Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Chris Keating]

We are now up to 36 votes and 3 more are expected today.

Still haven't heard from Hungary,  Macedonia or Macau but this is now the
best turnout in an ASBS process.

Chris
On 6 May 2016 16:59, "Andrew Gray"  wrote:

> Many apologies - I for some reason thought today was the 7th! I
> entirely retract my scaremongering about tonight :-)
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 6 May 2016 at 16:05, Dennis Tobar  wrote:
> > Chris:
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification. When I read Andrew's message "tonight
> ends",
> > I'm read it like as "the end of the world is near", because we will cast
> > our vote tonight.
> >
> > Regards!
> >
> > El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:59, Chris Keating <
> > chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> escribió:
> >
> >> As it says on the voting page:
> >>
> >> *Voting will end at* 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Dennis Tobar 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Just for ask: the final day to cast a vote, is tonight (May 6 23:59:59
> >> UTC)
> >> > or May 7 23:59:29 UTC?
> >> >
> >> > El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:55, Andrew Gray <
> >> > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> escribió:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Chris,
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for the update. So we're at 62% voted, another 21%
> >> > > probably-voting, and 17% silent, with voting ending tonight. An
> >> > > improvement on last year, at least!
> >> > >
> >> > > Andrew.
> >> > >
> >> > > On 6 May 2016 at 15:32, Chris Keating 
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > Just an update on this:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Currently 26 of the eligible affiliates have voted. A further 9
> have
> >> > > either
> >> > > > confirmed they are planning to vote, or have engaged
> substantively in
> >> > the
> >> > > > process (e.g. by nominating someone or participating in the
> Wikimedia
> >> > > > Conference session on the subject). I'd expect most of them will
> do
> >> so.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong,
> >> Hungary,
> >> > > > Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those
> >> > > appears
> >> > > > to be completely inactive.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Chris
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Many thanks
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry <
> >> l...@bluerasberry.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Hello,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> >> > > chapters'
> >> > > >> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> >> > > trustees.
> >> > > >> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone
> who
> >> > > wishes
> >> > > >> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier
> chapters to
> >> > > vote
> >> > > >> by the May 7 end of election.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty
> to
> >> > > support
> >> > > >> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> >> > > >> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate
> >> > being
> >> > > >> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The
> >> > election
> >> > > >> result is more sound with more votes.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> yours,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --
> >> > > >> Lane Rasberry
> >> > > >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> >> > > >> 206.801.0814
> >> > > >> l...@bluerasberry.com
> >> > > >> ___
> >> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >> > ,
> >> > > >>  >> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> > > > ___
> >> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > > Unsubscribe:
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > - Andrew Gray
> >> > >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> >> > >
> >> > > ___
> >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Dennis Tobar Calderón
> >> > (Enviado desde un móvil, lamento lo breve o los 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Andrew Gray]

Many apologies - I for some reason thought today was the 7th! I
entirely retract my scaremongering about tonight :-)

Andrew.

On 6 May 2016 at 16:05, Dennis Tobar  wrote:
> Chris:
>
> Thanks for the clarification. When I read Andrew's message "tonight ends",
> I'm read it like as "the end of the world is near", because we will cast
> our vote tonight.
>
> Regards!
>
> El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:59, Chris Keating <
> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
>> As it says on the voting page:
>>
>> *Voting will end at* 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Dennis Tobar 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Just for ask: the final day to cast a vote, is tonight (May 6 23:59:59
>> UTC)
>> > or May 7 23:59:29 UTC?
>> >
>> > El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:55, Andrew Gray <
>> > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> escribió:
>> >
>> > > Hi Chris,
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the update. So we're at 62% voted, another 21%
>> > > probably-voting, and 17% silent, with voting ending tonight. An
>> > > improvement on last year, at least!
>> > >
>> > > Andrew.
>> > >
>> > > On 6 May 2016 at 15:32, Chris Keating 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > Just an update on this:
>> > > >
>> > > > Currently 26 of the eligible affiliates have voted. A further 9 have
>> > > either
>> > > > confirmed they are planning to vote, or have engaged substantively in
>> > the
>> > > > process (e.g. by nominating someone or participating in the Wikimedia
>> > > > Conference session on the subject). I'd expect most of them will do
>> so.
>> > > >
>> > > > Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong,
>> Hungary,
>> > > > Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those
>> > > appears
>> > > > to be completely inactive.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Chris
>> > > >
>> > > > Many thanks
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry <
>> l...@bluerasberry.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hello,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
>> > > chapters'
>> > > >> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
>> > > trustees.
>> > > >> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
>> > > wishes
>> > > >> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
>> > > vote
>> > > >> by the May 7 end of election.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
>> > > support
>> > > >> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
>> > > >> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate
>> > being
>> > > >> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The
>> > election
>> > > >> result is more sound with more votes.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>> > > >>
>> > > >> yours,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Lane Rasberry
>> > > >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
>> > > >> 206.801.0814
>> > > >> l...@bluerasberry.com
>> > > >> ___
>> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > >> Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > ,
>> > > >> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>> > > > ___
>> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > > 
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > - Andrew Gray
>> > >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>> > >
>> > > ___
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > > 
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Dennis Tobar Calderón
>> > (Enviado desde un móvil, lamento lo breve o los errores de ortografía)
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> >
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Petr Kadlec]

Hi,

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong, Hungary,
> Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those appears
> to be completely inactive.
>

AFAIAA, WMCZ Board has already decided their vote, I am not sure if they
have submitted the vote already, are planning to do so soon, have forgotten
it, something has malfunctioned, …

CCing Vojtěch to check up on that.

