[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 I still believe that a screening phase where people with limited support below 
a certain threshold  can quit the race or be removed is the best way to have a 
functional ballot... to me it's just simpler this way. Even at real-life 
elections you need to show some signatures to access the race. 

If, after weeks of debate, a person get 1/5th of the support of an average 
candidate, it simply does not have a real chance. I point out again here, this 
would not be an additional phase, it's just something that can be done in 
parallel to the presentation of the candidates. For example, at the nth support 
signature, you enter the ballot.

For some reasons, some people assume that "plurality" means that everybody can 
join, but a crowded ballot is just chaotic. For n places to be selected, you 
should not give more than 2n-3n candidates on a final ballot, IMHO. Especially 
if you want to use certain electoral methods.
I tried to revise all 70 profiles and it was really boring. So after a while, I 
just put 10 names I kinda liked and that's it, I probably missed some of them. 
I also had negative feedback... which went wasted but could have also helped. 
Maybe in this scenario, the old method of "positive-neutral-negative" tipping 
box per each candidate could have also worked better than a STV ranking.
In any case with the other election I could more or less predict the probable 
final output (gender balanced, with actual limited chance for so-called GS), 
here it's almost impossible, the vote will be diluted so much and I really 
cannot focus on all the candidates. This ould probably mean that bugs of UI 
(fixed display of candidates, problem of selecting from menu if initial letter 
has an unusual accent...) might influence the outcome more than usual. 

Alessandro


Il martedì 19 ottobre 2021, 06:41:56 CEST, Anupam Dutta 
 ha scritto:  
 
 Hi all,
To me, a slightly better approach would have been to divide the 70 candidates 
into 7 blocks of 10 each, chosen in a random way, but the block remaining 
fixed. Then force the voter to visit each block and view the candidates ( so 
that nobody has any undue advantage). After that, the voter will have the 
choice to choose any or all or none..
(Disclaimer : I am one of the candidates).
Anupamdutta73
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 08:55 effe iets anders  wrote:

Just for quick context: I was mostly trying to say that any *simple* system may 
have benefits in the scenario when you don't have the resources to make a 
complex system work properly (read: userfriendly). A 7-member district was 
intended as shorthand for "out of these 70 people, pick 7 favorites". That does 
not allow as much nuance as ranking, but it also has much less mental load. 
There are more systems that would have been easier on the voter, most likely. I 
fear that with the 'rank these 70 people into an order of 70' will scare away 
too many participants.
Lodewijk
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:40 PM Risker  wrote:

I am curious what is meant by a "7-member district".  Lodewijk, could you 
explain in more detail?


Risker/Anne


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W3XYWFSUTJ2XSFIUHZAPNMOQPECZTOTV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CV3LSFVZT3GBUTV7CC752BYHFPGQFRZS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org  ___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/M32MI4FY6EK6MGMJA52NPWBNMYT3WT5L/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread Anupam Dutta
Hi all,

To me, a slightly better approach would have been to divide the 70
candidates into 7 blocks of 10 each, chosen in a random way, but the block
remaining fixed. Then force the voter to visit each block and view the
candidates ( so that nobody has any undue advantage). After that, the voter
will have the choice to choose any or all or none..

(Disclaimer : I am one of the candidates).

Anupamdutta73

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 08:55 effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Just for quick context: I was mostly trying to say that any *simple*
> system may have benefits in the scenario when you don't have the resources
> to make a complex system work properly (read: userfriendly). A 7-member
> district was intended as shorthand for "out of these 70 people, pick 7
> favorites". That does not allow as much nuance as ranking, but it also has
> much less mental load. There are more systems that would have been easier
> on the voter, most likely. I fear that with the 'rank these 70 people into
> an order of 70' will scare away too many participants.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:40 PM Risker  wrote:
>
>> 
>> I am curious what is meant by a "7-member district".  Lodewijk, could you
>> explain in more detail?
>> 
>>
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W3XYWFSUTJ2XSFIUHZAPNMOQPECZTOTV/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CV3LSFVZT3GBUTV7CC752BYHFPGQFRZS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread effe iets anders
Just for quick context: I was mostly trying to say that any *simple* system
may have benefits in the scenario when you don't have the resources to make
a complex system work properly (read: userfriendly). A 7-member district
was intended as shorthand for "out of these 70 people, pick 7 favorites".
That does not allow as much nuance as ranking, but it also has much less
mental load. There are more systems that would have been easier on the
voter, most likely. I fear that with the 'rank these 70 people into an
order of 70' will scare away too many participants.

Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:40 PM Risker  wrote:

> 
> I am curious what is meant by a "7-member district".  Lodewijk, could you
> explain in more detail?
> 
>
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W3XYWFSUTJ2XSFIUHZAPNMOQPECZTOTV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread Risker
Just for the record, the Wikimedia Foundation Election Committee

has been a standing committee since 2015, and reports to the Board
Governance Committee.  It is tasked with making recommendations on how
elections are carried out, and specifically is responsible for community
elections to the Board of Trustees, the FDC and the FDC ombuds, as well as
" Similar community-selected positions as determined by the Wikimedia
Foundation Board of Trustee
s".
To the best of my knowledge, the Elections Committee has had no involvement
in the MCDC election, and there's no indication at all that the Board asked
them to assist or to manage the election.  I would really like to see a
couple of stewards acting as scrutineers for this election, simply because
they are really experienced at identifying the kinds of problems that turn
up on elections like this (you'd be surprised how often there are issues, I
certainly was when I was on the EC), and the Strategy folks who are in
charge of the election already have more than enough on their plate.
DISCLOSURE:  I am a candidate in this election.

I am curious what is meant by a "7-member district".  Lodewijk, could you
explain in more detail?

What isn't really obvious is that at the same time as the content
management community is carrying out this single-transferable-vote
election, a special committee representing affiliates from different
geographic areas is also, in parallel, selecting 6 people from exactly the
same list of candidates.  Thus, we have the same slate of candidates
running simultaneously in two separate elections, competing for 7
community-selected seats and 6 affiliate-selected seats.  As a candidate, I
find this situation quite uncomfortable. It's not well understood, and the
number of candidates makes the selection process much more complex for both
groups.  I hope that for the STV election, we see exactly the type  of
results that we saw for the Trustee election a few weeks ago, in the same
format, so that it is very clear how the STV process worked in this case.
I understand and accept that the affiliate selection process is going to be
very different, and there will be a fair amount of negotiation to come up
with the most favoured result, but since there's a reasonable chance at
least some of their selected candidates will be selected already by the
community, they'll need to ensure they have a final selection of at least
13 people so that any duplicates or otherwise ineligible candidates (due to
the 2-per-wiki rule) will still result in filing all the seats.


Risker/Anne


On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 12:47, effe iets anders 
wrote:

> There's that, +1 for sure.
>
> But even within the current limitations, there are some configuration
> options that could have been chosen to improve user experience. For
> example, various WMF staff members have communicated different cutoff
> points when people shouldn't have to worry about their ranking any longer.
> Great. But this is hidden in a wall of text. A more user friendly way would
> have been to actually limit the interface to the top-X positions, if you
> can show with some basic simulations that this is indeed the reasonable
> cutoff.
>
> Not that this would have been a 'good' voting method by any standard with
> rank-top15 but it would be 70/15 times less painful :)
>
> It's also odd that I have to discover the first-letter-trick. There may be
> more tricks out there! I honestly was fully expecting that the WMF would
> have fixed the software before setting up the vote, so I didn't give it
> another thought. But a few of these pain points could have been clearer if
> there would have been a test period with a few volunteers... (although I
> assume at least the election committee was thoroughly consulted)
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:30 AM Jan Ainali  wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your reply Kaarel,
>>
>> I just wanted to note that UI of SecurePoll caused problem in the board
>> election too, and that the same excuse was used then "in a short time
>> once". Obviously this is a piece of infrastructure that we need in the
>> movement and that any team doing one election should not need to fix the
>> software for it.
>>
>> Hence, a specific project, unrelated to any election, should be tasked to
>> solve this by the Wikimedia Foundation. And it should start soon to avoid
>> us finding ourselves in the same problem when the next election is being
>> called.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jan Ainali
>>
>>
>> Den mån 18 okt. 2021 kl 13:02 skrev Kaarel Vaidla > >:
>>
>>> Thank you everyone for taking the time to vote on the elections, for
>>> engaging with the tools that have been created to facilitate the voting,
>>> and for taking the time to provide the feedback. Running these elections
>>> with 70 candidates is a pilot and it is a great opportunity to learn

