Re: [Wikimediaau-l] question arising from minutes
On 2011-Mar-24 16:11:34 +1030, Adam Jenkins adam.jenk...@gmail.com wrote: 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. This is of concern to me as well. 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. Agreed. Given that WMAu now has significant assets, it's even more important that the electoral processes are seen to be independent of the management committee. 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. Even as a small organisation, there's no real reason why an official Returning Officer couldn't be appointed. And WMAu is still a fairly small organisation in membership. 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've served on the board of a similar type of organisation in the past. Like WM-Au, it had a relatively small membership base but was relatively asset-rich. Elections were under the control of the Returning Officer but he was free to call on volunteers to help with counting. Given that WM-Au relies on electronic distribution of notices and electronic voting, there is very little that a Returning Officer would need to do other than be independent of the committee, drive the voting software and count votes at meetings. I don't see that there is any reason to get an outside organisation to run elections - if nothing else, this would be likely to be a significant cost. -- Peter Jeremy pgpy8vgIWfPdf.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] question arising from minutes
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.jenk...@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 thepmacco...@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.jenk...@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 thepmacco...@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] question arising from minutes
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 thepmacco...@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.jenk...@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 thepmacco...@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
