[Foundation-l] Board election endorsements

GerardM gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 10:11:38 UTC 2007

Getting endorsements for candidates prior to launching a bit is a valid
strategy. However, for this to work the current practice of removing
endorsements before a candidacy has been approved has to end. I do think
that getting endorsements prior to asking for approval for the candidacy is
good. It does however not mean that having the endorsements prior to asking
for approval for a candidacy need to coincide.

What is essential is that prior to the start of the election the candidature
has been approved and, that it comes with a sufficient  number of
endorsements. When there is a need for twelve, it does not make sense to
have more than twelve. Voting is done in secret and endorsements are only to
show that there is sufficient support. However, if getting endorsements is
seen and appreciated as a political instrument, then it should also be
considered as such.


On 6/20/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ideally I would like to see six candidates in the "finals" when there
> are three seats to be elected. At the moment, there are already 5
> candidates with >30, and Yann will get to the 30 soon too. Maybe it
> wouldn't be that weird to state that the required number can be raised
> next time?
> In my opinion, a good and serious candidate (as in: would make a good
> chance in the elections, because that is what we are selecting on),
> shouldn't have much trouble in getting 15-20 endorsements in 24 hours
> (if (s)he tries a bit). In a week such a candidate should be able to
> get 50 endorsements imho.
> Maybe it would be a good idea to have the candidate collecting the
> endorsements on beforehand next time, he could send them privately to
> the committee, they would be validated, and could be put online "en
> block". That way you work around several problems like "vote-like",
> having them to be confirmed on beforehand etc. One disadvantage is the
> confirmation of the endorsers though, maybe someone can come up with a
> good way of validating these endorsements? I.e. should they be made on
> a saperate page, with signature, should they consist of emails,
> whatever? Should the endorsers confirm their endorsement? I admit it
> makes it a littlemore fuzzy, please come with better procedures :)
> Lodewijk
> 2007/6/20, Azdiyy <azdiyy at googlemail.com>:
> > of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed to be secret for any reason?
> >
> > azdiyy
> >
> > On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen <oscarvandillen at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next
> time?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > "next time" meaning *next elections* in 2008 of course: i do not
> suppose you
> > > propose to now suddenly start erasing people's endorsements?
> > >
> > > best wishes,
> > > oscar
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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