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Summit 2022

2021-10-18 Thread Florence Devouard

Hello


Thank you for this information Nicole.

I think it is important for the other conference organizers to be aware 
of this change so that they anticipate with regards to calendar (right 
now... for example... wikiarabia, wikiindaba and wikiconvention 
francophone are already quite packed).


Otherwise, a meeting for the drafting committee looks like a very good 
idea to me.


Flo

Le 18/10/2021 à 16:29, Nicole Ebber a écrit :

Hi everyone,

We have some good and some bad news for you. First, the bad news:

Wikimedia Deutschland will not host the Wikimedia Summit in April
2022. We believe that the global pandemic will not allow for safe and
equitable travel for participants, especially from regions outside of
Europe and North America.

The good news is twofold:
We will not cancel but postpone the Summit, and are currently aiming
for the second half of the year, around September 2022. We will
continue working with the Wikimedia Foundation on the next steps and
keep you all updated about the situation. We surely look very much
forward to welcoming many of you to Berlin in the not too distant
future.

On top of that, we are in conversations with the Movement Strategy and
Governance team at the Wikimedia Foundation about the possibility to
use the originally blocked dates (1-3 April 2022) for a working
meeting of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee in Berlin. This
meeting could be complemented by some online auditoria, additional
hybrid sessions, where the committee could collect insights and
feedback from across the movement.

There is really not more to share about this right now, but we wanted
to make sure to provide an early update on what we are currently
thinking and talking about. More information will be shared in the
coming weeks and months, so please stay tuned.

All the best
Nicole




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TWNMSLAXHIV7YYESL2D6WK4DVP3VFMLA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread effe iets anders
There's that, +1 for sure.

But even within the current limitations, there are some configuration
options that could have been chosen to improve user experience. For
example, various WMF staff members have communicated different cutoff
points when people shouldn't have to worry about their ranking any longer.
Great. But this is hidden in a wall of text. A more user friendly way would
have been to actually limit the interface to the top-X positions, if you
can show with some basic simulations that this is indeed the reasonable
cutoff.

Not that this would have been a 'good' voting method by any standard with
rank-top15 but it would be 70/15 times less painful :)

It's also odd that I have to discover the first-letter-trick. There may be
more tricks out there! I honestly was fully expecting that the WMF would
have fixed the software before setting up the vote, so I didn't give it
another thought. But a few of these pain points could have been clearer if
there would have been a test period with a few volunteers... (although I
assume at least the election committee was thoroughly consulted)

Lodewijk

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:30 AM Jan Ainali  wrote:

