[Wikimediaau-l] question arising from minutes

[Andrew Owens]

Agreed with Adam.

What works for a small informal organisation handling a few thousand at most
where everyone knows everyone else may not upscale to an active organisation
handling over $100k. That doesn't just go for elections - we're working on
policies on a range of things which will improve our processes and make them
more transparent - but it makes sense to look at one thing at a time and get
it right. Also if we get the consultation process right for this then we can
use it for other things, including more fun stuff.

kindest regards
Andrew

On 24 March 2011 06:41, Adam Jenkins <adam.jenkins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> The problem isn't so much with how it is run currently, but that the
> current model means that the election is run entirely by the previous
> committee or people from the previous committee: including accepting
> nominations, managing the count, and handling the results. Ideally,
> people who are running for a position shouldn't also be managing the
> election process, yet at the moment that's how things are set up.
> There are good reasons for doing things the way we have, and as a
> small organisation with limited funding this wasn't a major concern,
> but for the long term it would be nice to rethink this - especially as
> WMAU changes and our responsibilities grow. Changing how we manage
> elections wouldn't be difficult or expensive, and I think it would put
> us in a better position, so it seems worth getting it right now and
> then not having to worry about this issue again.
>
> I'll look at workspaces, and having your help, to any extent, would be
> great. :)
>
> Adam.
>
>
> On 24 March 2011 15:16, private musings <thepmaccount at gmail.com> wrote:
> > sounds like a good candidate for a workspace on the wiki :-) - If I
> > could figure out the best spot for it, I'd probably sign up as an
> > interested observer - and sure, I may be able to help out some too.
> >
> > Personally I haven't really been that concerned by the status quo -
> > you mention that it isn't 'reliable' - in what way do you feel this is
> > so?
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Peter,
> > PM.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Adam Jenkins <adam.jenkins at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> That's being included in the forthcoming newsletter, but this is a
> >> good a time as any to raise it. :) We've been a bit concerned that the
> >> current model isn't as reliable as we would like it to be, as we felt
> >> that the election process needs to be at the highest standards of
> >> transparency and trustworthiness now that the nature of WMAU is
> >> changing as your funding model changes, and as the breadth of our
> >> activities (including public actions) grow. So we thought the best bet
> >> would be to ask some members if they'd like to try and work out
> >> alternative approaches to handling elections. I'm chairing it, in the
> >> sense that I'll manage discussions and write up the response, but
> >> anyone is welcome to volunteer to be a part of the process.
> >>
> >> All options are on the table, as we want to consider everything -
> >> suggestions include using a formal returning officer from within the
> >> membership to mange the election process, having an independent third
> >> party manage the entire process from start to finish, changing the
> >> voting method, or just staying with the status quo. Anything is open
> >> to discussion.
> >>
> >> The subcommittee will write a report (probably a task that will fall
> >> on me) recommending the preferred approach (or approaches) and it will
> >> be tabled for the committee as well as shared with members, and we
> >> will look to running with any recommendations in the future.
> >>
> >> If you, or anyone else, wants to help I'd be really happy. :)
> >>
> >> Adam.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24 March 2011 13:04, private musings <thepmaccount at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I've been trying to catch up with wiki things, having wandered off for
> >>> a couple of months, and was reading the minutes from Feb;
> >>> http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Meeting:Committee_%282011-02-27%29
> >>>
> >>> I noticed this bit under 'Discussion';
> >>>
> >>> 'Reporting on the plan to reexamine the election procedures, it was
> >>> decided that members will be notified of the subcommittee and invited
> >>> to join in the next week'
> >>>
> >>> I'm afraid I couldn't then find any more info about what the
> >>> subcommittee might be, or generally what this bit of discussion was
> >>> about - if anyone has any links or info. it'd be appreciated :-)
> >>>
> >>> cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Peter,
> >>> PM.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> >>> Wikimediaau-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> >> Wikimediaau-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> > Wikimediaau-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/attachments/20110324/c80caff3/attachment-0001.htm