-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Dennis Tobar]

Chris:

Thanks for the clarification. When I read Andrew's message "tonight ends",
I'm read it like as "the end of the world is near", because we will cast
our vote tonight.

Regards!

El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:59, Chris Keating <
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> escribió:

> As it says on the voting page:
>
> *Voting will end at* 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Dennis Tobar 
> wrote:
>
> > Just for ask: the final day to cast a vote, is tonight (May 6 23:59:59
> UTC)
> > or May 7 23:59:29 UTC?
> >
> > El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:55, Andrew Gray <
> > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> escribió:
> >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the update. So we're at 62% voted, another 21%
> > > probably-voting, and 17% silent, with voting ending tonight. An
> > > improvement on last year, at least!
> > >
> > > Andrew.
> > >
> > > On 6 May 2016 at 15:32, Chris Keating 
> > wrote:
> > > > Just an update on this:
> > > >
> > > > Currently 26 of the eligible affiliates have voted. A further 9 have
> > > either
> > > > confirmed they are planning to vote, or have engaged substantively in
> > the
> > > > process (e.g. by nominating someone or participating in the Wikimedia
> > > > Conference session on the subject). I'd expect most of them will do
> so.
> > > >
> > > > Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong,
> Hungary,
> > > > Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those
> > > appears
> > > > to be completely inactive.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > Many thanks
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry <
> l...@bluerasberry.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hello,
> > > >>
> > > >> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> > > chapters'
> > > >> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> > > trustees.
> > > >> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
> > > wishes
> > > >> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
> > > vote
> > > >> by the May 7 end of election.
> > > >>
> > > >> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
> > > support
> > > >> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> > > >> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate
> > being
> > > >> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The
> > election
> > > >> result is more sound with more votes.
> > > >>
> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> > > >>
> > > >> yours,
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Lane Rasberry
> > > >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > > >> 206.801.0814
> > > >> l...@bluerasberry.com
> > > >> ___
> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > > >>  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Andrew Gray
> > >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dennis Tobar Calderón
> > (Enviado desde un móvil, lamento lo breve o los errores de ortografía)
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

-- 

Dennis Tobar Calderón
(Enviado desde un móvil, lamento lo breve o los errores de ortografía)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Chris Keating]

As it says on the voting page:

*Voting will end at* 23:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Dennis Tobar  wrote:

> Just for ask: the final day to cast a vote, is tonight (May 6 23:59:59 UTC)
> or May 7 23:59:29 UTC?
>
> El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:55, Andrew Gray <
> andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> escribió:
>
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > Thanks for the update. So we're at 62% voted, another 21%
> > probably-voting, and 17% silent, with voting ending tonight. An
> > improvement on last year, at least!
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
> > On 6 May 2016 at 15:32, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
> > > Just an update on this:
> > >
> > > Currently 26 of the eligible affiliates have voted. A further 9 have
> > either
> > > confirmed they are planning to vote, or have engaged substantively in
> the
> > > process (e.g. by nominating someone or participating in the Wikimedia
> > > Conference session on the subject). I'd expect most of them will do so.
> > >
> > > Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong, Hungary,
> > > Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those
> > appears
> > > to be completely inactive.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > Many thanks
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> > chapters'
> > >> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> > trustees.
> > >> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
> > wishes
> > >> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
> > vote
> > >> by the May 7 end of election.
> > >>
> > >> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
> > support
> > >> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> > >> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate
> being
> > >> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The
> election
> > >> result is more sound with more votes.
> > >>
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> > >>
> > >> yours,
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Lane Rasberry
> > >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > >> 206.801.0814
> > >> l...@bluerasberry.com
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
> --
>
> Dennis Tobar Calderón
> (Enviado desde un móvil, lamento lo breve o los errores de ortografía)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Dennis Tobar]

Just for ask: the final day to cast a vote, is tonight (May 6 23:59:59 UTC)
or May 7 23:59:29 UTC?

El vie., 6 de may. de 2016 a la(s) 11:55, Andrew Gray <
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> escribió:

> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for the update. So we're at 62% voted, another 21%
> probably-voting, and 17% silent, with voting ending tonight. An
> improvement on last year, at least!
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 6 May 2016 at 15:32, Chris Keating  wrote:
> > Just an update on this:
> >
> > Currently 26 of the eligible affiliates have voted. A further 9 have
> either
> > confirmed they are planning to vote, or have engaged substantively in the
> > process (e.g. by nominating someone or participating in the Wikimedia
> > Conference session on the subject). I'd expect most of them will do so.
> >
> > Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong, Hungary,
> > Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those
> appears
> > to be completely inactive.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> chapters'
> >> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> trustees.
> >> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
> wishes
> >> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
> vote
> >> by the May 7 end of election.
> >>
> >> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
> support
> >> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> >> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
> >> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
> >> result is more sound with more votes.
> >>
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> >>
> >> yours,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Lane Rasberry
> >> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> >> 206.801.0814
> >> l...@bluerasberry.com
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

-- 

Dennis Tobar Calderón
(Enviado desde un móvil, lamento lo breve o los errores de ortografía)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Andrew Gray]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the update. So we're at 62% voted, another 21%
probably-voting, and 17% silent, with voting ending tonight. An
improvement on last year, at least!