> Thanks for your reply Kaarel,
>
> I just wanted to note that UI of SecurePoll caused problem in the board
> election too, and that the same excuse was used then "in a short time once".
> Obviously this is a piece of infrastructure that we need in the movement
> and that any team doing one election should not need to fix the software
> for it.
>
> Hence, a specific project, unrelated to any election, should be tasked to
> solve this by the Wikimedia Foundation. And it should start soon to avoid
> us finding ourselves in the same problem when the next election is being
> called.
>
> Thanks,
> Jan Ainali
>
>
> Den mån 18 okt. 2021 kl 13:02 skrev Kaarel Vaidla :
>
>> Thank you everyone for taking the time to vote on the elections, for
>> engaging with the tools that have been created to facilitate the voting,
>> and for taking the time to provide the feedback. Running these elections
>> with 70 candidates is a pilot and it is a great opportunity to learn
>> together and with your support and input. We are gathering the lessons
>> learned, so there can be improvements for the next time.
>>
>> I am responding to some of the points made in the thread:
>>
>>- The *user interface* and, as a result, the user experience for
>>voting on the SecurePoll for 70 candidates with a Single Transferable
>>Voting method is indeed sub-optimal. Unfortunately, we could not figure 
>> out
>>how to make it more user friendly in a short time once it became clear 
>> that
>>there would be 70 candidates. It would need essential changes on how the
>>voting would happen. There are some suggestions for improvements in this
>>thread (no dropbox, but clickable or drag & drop candidate chips; choosing
>>a different voting method or creating 7-member districts). It would be
>>great to receive further perspectives on this!
>>
>>
>>- Thank you, Lodewijk, for sharing *practical guidance* on how to
>>make the most of the current user interface. Typing the first letter of 
>> the
>>candidate name to find the right one in the dropdown box with 70 names is
>>probably the best way to do it. A huge thank you to everyone who is taking
>>the time to cast their vote!
>>
>>
>>- Ensuring the supporting materials to help people to make informed
>>decisions has been a complex matter. The candidate statements
>>
>> 
>>add up to 55 pages of text, which is difficult to navigate. It seemed like
>>a *compass tool* could be of help here, but it comes with its own
>>complications:
>>   - There was a 10-day window to submit the statements and a 5-day
>>   upvoting period. We did our best to communicate it widely on mailing 
>> lists
>>   (e.g. here
>>   
>> 
>>   and here
>>   
>> )
>>   as well as social media groups, yet as there is so.much going on, not
>>   everyone noticed it in the timely manner.
>>   - We are no longer collecting or upvoting statements. We hope that
>>   19 that were selected are at least to some extent helpful in informing 
>> the
>>   voting. We are happy to receive the feedback regarding the statement
>>   collection and upvoting, so it would be possible to improve the 
>> process in
>>   the future.
>>   - Election compass has its own user interface and experience
>>   challenges. We have opted for all the candidates being selected as 
>> default
>>   for comparison, as it provides a good comparison across the pool - this
>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread Samuel Klein
Agreed.  Is this something that the Election Committee
,
as a standing committee not tied to a single election, can help with?   SJ

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:30 AM Jan Ainali  wrote:

