Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[phoebe ayers]

Congratulations to Nat and Shani! And big thanks to Christophe for your
energy and care.

Being on the Board is a very tough job and a huge commitment of time and
energy, and thanks to all who ran.

I'm also glad the voting has been expanded; in addition to the points Chris
Keating makes about improving the election, I hope that in the next round
we will share good practices for how affiliates can use the elections to
get their members and friends more involved in thinking about strategy and
Wikimedia. It's a great opportunity for groups!

Thanks to everyone involved,
Phoebe

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:56 PM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:

> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were
> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new
> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been
> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at
> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our
> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
> modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
> modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
> caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the
> entire election.  We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next
> ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a
> feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
> Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.  Regards,
>  Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
> Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
> >
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
> >
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
> >
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
> >
> [5]
> https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback
> *
> ___
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[Chris Keating]

Hi all,

I just wanted to note that the facilitators have now posted their meeting
notes from the election process:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/notes

These clearly raise some issues. Hopefully these issues can be addressed
before any future similar elections (in fact, I think some solutions are
relatively simple):

1) Evidently not all voters understood the voting system - a small number
appear to have allocated 'points' rather than preferences e.g. "this
candidate got 10 votes from our members so we are putting 10 in the box" -
which had the effect of giving them 10th preference (pretty low)
- This can probably be addressed by improving ballot paper design, e.g. by
asking voters to select "First" "Second" etc etc rather than type numbers
into boxes.

2) There seem to have been some issues around affiliates realising they had
mis-voted, and then changing their minds and asking for replacement ballot
papers. This is kind of what you'd expect, but there appears to have been
at least one case where a replacement ballot was requested using an
unexpected channel and then not issued.
- I'm not sure how thorough the instructions/communication on this issue
were but strikes me as a learning point for the future.

3) There appear to have been some challenges in the relationship between
the WMF staff involved and the election facilitators, including
(apparently) at one point a possibly inaccurate election result being
circulated  within WMF before the facilitators had counted it
- This was the first time the WMF staff had assisted with the ASBS process
and I'm not sure how clear the boundaries of the different roles were.
Certainly one to clarify in future...

If I read these notes correctly, it is the case that if the election
facilitators had taken different interpretations of how to handle points 1
and 2, the result might well have been different.

However, so far as I can see the facilitators have done as much as they can
to report the result accurately. Ultimately, facilitators can only count
the votes that are actually received through the election process, and
can't start double-guessing voters' intentions.

Chris






On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:59 PM Jan-Bart de Vreede 
wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Thanks to the election committee for facilitating this election, and all
> those who voted. And as Pierre said: thanks to all those who put their name
> forward, it is a lot of work and involves a lot of responsibility.
>
> Congrats to Nataliia and Shani!
>
> And thank you so much to Christophe for serving!
>
> Jan-Bart “recycled” de Vreede ;)
> Board Member Wikimedia Netherlands
>
>
>
> On 13 June 2019 at 00:56:18, Ad Huikeshoven (a...@huikeshoven.org) wrote:
>
> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
> (40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
> WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
> every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
> complex for new affiliates 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Hi All

Thanks to the election committee for facilitating this election, and all
those who voted. And as Pierre said: thanks to all those who put their name
forward, it is a lot of work and involves a lot of responsibility.

Congrats to Nataliia and Shani!

And thank you so much to Christophe for serving!

Jan-Bart “recycled” de Vreede ;)
Board Member Wikimedia Netherlands



On 13 June 2019 at 00:56:18, Ad Huikeshoven (a...@huikeshoven.org) wrote:

*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
(40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were
a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new
ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been
available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at
answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our
experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the
entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next
ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a
feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood. Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
>
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
>
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief

[5]
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback
*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[camelia boban]

These result fully confirm our initial decision
,
so we cannot be happier than this. So many congrats to Nat & Shani  .
We congratulate all the candidates for their wiki commitment.
A big thank you to the facilitators; their help was essential for better
understand and the good development of this process.