Andrew.

On 6 May 2016 at 15:32, Chris Keating  wrote:
> Just an update on this:
>
> Currently 26 of the eligible affiliates have voted. A further 9 have either
> confirmed they are planning to vote, or have engaged substantively in the
> process (e.g. by nominating someone or participating in the Wikimedia
> Conference session on the subject). I'd expect most of them will do so.
>
> Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong, Hungary,
> Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those appears
> to be completely inactive.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> Many thanks
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters'
>> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
>> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who wishes
>> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to vote
>> by the May 7 end of election.
>>
>> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support
>> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
>> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
>> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
>> result is more sound with more votes.
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>>
>> yours,
>>
>> --
>> Lane Rasberry
>> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
>> 206.801.0814
>> l...@bluerasberry.com
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Chris Keating]

Just an update on this:

Currently 26 of the eligible affiliates have voted. A further 9 have either
confirmed they are planning to vote, or have engaged substantively in the
process (e.g. by nominating someone or participating in the Wikimedia
Conference session on the subject). I'd expect most of them will do so.

Those whose intentions I don't know at all include Hong Kong, Hungary,
Czech Republic, India, Macedonia, and Macau. At least one of those appears
to be completely inactive.

Regards,

Chris

Many thanks

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters'
> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who wishes
> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to vote
> by the May 7 end of election.
>
> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support
> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
> result is more sound with more votes.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>
> yours,
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Brill Lyle]

Thanks for doing this. It is much appreciated.

- Erika


*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* 
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC


On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Given the quickly approaching deadline, and the general support for
> affiliates voluntarily sharing if they voted (not who they voted for) - I
> went ahead (after chatting with folks that attended WikiCon) and setup a
> Meta-Wiki page to allow folks to voluntarily report back over the next
> couple of days:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Voted
>  >
>
> -greg (User:Varnent)
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Gregory Varnum]

Given the quickly approaching deadline, and the general support for affiliates 
voluntarily sharing if they voted (not who they voted for) - I went ahead 
(after chatting with folks that attended WikiCon) and setup a Meta-Wiki page to 
allow folks to voluntarily report back over the next couple of days:  
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Voted 


-greg (User:Varnent)


> On May 4, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Gerard Meijssen  
> wrote:
> 
> Hoi,
> There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The
> board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it
> ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you
> really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want to
> achieve except for airing your formality?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
> 
> On 4 May 2016 at 12:58, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
>> chapters'
>>> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Lane,
>> 
>> A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
>> the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
>> members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
>> sitting board is free to accept or reject?
>> 
>> If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
>> board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
>> "election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of the
>> chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
>> those two board seats.
>> 
>> While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
>> important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
>> which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Andreas
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The
board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it
ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you
really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want to
achieve except for airing your formality?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 4 May 2016 at 12:58, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> chapters'
> > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> >
>
>
> Lane,
>
> A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
> the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
> members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
> sitting board is free to accept or reject?
>
> If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
> board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
> "election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of the
> chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
> those two board seats.
>
> While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
> important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
> which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Lane Rasberry]

@Andreas -

I am serving as an election facilitator in this process. That means I
volunteer to organize the election, but not that I have any rank or power
to set rules or to interpret the process. I have read what I can, and
talked to people, and I can probably answer easy questions about the
election and the nature of the board. I cannot give any authoritative
answer to deep questions like the one you asked.

My perspective is that no one can directly answer your question - not even
the WMF board itself. Whatever else the WMF board is legally, it is also
accountable to the Wikimedia community and must align itself to Wikimedia
community culture every three years or otherwise it seems positioned
because of this election structure to be completely replaced with radical
quickness. If the WMF board takes a position that conflicts with the
Wikimedia community then it could be elected out if the community wants to
correct the perspective. There are no other institutions like this anywhere
that elect 5 of ten board members then appoint the other 4, and have no
permanent touchstone with the board or institution itself. The board was
designed to be elected by Wikimedia community control from inception - 3
directly elected, 2 by authorized organizations, and those 5 appoint
another 4 and they better make a choice the community likes to fulfill
election promises.

If I were to answer your question, I would say to call this process an
election. It was intended to be an election at its founding. The community
of voting organizations and Wikimedia community stakeholders perceive it as
an election, even if some individuals have questions. The nature of the
board is to originate from elected approval from the Wikimedia community
and their closely watched representatives. People can imagine nuance in the
word "election" if they like but I do not know of a better word to call
this than "election". I think it is good to call the community selected
members "elected", despite what happened, and good for the community to
keep rather than divest the power it has always recognized and claimed to
elect the WMF board.

The reason why it is hard to answer your question is because you are asking
a legal question, and Wikimedia processes are designed to be human
understandable even if less legally precise. In human terms, "election" is
what this is called and how it should be imagined. I do not think that
anyone benefits from trying to legally analyze this and instead people
should emphasize the humanity of the process and build the precedent of
what this means in simple, human terms that everyone accepts as a cultural
norm. "Election"

yours,





On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The
> board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it
> ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you
> really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want to
> achieve except for airing your formality?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On 4 May 2016 at 12:58, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> > chapters'
> > > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> trustees.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Lane,
> >
> > A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is
> it
> > the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
> > members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that
> the
> > sitting board is free to accept or reject?
> >
> > If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
> > board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
> > "election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of
> the
> > chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
> > those two board seats.
> >
> > While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
> > important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
> > which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.
> >
> > Best,
> > Andreas
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is a difference between your formality and what actually happens. The
board is unlikely to not accept a chosen representative. I wonder if it
ever did. Given the quality of the people who can be chosen from, do you
really expect this to happen and consequently what is it what you want to
achieve except for airing your formality?
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 4 May 2016 at 12:58, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> chapters'
> > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> >
>
>
> Lane,
>
> A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
> the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
> members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
> sitting board is free to accept or reject?
>
> If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
> board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
> "election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of the
> chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
> those two board seats.
>
> While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
> important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
> which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.
>
> Best,
> Andreas
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Chris Keating]