> Thanks for your reply Kaarel,
>
> I just wanted to note that UI of SecurePoll caused problem in the board
> election too, and that the same excuse was used then "in a short time once".
> Obviously this is a piece of infrastructure that we need in the movement
> and that any team doing one election should not need to fix the software
> for it.
>
> Hence, a specific project, unrelated to any election, should be tasked to
> solve this by the Wikimedia Foundation. And it should start soon to avoid
> us finding ourselves in the same problem when the next election is being
> called.
>
> Thanks,
> Jan Ainali
>
>
> Den mån 18 okt. 2021 kl 13:02 skrev Kaarel Vaidla :
>
>> Thank you everyone for taking the time to vote on the elections, for
>> engaging with the tools that have been created to facilitate the voting,
>> and for taking the time to provide the feedback. Running these elections
>> with 70 candidates is a pilot and it is a great opportunity to learn
>> together and with your support and input. We are gathering the lessons
>> learned, so there can be improvements for the next time.
>>
>> I am responding to some of the points made in the thread:
>>
>>- The *user interface* and, as a result, the user experience for
>>voting on the SecurePoll for 70 candidates with a Single Transferable
>>Voting method is indeed sub-optimal. Unfortunately, we could not figure 
>> out
>>how to make it more user friendly in a short time once it became clear 
>> that
>>there would be 70 candidates. It would need essential changes on how the
>>voting would happen. There are some suggestions for improvements in this
>>thread (no dropbox, but clickable or drag & drop candidate chips; choosing
>>a different voting method or creating 7-member districts). It would be
>>great to receive further perspectives on this!
>>
>>
>>- Thank you, Lodewijk, for sharing *practical guidance* on how to
>>make the most of the current user interface. Typing the first letter of 
>> the
>>candidate name to find the right one in the dropdown box with 70 names is
>>probably the best way to do it. A huge thank you to everyone who is taking
>>the time to cast their vote!
>>
>>
>>- Ensuring the supporting materials to help people to make informed
>>decisions has been a complex matter. The candidate statements
>>
>> 
>>add up to 55 pages of text, which is difficult to navigate. It seemed like
>>a *compass tool* could be of help here, but it comes with its own
>>complications:
>>   - There was a 10-day window to submit the statements and a 5-day
>>   upvoting period. We did our best to communicate it widely on mailing 
>> lists
>>   (e.g. here
>>   
>> 
>>   and here
>>   
>> )
>>   as well as social media groups, yet as there is so.much going on, not
>>   everyone noticed it in the timely manner.
>>   - We are no longer collecting or upvoting statements. We hope that
>>   19 that were selected are at least to some extent helpful in informing 
>> the
>>   voting. We are happy to receive the feedback regarding the statement
>>   collection and upvoting, so it would be possible to improve the 
>> process in
>>   the future.
>>   - Election compass has its own user interface and experience
>>   challenges. We have opted for all the candidates being selected as 
>> default
>>   for comparison, as it provides a good comparison across the pool - this
>>   helps to have a good overview of the positions of all the candidates.
>>   However, this makes navigating their rationale statements more 
>> difficult,
>>   as it involves a lot of scrolling. Also, if one is interested in 
>> comparing
>>   2 candidates, there is a lot of deselecting that needs to happen. It 
>> seemed
>>   that selecting candidates manually would bring more personal bias into 
>> use
>>   of the tool, so we have chosen the select all approach as default. 
>> Overall,
>>   it is the number of candidates that is creating the bulk of the 
>> navigation
>>   and comparison issues and we are open to feedback on how to improve 
>> this in
>>   the future.
>>   - The length of the statements made by the candidates in the
>>   compass tool was capped to prevent us from creating another wall of 
>> text.
>>   While it helps to better 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Summit 2022

2021-10-18 Thread Nicole Ebber
Hi everyone,

We have some good and some bad news for you. First, the bad news:

Wikimedia Deutschland will not host the Wikimedia Summit in April
2022. We believe that the global pandemic will not allow for safe and
equitable travel for participants, especially from regions outside of
Europe and North America.

The good news is twofold:
We will not cancel but postpone the Summit, and are currently aiming
for the second half of the year, around September 2022. We will
continue working with the Wikimedia Foundation on the next steps and
keep you all updated about the situation. We surely look very much
forward to welcoming many of you to Berlin in the not too distant
future.

On top of that, we are in conversations with the Movement Strategy and
Governance team at the Wikimedia Foundation about the possibility to
use the originally blocked dates (1-3 April 2022) for a working
meeting of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee in Berlin. This
meeting could be complemented by some online auditoria, additional
hybrid sessions, where the committee could collect insights and
feedback from across the movement.

There is really not more to share about this right now, but we wanted
to make sure to provide an early update on what we are currently
thinking and talking about. More information will be shared in the
coming weeks and months, so please stay tuned.

All the best
Nicole



-- 
Nicole Ebber
Director Movement Strategy and Global Relations

Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Phone: +49 30 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de

Keep up to date! Current news and exciting stories about Wikimedia,
Wikipedia and Free Knowledge in our newsletter (in German):
https://www.wikimedia.de/newsletter/

Wikimedia Deutschland – Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ANIMJ6IZIGLH45NJ3IHGJX4A267KCYLK/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
Let me suggest an improvement for the next time: the Election Compass gives the 
username and the voting system is orded by real name. It would be great to have 
both/be consistent.

