[Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Steven Walling]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013, Risker wrote:

> I'd actually suggest the opposite:  That the only people eligible to vote
> for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia
> projects.  That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board
> eligibility.  Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter
> staff....but eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election
> every year that involves the entire community.
>
> Risker


Speaking personally, I agree with Risker.


>
>
>
>
> On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner <sgardner at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff
> had
> > been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
> > surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would
> qualify
> > under the edit count requirement anyway.
> >
> > Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
> > requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
> > so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would
> qualify.
> > If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to
> lower
> > the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
> > most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sue
> > On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray" <andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
> > > > better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for
> all
> > > > elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
> > > > donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> > > > essential to run the site are included.
> > >
> > > The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the
> > > community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
> > > first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in
> > > without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
> > > ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell
> > > access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have
> > > commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
> > > and 15 May 2011."
> > >
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
> > >
> > > So we've already got those in :-)
> > >
> > > I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
> > > (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
> > > or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
> > > *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
> > > should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
> > > Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
> > > in Berlin!
> > >
> > > (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
> > > course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
> > > elections)
> > >
> > > - Andrew.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov <abartov at wikimedia.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >> Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not
> > active
> > > on
> > > >> the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
> > the
> > > >> chapter-selected board seats.
> > > >>
> > > >>    A.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> > > nemowiki at gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the
> election
> > > >>>> for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
> > > >>>> community. Presumably that would include most members of most
> > > >>>> organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
> > > >>>>