>
>
>> Such an issue should have been addressed and resolved during the
> eliligbilty process, not after the fact .
>

There are actually no eligibility criteria for this election, except that
candidates have received at least one endorsement from a Wikimedia chapter
or Thematic Organisation.

Given sufficient common sense from both the voting affiliates and the WMF
board itself, this isn't a problem.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Derek V.Giroulle]

On 04-05-16 13:48, Chris Keating wrote:

A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
sitting board is free to accept or reject?


As with the community elections, the WMF board needs to appoint the elected
candidates by resolution, and reserves the power not to do so. (I'd be
surprised if as keen an observer of the WMF board as yourself wasn't
already aware of this - it is quite well documented.)

Indeed, there are some circumstances where they should definitely not do
so. Imagine a candidate won in the election and then it was subsequently
revealed they had committed a serious fraud. It would be ridiculous to
expect the WMF Board to seat them in the light of that news.
Such an issue should have been addressed and resolved during the 
eliligbilty process, not after the fact .
If during a politicla election a candidate is not eliligible he will not 
be allowed to campaign let alone be on the condioate list. This issue 
was not addressed in a belgian election in the 1930,  and a candidate 
was elected out of prison ...

I take the point that the WMF is not greatly clear about its expectations
of trustee behaviour and a lot of it appears to rely on unwritten rules and
the views of other Board members. As a result it is not particular clear in
what range of circumstances the WMF board might exercise its power not to
appoint a candidate who'd been successful in the election, or to remove a
sitting Board member. (We have one case recently where people have been
outraged that someone was removed, and another case where people have been
outraged that it took a matter of weeks to remove someone else). However, I
think addressing that issue is rather more important than splitting the
semantic hairs about "selection", "election" and the like.

Regards,

Chris
(selection/election/suggestion/whatever facilitator)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 



--
Kind regards,
*Derek V. Giroulle*
Wikimedia Belgium vzw.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Chris Keating]

>
> A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
> the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
> members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
> sitting board is free to accept or reject?
>

As with the community elections, the WMF board needs to appoint the elected
candidates by resolution, and reserves the power not to do so. (I'd be
surprised if as keen an observer of the WMF board as yourself wasn't
already aware of this - it is quite well documented.)

Indeed, there are some circumstances where they should definitely not do
so. Imagine a candidate won in the election and then it was subsequently
revealed they had committed a serious fraud. It would be ridiculous to
expect the WMF Board to seat them in the light of that news.

I take the point that the WMF is not greatly clear about its expectations
of trustee behaviour and a lot of it appears to rely on unwritten rules and
the views of other Board members. As a result it is not particular clear in
what range of circumstances the WMF board might exercise its power not to
appoint a candidate who'd been successful in the election, or to remove a
sitting Board member. (We have one case recently where people have been
outraged that someone was removed, and another case where people have been
outraged that it took a matter of weeks to remove someone else). However, I
think addressing that issue is rather more important than splitting the
semantic hairs about "selection", "election" and the like.

Regards,

Chris
(selection/election/suggestion/whatever facilitator)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Lane Rasberry 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters'
> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
>


Lane,

A procedural question: Is the chapters' vote binding on the board, or is it
the same as for the three community board seats, where the community
members selected in the community vote are merely recommendations that the
sitting board is free to accept or reject?

If the winners' actually joining the board is dependent on the sitting
board's approval of these candidates, then it's not really a chapter
"election" for those board seats: it would be more precise to speak of the
chapters' vote as a vote to identify chapter-recommended candidates for
those two board seats.

While that's more clunky – if that's what it really is, then I think it's
important that we use language that accurately reflects the process by
which community- and chapter-selected candidates end up on the board.

Best,
Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Tomasz Ganicz]

I think it is rather a subject that there are chapters which are "zombies"
- I mean having no or very little activity. On the other hand we have a
number of quite active usergroups which cannot vote.  By the way, the
overal number of non-voting chapters can be a good measure of the number of
"zombie" chapters...



2016-05-03 21:14 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray :

> On 3 May 2016 at 17:34, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > We should be careful in not shaming communities to vote poorly to save
> > face, or even vote for people they dont want as some may truly feel that
> > the candidates who have nominated wont be a good representative of the
> > community.
>
> I agree with the first part, but on the second, it's worth noting that
> "none" is an acceptable vote in this election. For myself I think
> you'd be hard pressed to find *no* candidates you can support from
> this round - they seem a pretty good selection - but others no doubt
> differ :-).
>
> A.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Andrew Gray]

On 3 May 2016 at 17:34, Gnangarra  wrote:
> We should be careful in not shaming communities to vote poorly to save
> face, or even vote for people they dont want as some may truly feel that
> the candidates who have nominated wont be a good representative of the
> community.