But... 70 candidates! It seems hard to make something perfect.

From: Jan Ainali 
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 1:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are 
now open!

Thanks for your reply Kaarel,

I just wanted to note that UI of SecurePoll caused problem in the board 
election too, and that the same excuse was used then "in a short time once". 
Obviously this is a piece of infrastructure that we need in the movement and 
that any team doing one election should not need to fix the software for it.

Hence, a specific project, unrelated to any election, should be tasked to solve 
this by the Wikimedia Foundation. And it should start soon to avoid us finding 
ourselves in the same problem when the next election is being called.

Thanks,
Jan Ainali


Den mån 18 okt. 2021 kl 13:02 skrev Kaarel Vaidla 
mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org>>:
Thank you everyone for taking the time to vote on the elections, for engaging 
with the tools that have been created to facilitate the voting, and for taking 
the time to provide the feedback. Running these elections with 70 candidates is 
a pilot and it is a great opportunity to learn together and with your support 
and input. We are gathering the lessons learned, so there can be improvements 
for the next time.

I am responding to some of the points made in the thread:

  *   The user interface and, as a result, the user experience for voting on 
the SecurePoll for 70 candidates with a Single Transferable Voting method is 
indeed sub-optimal. Unfortunately, we could not figure out how to make it more 
user friendly in a short time once it became clear that there would be 70 
candidates. It would need essential changes on how the voting would happen. 
There are some suggestions for improvements in this thread (no dropbox, but 
clickable or drag & drop candidate chips; choosing a different voting method or 
creating 7-member districts). It would be great to receive further perspectives 
on this!

  *   Thank you, Lodewijk, for sharing practical guidance on how to make the 
most of the current user interface. Typing the first letter of the candidate 
name to find the right one in the dropdown box with 70 names is probably the 
best way to do it. A huge thank you to everyone who is taking the time to cast 
their vote!

  *   Ensuring the supporting materials to help people to make informed 
decisions has been a complex matter. The candidate 
statements
 add up to 55 pages of text, which is difficult to navigate. It seemed like a 
compass tool could be of help here, but it comes with its own complications:
 *   There was a 10-day window to submit the statements and a 5-day 
upvoting period. We did our best to communicate it widely on mailing lists 
(e.g. 
here
 and 
here)
 as well as social media groups, yet as there is so.much going on, not everyone 
noticed it in the timely manner.
 *   We are no longer collecting or upvoting statements. We hope that 19 
that were selected are at least to some extent helpful in informing the voting. 
We are happy to receive the feedback regarding the statement collection and 
upvoting, so it would be possible to improve the process in the future.
 *   Election compass has its own user interface and experience challenges. 
We have opted for all the candidates being selected as default for comparison, 
as it provides a good comparison across the pool - this helps to have a good 
overview of the positions of all the candidates. However, this makes navigating 
their rationale statements more difficult, as it involves a lot of scrolling. 
Also, if one is interested in comparing 2 candidates, there is a lot of 
deselecting that needs to happen. It seemed that selecting candidates manually 
would bring more personal bias into use of the tool, so we have chosen the 
select all approach as default. Overall, it is the number of candidates that is 
creating the bulk of the navigation and comparison issues and we are open to 
feedback on how to improve this in the future.
 *   The length of the statements made by the candidates in the compass 
tool was capped to prevent us from creating another wall of text. While it 
helps to better understand the position of the candidate, it would create a 
further barrier for voter engagement, if the expression is not clear and 
concise. I believe that the word limits will be an essential part of the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread Jan Ainali
Thanks for your reply Kaarel,

I just wanted to note that UI of SecurePoll caused problem in the board
election too, and that the same excuse was used then "in a short time once".
Obviously this is a piece of infrastructure that we need in the movement
and that any team doing one election should not need to fix the software
for it.

