[Foundation-l] Design goals for the election and board selection process

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On 7/18/07, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/18/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/18/07, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> > > As long as minimum subjective line of our community member's
> > > involvement sense matter, I think we don't need a new poll.
> >
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > <snip>
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > > As part of Election committee,  I personally think the requirements of
> > > this year was reasonable, but review is always welcome, specially
> > > based on census, poll or whatever.
> >
> > Hmm. I am confused. Are you against a poll or for it?
>
> I am afraid you simplified my responses too much.
>
> For the first quote, I pointed out we don't need to poll to learn what
> type of complaint exists.  I don't even oppose "I feel myself
> qualified but Eleccom said differently. Yeeek" type pole. But from
> talk page interactions, I think we know already what kind of claims we
> have. For that purpose, we have not to have a poll. The claimed
> minimum line is "all editors including anons", and I don't think there
> is a much lower requirement.
>
> For the second quote, rational review of rules and policies are always
> helpful in my opinion, specially when we know some grumbling about
> that. Such polls would however be different from the suggested at
> first, and I strongly suggest it should be intersubjective, what type
> of requirement the community or at least the majority of the community
> think adequate, ideally regardless how it affects themselves.
>

On my part I think people are over-complicating things.

Either we need to tighten the voting requirements, so that
we keep the franchise to those who care about the core
of our values, or we need to keep things as close to
current level as possible, or we need to see if we can
involve a broader franchise.

Those are the three options (with some nuancing
possible on each of them of course). Kim suggests
one route, as I see it, Jimbo suggested the other, and
if I read it correctly, you were kind of tending towards
the middle ground.

What I have yet to see is a coherent argument for
any of these three positions. From any corner.

Jimbo appeared to approach matters from a philosophic
POV, without many specifics. Kim appeared to feel
he needed to champion some broader mass of
discontent, and you, again, if I read you correctly,
were trying to sound a note pointing out that somebody
actually has to administer the votes, and somebody
will always complain, but solutions that satisfy everybody
are hard to come by.

If my first response was too simple, I apologize. I hope
this is not to verbose.

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]