I agree with the first part, but on the second, it's worth noting that
"none" is an acceptable vote in this election. For myself I think
you'd be hard pressed to find *no* candidates you can support from
this round - they seem a pretty good selection - but others no doubt
differ :-).

A.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Lodewijk]

Indeed only two or three candidates were present in Berlin (unfortunately
we were not allowed to join, not even at our own expense). It would become
quite problematic if 40 organisations would all want to chat for an hour -
but at the same time, I do believe in being approachable. I'm more than
happy to chat with anyone who wants to, if the agenda permits. Now, and
through the year. Chapter or no chapter. If you think a chat will give you
something helpful (insight or whatever), just schedule something! Be bold.

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-05-03 19:30 GMT+02:00 Ilya Korniyko :

> Dear Sam,
> dear all,
>
> It was mainly my idea that we decided to talk to all candidates.
>
> I was under impression that we would have the opportunity to talk with all
> candidates in Berlin.
> I did get the reasoning that it would be too expensive to do it (in fact,
> all you have to do to get to WMCON is to apply for BoT and be endorsed by
> some chapter), but I really wanted to make the decision at least fairly...
>
> If we are not interested in people who may be our future members of WMF
> Board, how can we expect that they are interested in us?
> There are some excellent people nominating themselves, asking for our trust
> that they can do better,
> but we do not know them at all. And if we are voting only based on our
> personal connections, we would always vote for the same people. I thought
> it was wrong.
>
> We have struggled to find the balance between talking to people via
> skype/hangouts and not doing that.
> And this is the best solution we came up with.
> Maybe if I did not have the idea that we are going to have all candidates
> present during WMCON,
> I would try to do something else... But I did have that impression.
>
> We understand the difficulties of the process we decided to follow. I
> understand the concerns.
> But some crucial things about the candidates you can learn only in such a
> way:
> - are they willing to communicate with affiliates?
> - how they answer in real life?
> - how clearly they explain their thoughts?
> etc.
>
> And even the level of English is important. These people are going to
> represent (to some extent) our movement.
>
> Best regards,
> Ilya /  ILLIA KORNIIKO
> Chair
> Wikimedia Ukraine
>
> З повагою,
> Ілля Корнійко
> Голова Правління ГО «Вікімедіа Україна»
> +38 067 65 66 177
> http://ua.wikimedia.org
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
> > > candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2]
> > [3]
> > > [4] [5] [6]
> > > And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
> > > people.
> > >
> >
> > Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr
> > Skype chats, one with each chapthorg?  That sounds grueling. I thought
> the
> > value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead
> of
> > 40 times.
> >
> > Sam
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Ilya Korniyko]

Dear Sam,
dear all,

It was mainly my idea that we decided to talk to all candidates.

I was under impression that we would have the opportunity to talk with all
candidates in Berlin.
I did get the reasoning that it would be too expensive to do it (in fact,
all you have to do to get to WMCON is to apply for BoT and be endorsed by
some chapter), but I really wanted to make the decision at least fairly...

If we are not interested in people who may be our future members of WMF
Board, how can we expect that they are interested in us?
There are some excellent people nominating themselves, asking for our trust
that they can do better,
but we do not know them at all. And if we are voting only based on our
personal connections, we would always vote for the same people. I thought
it was wrong.

We have struggled to find the balance between talking to people via
skype/hangouts and not doing that.
And this is the best solution we came up with.
Maybe if I did not have the idea that we are going to have all candidates
present during WMCON,
I would try to do something else... But I did have that impression.

We understand the difficulties of the process we decided to follow. I
understand the concerns.
But some crucial things about the candidates you can learn only in such a
way:
- are they willing to communicate with affiliates?
- how they answer in real life?
- how clearly they explain their thoughts?
etc.

And even the level of English is important. These people are going to
represent (to some extent) our movement.

Best regards,
Ilya /  ILLIA KORNIIKO
Chair
Wikimedia Ukraine

З повагою,
Ілля Корнійко
Голова Правління ГО «Вікімедіа Україна»
+38 067 65 66 177
http://ua.wikimedia.org

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip  wrote:
>
> >
> > JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
> > candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2]
> [3]
> > [4] [5] [6]
> > And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
> > people.
> >
>
> Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr
> Skype chats, one with each chapthorg?  That sounds grueling. I thought the
> value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead of
> 40 times.
>
> Sam
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Brill Lyle]

Agree wholeheartedly. Don't need details but a summary list of chapters and
the record of who voted would be very welcome.

I was dismayed that this information was private. It seems like
transparency of basic information like this should be the goal here. I
don't think detailed information is necessary.

Like WM UK, WM NYC was transparent about the process and outcome of its
voting. It would be a real drag to have to look at each chapter's recent
events to see if this information is recorded locally.

Why not have it publicly viewable, collected in one place? I don't see a
downside here.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* 
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Pharos 
wrote:

> In fact, for those who have access to it, there is a list of statements at
> the bottom of that page, listing statements from each chapthorg on their
> method and time of voting:
>
> https://chapters.wikimedia.ch/Appointment_process/2016/Voting#Statements
>
> For example, our entry says:
>
> "NYC: Decided by open public meeting on April 13, 2016."
>
> I think it might be best to make that whole section publicly viewable.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Gray 
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
> > voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
> > electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.
> >
> > I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
> > Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.
> >
> > But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
> > chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
> > isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
> > order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
> > voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
> > cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
> > is what we all want to achieve :-)
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > > It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same
> > time:
> > >
> > > - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before,
> or
> > > after the election has finished)
> > >
> > > - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> > > right now.
> > >
> > > It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made,
> > and
> > > it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election
> > works
> > > (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> > > wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have
> voted
> > > (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> > > with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
> > >
> > > So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of
> > Chapters
> > > in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so,
> > would
> > > it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> > > voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they
> > have
> > > indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Liam
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > wittylama.com
> > > Peace, love & metadata
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Gnangarra]

We should be careful in not shaming communities to vote poorly to save
face, or even vote for people they dont want as some may truly feel that
the candidates who have nominated wont be a good representative of the
community.