Hence, a specific project, unrelated to any election, should be tasked to
solve this by the Wikimedia Foundation. And it should start soon to avoid
us finding ourselves in the same problem when the next election is being
called.

Thanks,
Jan Ainali


Den mån 18 okt. 2021 kl 13:02 skrev Kaarel Vaidla :

> Thank you everyone for taking the time to vote on the elections, for
> engaging with the tools that have been created to facilitate the voting,
> and for taking the time to provide the feedback. Running these elections
> with 70 candidates is a pilot and it is a great opportunity to learn
> together and with your support and input. We are gathering the lessons
> learned, so there can be improvements for the next time.
>
> I am responding to some of the points made in the thread:
>
>- The *user interface* and, as a result, the user experience for
>voting on the SecurePoll for 70 candidates with a Single Transferable
>Voting method is indeed sub-optimal. Unfortunately, we could not figure out
>how to make it more user friendly in a short time once it became clear that
>there would be 70 candidates. It would need essential changes on how the
>voting would happen. There are some suggestions for improvements in this
>thread (no dropbox, but clickable or drag & drop candidate chips; choosing
>a different voting method or creating 7-member districts). It would be
>great to receive further perspectives on this!
>
>
>- Thank you, Lodewijk, for sharing *practical guidance* on how to make
>the most of the current user interface. Typing the first letter of the
>candidate name to find the right one in the dropdown box with 70 names is
>probably the best way to do it. A huge thank you to everyone who is taking
>the time to cast their vote!
>
>
>- Ensuring the supporting materials to help people to make informed
>decisions has been a complex matter. The candidate statements
>
> 
>add up to 55 pages of text, which is difficult to navigate. It seemed like
>a *compass tool* could be of help here, but it comes with its own
>complications:
>   - There was a 10-day window to submit the statements and a 5-day
>   upvoting period. We did our best to communicate it widely on mailing 
> lists
>   (e.g. here
>   
> 
>   and here
>   
> )
>   as well as social media groups, yet as there is so.much going on, not
>   everyone noticed it in the timely manner.
>   - We are no longer collecting or upvoting statements. We hope that
>   19 that were selected are at least to some extent helpful in informing 
> the
>   voting. We are happy to receive the feedback regarding the statement
>   collection and upvoting, so it would be possible to improve the process 
> in
>   the future.
>   - Election compass has its own user interface and experience
>   challenges. We have opted for all the candidates being selected as 
> default
>   for comparison, as it provides a good comparison across the pool - this
>   helps to have a good overview of the positions of all the candidates.
>   However, this makes navigating their rationale statements more 
> difficult,
>   as it involves a lot of scrolling. Also, if one is interested in 
> comparing
>   2 candidates, there is a lot of deselecting that needs to happen. It 
> seemed
>   that selecting candidates manually would bring more personal bias into 
> use
>   of the tool, so we have chosen the select all approach as default. 
> Overall,
>   it is the number of candidates that is creating the bulk of the 
> navigation
>   and comparison issues and we are open to feedback on how to improve 
> this in
>   the future.
>   - The length of the statements made by the candidates in the
>   compass tool was capped to prevent us from creating another wall of 
> text.
>   While it helps to better understand the position of the candidate, it 
> would
>   create a further barrier for voter engagement, if the expression is not
>   clear and concise. I believe that the word limits will be an essential 
> part
>   of the future elections and candidate statements, because it reduces the
>   access barrier for voters and also facilitates translations to a wider
>  

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread Kaarel Vaidla
Thank you everyone for taking the time to vote on the elections, for
engaging with the tools that have been created to facilitate the voting,
and for taking the time to provide the feedback. Running these elections
with 70 candidates is a pilot and it is a great opportunity to learn
together and with your support and input. We are gathering the lessons
learned, so there can be improvements for the next time.