Camelia


--
*Camelia Boban*

*| Java EE Developer |*

*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*

*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member

M. +39 3383385545
camelia.bo...@gmail.com
*Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
 *|* *LinkedIn
*
*Wikipedia  **| **WikiDonne
UG * | *WikiDonne Project
 *











Il giorno gio 13 giu 2019 alle ore 14:11 Pierre-Selim <
pierre-se...@huard.info> ha scritto:

> First of all congratulations to all candidates, it's hard to put your name
> forward, it takes courage and time to write a candidacy.
> I also want to thanks Christophe for his 3 years term.
>
> And last but not least, Nataliaa and Shani, I wish you all the best for
> your role as Trustees (and congrats for being elected!).
>
> Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 13:43, Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής <
> anonymuswikiped...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > Congratulations to the new members!
> >
> > Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής
> >
> > Στις Πέμ, 13 Ιουν 2019 - 6:16 π.μ. ο χρήστης Rajeeb Dutta <
> > marajoz...@gmail.com> έγραψε:
> >
> > > Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board
> > > members  who took the initiative and launched this
> > > process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election
> > > facilitators as well.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Rajeeb Dutta.
> > > (U: Marajozkee).
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski <
> > joa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and
> > important
> > > > step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our
> > > movement. I
> > > > thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
> > > > process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked
> > > restlessly
> > > > to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
> > > > productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
> > > >
> > > > The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful.
> > > Congratulations!
> > > > From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone
> through
> > > such
> > > > a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for
> you!
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > João
> > > > User:Joalpe
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven <
> a...@huikeshoven.org
> > >
> > > > escreveu:
> > > >
> > > >> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> > > >> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> > > >> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and
> > > Shani
> > > >> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143
> > > eligible
> > > >> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted
> > > under a
> > > >> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated
> > > votes
> > > >> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final
> > result.
> > > In
> > > >> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> > > >> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard
> > > Knipel
> > > >> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that
> > > others
> > > >> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for
> some
> > > time,
> > > >> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of
> > the
> > > >> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very
> small
> > > >> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would
> result
> > in
> > > >> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a
> > > ballot.
> > > >> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can
> > > result
> > > >> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in
> > which
> > > >> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some
> > > voters
> > > >> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> > > >> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as
> > > opening
> > > >> votes for review after 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[Pierre-Selim]

First of all congratulations to all candidates, it's hard to put your name
forward, it takes courage and time to write a candidacy.
I also want to thanks Christophe for his 3 years term.

And last but not least, Nataliaa and Shani, I wish you all the best for
your role as Trustees (and congrats for being elected!).

Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 13:43, Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής <
anonymuswikiped...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Congratulations to the new members!
>
> Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής
>
> Στις Πέμ, 13 Ιουν 2019 - 6:16 π.μ. ο χρήστης Rajeeb Dutta <
> marajoz...@gmail.com> έγραψε:
>
> > Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board
> > members  who took the initiative and launched this
> > process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election
> > facilitators as well.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rajeeb Dutta.
> > (U: Marajozkee).
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski <
> joa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and
> important
> > > step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our
> > movement. I
> > > thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
> > > process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked
> > restlessly
> > > to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
> > > productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
> > >
> > > The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful.
> > Congratulations!
> > > From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through
> > such
> > > a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > João
> > > User:Joalpe
> > >
> > >
> > > Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven  >
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > >> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> > >> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> > >> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and
> > Shani
> > >> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143
> > eligible
> > >> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted
> > under a
> > >> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated
> > votes
> > >> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final
> result.
> > In
> > >> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> > >> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard
> > Knipel
> > >> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that
> > others
> > >> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some
> > time,
> > >> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of
> the
> > >> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
> > >> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result
> in
> > >> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a
> > ballot.
> > >> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can
> > result
> > >> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in
> which
> > >> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some
> > voters
> > >> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> > >> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as
> > opening
> > >> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
> > >> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred
> > candidate) to
> > >> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
> > >> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with
> > the
> > >> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should
> be
> > >> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
> > >> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
> > >> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a
> new
> > >> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
> > >> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process
> > was
> > >> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion
> > were
> > >> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a
> > new
> > >> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have
> > been
> > >> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
> > >> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our
> best
> > at
> > >> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based
> on
> > our
> > >> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
> > >> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
> > >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής]

Congratulations to the new members!