The individual votes are visable to every affiliate who has access to vote
and we all know that the more people who have access the more likely it'll
be shared anyway either in part or in full.

On 4 May 2016 at 00:24, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
> voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
> electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.
>
> I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
> Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.
>
> But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
> chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
> isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
> order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
> voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
> cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
> is what we all want to achieve :-)
>
> A.
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same
> time:
> >
> > - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
> > after the election has finished)
> >
> > - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> > right now.
> >
> > It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made,
> and
> > it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election
> works
> > (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> > wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
> > (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> > with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
> >
> > So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of
> Chapters
> > in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so,
> would
> > it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> > voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they
> have
> > indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Liam
> >
> >
> > --
> > wittylama.com
> > Peace, love & metadata
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Michael Maggs]

Consistent with our commitment to openness, WMUK published our vote on 
our website last Friday, the day it was agreed by the board. It's at
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Minutes_2016-04-29 for anyone who may be 
interested.


Best regards


Michael


Wikimedia_UK_logo_40px.png

Michael Maggs

Chair, Wikimedia UK



Liam Wyatt wrote:

It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same time:

- Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
after the election has finished)

- Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
right now.

It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made, and
it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election works
(where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
(and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.

So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of Chapters
in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so, would
it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they have
indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]

Thanks,
-Liam




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Pharos]

In fact, for those who have access to it, there is a list of statements at
the bottom of that page, listing statements from each chapthorg on their
method and time of voting:

https://chapters.wikimedia.ch/Appointment_process/2016/Voting#Statements

For example, our entry says:

"NYC: Decided by open public meeting on April 13, 2016."

I think it might be best to make that whole section publicly viewable.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Gray 
wrote:

> Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
> voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
> electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.
>
> I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
> Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.
>
> But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
> chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
> isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
> order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
> voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
> cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
> is what we all want to achieve :-)
>
> A.
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same
> time:
> >
> > - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
> > after the election has finished)
> >
> > - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> > right now.
> >
> > It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made,
> and
> > it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election
> works
> > (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> > wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
> > (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> > with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
> >
> > So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of
> Chapters
> > in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so,
> would
> > it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> > voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they
> have
> > indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Liam
> >
> >
> > --
> > wittylama.com
> > Peace, love & metadata
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Andrew Gray]

Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.

I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.

But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
is what we all want to achieve :-)

A.

On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same time:
>
> - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
> after the election has finished)
>
> - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> right now.
>
> It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made, and
> it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election works
> (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
> (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
>
> So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of Chapters
> in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so, would
> it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they have
> indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
>
> Thanks,
> -Liam
>
>
> --
> wittylama.com
> Peace, love & metadata
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Gnangarra]

Agree Sam additionally it'd be even more grueling for some candidates who
would be expected to field these calls at 2-3 in the morning and then be
compared to someone who was fortunate enough to have their chat at 2-3 in
the afternoon..

As for publishing a list of who voted I see no issue with that, also not
all that concerned about the way we voted being published either as it is
the result of consultation with our members, within our committee, and with
no further factors to consider raised by the people who attended the Berlin
Conference WMAU committee reconfirmed our votes last night. All which will
be on the public record anyway when our Secretary publishes the minutes
from that meeting

On 4 May 2016 at 00:05, Sam Klein  wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip  wrote:
>
> >
> > JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
> > candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2]
> [3]
> > [4] [5] [6]
> > And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
> > people.
> >
>
> Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr
> Skype chats, one with each chapthorg?  That sounds grueling. I thought the
> value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead of
> 40 times.
>
> Sam
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Sam Klein]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip  wrote:

>
> JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
> candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2] [3]
> [4] [5] [6]
> And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
> people.
>

Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr
Skype chats, one with each chapthorg?  That sounds grueling. I thought the
value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead of
40 times.

Sam
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

Actually I favor very much the idea that, after the election, there is
a public list of the chapters that did cast the vote. (Not
necessarily, which chapter supported which candidate, but that is
another discussion. In 2012, the list of candidates was not published
at all, by the way.)

I remember from 2012 that, shortly before the elections, I heard a
chairman from a specific chapter talking with very, very strong
opinions about the movement. It struck me to find out later that that
chapter didn't cast its vote. Isn't it important for a chapter to
influence the movement as a whole?

Also from the year 2012 (and 2013) I remember that many chapters that
we from the WCA contacted did not respond at all. So I am not
surprised to read now that only one third did vote until now.

Lane wrote:
"Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support
less organized chapters in voting."

I usually agree with Lane, but in this case I don't see that "duty".
It is the responsibility of each and every chapter to become active,
not anybody else's responsibility.

Possibly, if a chapter board did not cast a vote, it is interesting
for the members of the chapter to know that. Maybe the board can come
up with a good reason.