I am responding to some of the points made in the thread:

   - The *user interface* and, as a result, the user experience for voting
   on the SecurePoll for 70 candidates with a Single Transferable Voting
   method is indeed sub-optimal. Unfortunately, we could not figure out how to
   make it more user friendly in a short time once it became clear that there
   would be 70 candidates. It would need essential changes on how the voting
   would happen. There are some suggestions for improvements in this thread
   (no dropbox, but clickable or drag & drop candidate chips; choosing a
   different voting method or creating 7-member districts). It would be great
   to receive further perspectives on this!


   - Thank you, Lodewijk, for sharing *practical guidance* on how to make
   the most of the current user interface. Typing the first letter of the
   candidate name to find the right one in the dropdown box with 70 names is
   probably the best way to do it. A huge thank you to everyone who is taking
   the time to cast their vote!


   - Ensuring the supporting materials to help people to make informed
   decisions has been a complex matter. The candidate statements
   

   add up to 55 pages of text, which is difficult to navigate. It seemed like
   a *compass tool* could be of help here, but it comes with its own
   complications:
  - There was a 10-day window to submit the statements and a 5-day
  upvoting period. We did our best to communicate it widely on
mailing lists
  (e.g. here
  

  and here
  
)
  as well as social media groups, yet as there is so.much going on, not
  everyone noticed it in the timely manner.
  - We are no longer collecting or upvoting statements. We hope that 19
  that were selected are at least to some extent helpful in informing the
  voting. We are happy to receive the feedback regarding the statement
  collection and upvoting, so it would be possible to improve the
process in
  the future.
  - Election compass has its own user interface and experience
  challenges. We have opted for all the candidates being selected
as default
  for comparison, as it provides a good comparison across the pool - this
  helps to have a good overview of the positions of all the candidates.
  However, this makes navigating their rationale statements more difficult,
  as it involves a lot of scrolling. Also, if one is interested in
comparing
  2 candidates, there is a lot of deselecting that needs to
happen. It seemed
  that selecting candidates manually would bring more personal
bias into use
  of the tool, so we have chosen the select all approach as
default. Overall,
  it is the number of candidates that is creating the bulk of the
navigation
  and comparison issues and we are open to feedback on how to
improve this in
  the future.
  - The length of the statements made by the candidates in the compass
  tool was capped to prevent us from creating another wall of
text. While it
  helps to better understand the position of the candidate, it
would create a
  further barrier for voter engagement, if the expression is not clear and
  concise. I believe that the word limits will be an essential part of the
  future elections and candidate statements, because it reduces the access
  barrier for voters and also facilitates translations to a wider range of
  languages, which makes the information even more accessible. What can be
  discussed is the exact limit size and also what information is the most
  helpful to collect from candidates.
  - The tool that we used is Open Election Compass
  . We did not do a full code
  review for this, but we did not experience any anomalies in
weighing of the
  votes during testing. If there are people who are interested in doing the
  code review, here is the link to the tool in GitHub
  .
   - We are truly grateful to the community members who have stepped in and
   tried to make the information regarding the candidates more easily
   digestible. This goes a long way in supporting 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

2021-10-18 Thread Mario Gómez
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:57 AM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> This is a horribly problematic election. Not only does it take hours to go
> through the candidates if you actually want to rank them, but you would
> also need to be willing to spend about a lot of time to enter them into the
> broken voting interface (which works great for up to 5 candidates - not for
> 70).
>

I filled about 14 candidates and it was not extremely bad, but for anyone
looking to rank more candidates, I guess it might have been daunting. I
agree that the dropdowns are a very inconvenient UI for this kind of
votation. I can imagine something more efficient like having chips for
every candidate (no dropdown), and then sequentially click on them to add
them to the ballot in order, then maybe supporting drag and drop to
re-order. Changing the order of candidates once the ballot is prepared is
particularly cumbersome.

Best,

Mario
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/B5KAHUEMXXPSFBDPM2ZQC6OFHUNVPUQS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org