But last year was earlier :) Not in the very middle of the vacation. Lodewijk
2009/5/27 philippe <[email protected]>: > Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question. > > Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the > end, the vote timing is driven by Wikimania and the need to purchase > tickets for the new trustees-designate to get there (at a reasonable > price, which usually requires a 14 day advance purchase), while also > taking the time to get the translations done as completely as possible. > > In addition, it was our feeling that last year that the first week had > - by far - the vast majority of the votes cast with relatively little > movement afterwards. > > > > > ___________________ > philippe > > On May 27, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Angela wrote: > >> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:54 AM, philippe <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> The reason not to have it in two weeks is that it generally takes >>> longer than that to effectively translate both the policy pages and >>> the candidate statements to allow as many people to participate in as >>> many languages as possible. Two weeks would almost guarantee a >>> primarily english-centric election. In the past we've had no problem >>> getting the votes counted/confirmed in two days; we did it last year. >> >> I believe the suggestion is to have the vote lasting for 2 weeks, not >> starting in 2 weeks from now. >> >> Voting last for 3 weeks in past elections. >> >> Angela >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