Kind regards
Ziko


2016-05-03 17:40 GMT+02:00 Laurentius :
> Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 08.05 -0400, Lane Rasberry ha scritto:
>> Or - I could be wrong. Should the list of voting chapters be reported?
>> What is the correct interpretation of closed voting in this case?
>
> At the end of 2015, before starting the election process, there has been
> some discussion about this on Meta.
> The result was in favour of publishing, after the end of the election,
> the list of affiliates who voted.
> The idea of publishing a partial list during the voting process was not
> proposed; personally I think it's fine and it makes sense, but I'd like
> to hear a few opinions about this from the involved affiliates.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[attolippip]

Dear Lorenzo,

You can ask the chapters that voted already, if they are okay with
publishing the list.
I think. Personally I do not see a problem, but who knows.

JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2] [3]
[4] [5] [6]
And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
people.
So we shall have a Board sitting on Friday, I hope.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:B1mbo#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ainali#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Siska.Doviana#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Effeietsanders#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MADe#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Legoktm#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats

Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Wikimedia Ukraine

2016-05-03 18:40 GMT+03:00 Laurentius :

> Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 08.05 -0400, Lane Rasberry ha scritto:
> > Or - I could be wrong. Should the list of voting chapters be reported?
> > What is the correct interpretation of closed voting in this case?
>
> At the end of 2015, before starting the election process, there has been
> some discussion about this on Meta.
> The result was in favour of publishing, after the end of the election,
> the list of affiliates who voted.
> The idea of publishing a partial list during the voting process was not
> proposed; personally I think it's fine and it makes sense, but I'd like
> to hear a few opinions about this from the involved affiliates.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Laurentius]

Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 19.09 +0700, John Mark Vandenberg ha
scritto:
> This is a bit odd.  I vaguely remember that in previous years that
> some chapters held discussions with their members online, and publicly
> published the chapter decision before it was recorded on chapters
> wiki.  Is that no longer possible?

This is still possible, of course!
Any chapter can choose its internal processes: whether to have a
discussion in their board, in the members' mailing list, or in the
general assembly, or whether to publicly publish their vote or not.

Laurentius



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Laurentius]

Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 08.05 -0400, Lane Rasberry ha scritto:
> Or - I could be wrong. Should the list of voting chapters be reported?
> What is the correct interpretation of closed voting in this case?

At the end of 2015, before starting the election process, there has been
some discussion about this on Meta.
The result was in favour of publishing, after the end of the election,
the list of affiliates who voted.
The idea of publishing a partial list during the voting process was not
proposed; personally I think it's fine and it makes sense, but I'd like
to hear a few opinions about this from the involved affiliates.

Lorenzo



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Liam Wyatt]

It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same time:

- Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
after the election has finished)

- Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
right now.

It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made, and
it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election works
(where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
(and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.

So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of Chapters
in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so, would
it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they have
indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]

Thanks,
-Liam


-- 
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[James Heilman]

I think the proposal was to publish whether or not specific chapters have
voted at all, not what their votes specifically were.

J

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> I'm against publishing the chapters votes before the end of the elections.
> More than that - I even offered before the election started that the
> chapters votes will be confidential between them and be collected by
> the moderators.
>
> I believe that each chapter needs to vote as he think, not be looking on
> others votes and decide by the way the wind's blowing. This is the way most
> elections are done.
>
> After the election, I don't have problem that the chapters votes will be
> publish publicly.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am unable to report which chapters voted. The voting process is closed.
> > Right now I have to recommend encouraging all chapters to vote.
> >
> > The election rules are decided by chapters and chapters have said closed
> > election. I do not think this was a well-discussed rule, but whatever the
> > case, it cannot be changed by the community and needs to be changed by
> > chapters. Community discussion could influence it. I think that it is a
> > rule that could change. Asking chapters to have open voting could be
> > another reason to contact chapters, or open voting might be a problem - I
> > am not sure.
> >
> > Even if voting were not completely open, there could be other kinds of
> > openness, like just a list of who voted. Right now, I cannot provide
> that.
> > Any chapter can look at the list and see who voted and who did not.
> >
> > For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> > to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> > they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> > chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
> >
> > yours,
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lane,
> > >
> > > While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
> > > chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
> > > they've voted before doing this...
> > >
> > > As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
> > > which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
> > > However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
> > > has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
> > > presumably already know whether they've voted or not.
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
> > > voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
> > > materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
> > > help encourage some groups to actually vote.
> > >
> > > Andrew.
> > >
> > > On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> > > chapters'
> > > > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> > trustees.
> > > > In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
> > > wishes
> > > > to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
> > vote
> > > > by the May 7 end of election.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
> > > support
> > > > less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> > > > chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate
> being
> > > > reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The
> election
> > > > result is more sound with more votes.
> > > >
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> > > >
> > > > yours,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lane Rasberry
> > > > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > > > 206.801.0814
> > > > l...@bluerasberry.com
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Andrew Gray
> > >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> I'm against publishing the chapters votes before the end of the elections.
> More than that - I even offered before the election started that the
> chapters votes will be confidential between them and be collected by
> the moderators.
>
> I believe that each chapter needs to vote as he think, not be looking on
> others votes and decide by the way the wind's blowing. This is the way most
> elections are done.
>
> After the election, I don't have problem that the chapters votes will be
> publish publicly.
>
>
Itzik, just for clarity - I think Lane suggested that it would be optimal
to release the information WHO voted (to enable encouraging those who have
not), rather than HOW they voted.

dj
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

I'm against publishing the chapters votes before the end of the elections.
More than that - I even offered before the election started that the
chapters votes will be confidential between them and be collected by
the moderators.

