would very much appreciate the thoughts of the advisory
> boardmembers on this, as they have a broader scope here.
> I could imagine a comittee of for instance five people, from different
> organizations, with one or two wikimedians in it, who know their way
> in the wikimedia communities for stuff like sitenotice etc.
> Greetings, Lodewijk
> 2007/4/8, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>:
> > Mark Williamson wrote:
> > > Longe statements written in Englishe are bad even if you do not
> > > considere translacioun.
> > >
> > > You always run the risk of tl;dr. While obviously some voters are
> > > going to be all enthusiastic and willing to read anything you write, I
> > > think the majority is going to have the type of mentality where they
> > > do respond to long statements with a hearty "tl;dr".
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > Unlike elections for admin or other actions on projects involving
> > personalities, very few Wikimedia users are going to know any of the
> > individuals who are running for a position on the board.  I know in the
> > last election I felt a little overwhelmed at trying to even find out
> > what the key issues that were of concern, and it was even harder to see
> > who might have philosophies that were similar to what I thought should
> > be happening as well.  In a very short statement of just 50 words, I
> > don't see how you can address even a single issue, much less multiple
> > issues.
> >
> > Long is relative as well.  It just doesn't seem like there should be
> > some arbitrary limits if candidates are are actually covering issues.  I
> > agree that any such statement ought to be concise, and in the interest
> > of helping translators be as brief as possible.
> >
> > And as your reply has indicated, it should be free of obscure acronyms
> > that are not defined.or understood by a large audience.
> >
> > -- Robert
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list