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής

Στις Πέμ, 13 Ιουν 2019 - 6:16 π.μ. ο χρήστης Rajeeb Dutta <
marajoz...@gmail.com> έγραψε:

> Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board
> members  who took the initiative and launched this
> process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election
> facilitators as well.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rajeeb Dutta.
> (U: Marajozkee).
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski 
> wrote:
> >
> > The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important
> > step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our
> movement. I
> > thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
> > process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked
> restlessly
> > to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
> > productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
> >
> > The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful.
> Congratulations!
> > From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through
> such
> > a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > João
> > User:Joalpe
> >
> >
> > Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven 
> > escreveu:
> >
> >> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> >> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and
> Shani
> >> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143
> eligible
> >> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted
> under a
> >> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated
> votes
> >> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result.
> In
> >> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> >> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard
> Knipel
> >> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that
> others
> >> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some
> time,
> >> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
> >> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
> >> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
> >> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a
> ballot.
> >> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can
> result
> >> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
> >> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some
> voters
> >> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> >> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as
> opening
> >> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
> >> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred
> candidate) to
> >> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
> >> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with
> the
> >> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
> >> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
> >> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
> >> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
> >> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
> >> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process
> was
> >> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion
> were
> >> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a
> new
> >> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have
> been
> >> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
> >> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best
> at
> >> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on
> our
> >> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
> >> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
> >> modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
> >> modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
> >> caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized
> the
> >> entire election.  We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a
> next
> >> ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to
> a
> >> feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
> >> Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.
> Regards,
> >> Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
> >> Srivastava, Alessandor 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[Rajeeb Dutta]

Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board members  
who took the initiative and launched this
process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election 
facilitators as well.

Best Regards,
Rajeeb Dutta.
(U: Marajozkee).
Sent from my iPhone

> On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski  
> wrote:
> 
> The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important
> step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our movement. I
> thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
> process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked restlessly
> to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
> productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
> 
> The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful. Congratulations!
> From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through such
> a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> João
> User:Joalpe
> 
> 
> Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven 
> escreveu:
> 
>> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
>> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
>> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
>> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
>> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
>> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
>> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
>> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
>> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
>> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
>> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
>> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
>> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
>> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
>> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
>> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
>> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
>> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
>> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
>> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
>> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
>> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
>> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
>> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
>> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
>> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
>> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
>> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
>> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
>> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
>> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were
>> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new
>> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been
>> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
>> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at
>> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our
>> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
>> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
>> modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
>> modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
>> caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the
>> entire election.  We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next
>> ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a
>> feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
>> Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.  Regards,
>> Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
>> Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
>>> 
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
>> <
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[João Alexandre Peschanski]

The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important
step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our movement. I
thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked restlessly
to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.

The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful. Congratulations!
From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through such
a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!

Cheers,

João
User:Joalpe


Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven 
escreveu:

> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were
> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new
> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been
> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at
> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our
> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
> modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
> modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
> caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the
> entire election.  We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next
> ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a
> feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
> Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.  Regards,
>  Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
> Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
> >
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
> >
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
> >
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
> >
> [5]
> https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[Ad Huikeshoven]

*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
(40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were
a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new
ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been
available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at
answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our
experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the
entire election.  We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next
ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a
feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.  Regards,
 Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results

[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief

[5]
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback
*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,