[Foundation-l] Steward election issues

[brock.weller at gmail.com]

Indeed, you've hit the nail on the head. In the talkpage exchange I already
accepted this election is tallied. This is more about fixing the election
process now. Something as simple as using a bot to template all
non-qualified votes pointing to an easy to follow list of whats needed to
achieve technical compliance during a, say, 3-day vote freeze following an
election, or even 3 days before it closes would easily be sufficient I
think.
-Brock


On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Thomas Goldammer <thogol at googlemail.com
> >wrote:
>  | That's a very simple thing,
> >
> > the people must be able to verify (at least to a certain extend) that
> > you are indeed that user on enwiki, which they were not obviously, so
> > your vote was correctly marked invalid. For the next one, just get
> > yourself an SUL account and vote with that, or add a link on enwiki to
> > your Meta account, and everything is fine. :o)
> >
> >
> Sure, it's very simple if know about meta and the steward election process
> and went into detail.  In this case we have AKMask not following the letter
> of the law to a T, but certainly the spirit in stopping into support a
> candidate as a long-time English Wikipedian.
>
> So often on this list we talk about the reception of new users and the
> various ways the wikis operate regarding such.  But rarely (comparitively
> speaking) do we discuss such biting of other Wikimedians by stopping by
> another project.  Each one has its own pitfalls in receiving new users
> whether it's uploading images, editing another language wiki when you
> aren't
> fluent in the language if that's not an accepted community norm to work
> with
> in content creation, not knowing en.wp's 32x3^10 policies, guidelines, and
> other rulings, or the eight million other reasons a user would become
> disenfranchised with a project after spare usage.  AKMask was making a
> genuine vote in the steward election and was (fairly, by rule) disqualified
> because of the rule.  That doesn't make it right in terms of making sense
> as
> an outsider to meta, the hub of Wikimedia, but still very much invested on
> a
> Wikimedia Project.  It's akin to being on a colony and coming home to vote
> only to be informed that the rules were set up while you were on the voyage
> "home".  I'm good at bad comparisons.
>
> The email shouldn't be discounted as "try again next time and follow these
> simple rules".  The issue is fundamental to interwiki relations.
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>