Hello dear all,
I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the
election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not
very many people responded.
Greetings
Ting
Am 4/30/2013
Ting, Risker,
1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be
volunteer in the committee.
2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the
voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't
mean we need to ignore
Hello Itzik
yes, you are right.
But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you
know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and
unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is
also a volunteer driven committee. It is a
Ting,
I don't think that Itzik has said anywhere that the election committee is
doing a bad job. I think he is simply saying that you shouldn't have to
commit to having a meeting every week since February just to have an
opinion on the topic that is taken seriously.
Cheers,
Craig Franklin
On
And to come back to the topic.
At least in the theory, if someone is blocked in a project, than he has
a serious problem with that community. And the reason that his block is
not lifted should be a serious one. And if someone has a serious problem
with more than one community, than it is
On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
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
On 30.04.2013 12:14, James Alexander wrote:
Very side note: I'm not sure if you're talking in the past sense or
not
here but I did want to stick up for Wikiversity a bit here in the more
presente tense. I don't think I've checked in the past couple weeks
but
I've trolled the recent changes
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3
by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the board
members would be not directly coopted.
Many other varieties are possible,
On 30 Apr 2013, at 14:30, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3
by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the
On 4/30/2013 3:54 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
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
Hello,
If those three seats are to be elected by the community, then voting should
be restricted actually to the power editors. I could imagine that one of
those three seats - or, instead, a fourth one - is elected by the staff,
maybe plus the members of the Advisory board. E.g. Greenpeace Germany
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
processes where we are not granting chapters and others
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC
agreed - I actually don't see a reason why the elections should not be
limited to Wikimedia editors with some edit count. I would assume that if
there are people in other categories currently eligible to vote, who would
lose this privilege if they were required to do some minimal amount of
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:15 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote:
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.
In the 2011 election, anyone active with commit access (that
On 28/04/2013 06:15, rupert THURNER 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
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the
right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff,
I would say my view on the voting rules also, like last year where I was a
active editor but wasn't allowed to vote because of the rule that you can't
be blocked on more then one project.
I was that year a administrator, list administrator and member of the
LangCom. But was blocked on a project
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
I think it's a good idea Sue. Wikipedians are different than Wikimedians,
etc.. There are many people on boards of chapters and involved in the
community that might not edit on wiki spaces, making them perhaps unable
to vote. And there are a lot of people involved in the community that
aren't
2013/4/28 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
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?
Yes, that would be a very good solution!
2013/4/28 Pavel Richter pavel.rich...@wikimedia.de
2013/4/28 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
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
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
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
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com 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.
Sue writes:
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
As you know, the Wikimedia Foundation elections is approaching. As always,
the voters will be the community, developers, current board member and..
WMF staff and contractors. Nothing changed. same as two years ago.
But I wonder - we had this policy when the chapters and others recognized
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
workers who also participate as
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
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) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
I
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