I believe that each chapter needs to vote as he think, not be looking on
others votes and decide by the way the wind's blowing. This is the way most
elections are done.

After the election, I don't have problem that the chapters votes will be
publish publicly.





*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Lane Rasberry  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am unable to report which chapters voted. The voting process is closed.
> Right now I have to recommend encouraging all chapters to vote.
>
> The election rules are decided by chapters and chapters have said closed
> election. I do not think this was a well-discussed rule, but whatever the
> case, it cannot be changed by the community and needs to be changed by
> chapters. Community discussion could influence it. I think that it is a
> rule that could change. Asking chapters to have open voting could be
> another reason to contact chapters, or open voting might be a problem - I
> am not sure.
>
> Even if voting were not completely open, there could be other kinds of
> openness, like just a list of who voted. Right now, I cannot provide that.
> Any chapter can look at the list and see who voted and who did not.
>
> For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
>
> yours,
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lane,
> >
> > While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
> > chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
> > they've voted before doing this...
> >
> > As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
> > which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
> > However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
> > has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
> > presumably already know whether they've voted or not.
> >
> > Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
> > voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
> > materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
> > help encourage some groups to actually vote.
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
> > On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> > chapters'
> > > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> trustees.
> > > In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
> > wishes
> > > to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
> vote
> > > by the May 7 end of election.
> > >
> > > Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
> > support
> > > less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> > > chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
> > > reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
> > > result is more sound with more votes.
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> > >
> > > yours,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lane Rasberry
> > > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > > 206.801.0814
> > > l...@bluerasberry.com
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Gregory Varnum]

I can appreciate chapters wanting their vote to be confidential. However, 
publishing who has voted seems reasonable - and in line with our other 
elections (where you can see who voted, but not how they voted).

Since before I served on AffCom, I have heard from affiliates how important it 
is to them to have a voice in WMF Governance. This is a great opportunity for 
that, and I am a little disappointed the turnout is, so far, rather low. 
Seeking these opportunities is less than half the effort, actually utilizing 
them when offered is perhaps even more important (IMHO).

-greg (User:Varnent)


> On May 3, 2016, at 8:32 AM, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> 
> It is possible to self disclose now - it is a wiki. The problem is that
> there is no table set up for anyone to do it, and then it is confusing to
> tell people to report in two places.
> 
> We could ask now, "who wants to self-disclose?" then copy those votes into
> a public space.
> 
> The ideal way would be to have a way to note intent to self disclose in the
> one voting location, then anyone on the chapters wiki could report those
> votes publicly. I think it is too much to ask to have voting organizations
> take more than one action to vote. I do not want voting to be complicated.
> 
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:09 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Lane Rasberry 
>> wrote:
>>> ..
>>> For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
>>> to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
>>> they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
>>> chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
>> 
>> This is a bit odd.  I vaguely remember that in previous years that
>> some chapters held discussions with their members online, and publicly
>> published the chapter decision before it was recorded on chapters
>> wiki.  Is that no longer possible?
>> 
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Lane Rasberry]

It is possible to self disclose now - it is a wiki. The problem is that
there is no table set up for anyone to do it, and then it is confusing to
tell people to report in two places.

We could ask now, "who wants to self-disclose?" then copy those votes into
a public space.

The ideal way would be to have a way to note intent to self disclose in the
one voting location, then anyone on the chapters wiki could report those
votes publicly. I think it is too much to ask to have voting organizations
take more than one action to vote. I do not want voting to be complicated.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:09 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
> >..
> > For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> > to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> > they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> > chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
>
> This is a bit odd.  I vaguely remember that in previous years that
> some chapters held discussions with their members online, and publicly
> published the chapter decision before it was recorded on chapters
> wiki.  Is that no longer possible?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
>..
> For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> chapters seem to want to self-disclose.

This is a bit odd.  I vaguely remember that in previous years that
some chapters held discussions with their members online, and publicly
published the chapter decision before it was recorded on chapters
wiki.  Is that no longer possible?

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Lane Rasberry]

Or - I could be wrong. Should the list of voting chapters be reported? What
is the correct interpretation of closed voting in this case?

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Lane Rasberry  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am unable to report which chapters voted. The voting process is closed.
> Right now I have to recommend encouraging all chapters to vote.
>
> The election rules are decided by chapters and chapters have said closed
> election. I do not think this was a well-discussed rule, but whatever the
> case, it cannot be changed by the community and needs to be changed by
> chapters. Community discussion could influence it. I think that it is a
> rule that could change. Asking chapters to have open voting could be
> another reason to contact chapters, or open voting might be a problem - I
> am not sure.
>
> Even if voting were not completely open, there could be other kinds of
> openness, like just a list of who voted. Right now, I cannot provide that.
> Any chapter can look at the list and see who voted and who did not.
>
> For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
>
> yours,
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lane,
>>
>> While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
>> chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
>> they've voted before doing this...
>>
>> As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
>> which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
>> However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
>> has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
>> presumably already know whether they've voted or not.
>>
>> Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
>> voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
>> materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
>> help encourage some groups to actually vote.
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
>> chapters'
>> > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
>> trustees.
>> > In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
>> wishes
>> > to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
>> vote
>> > by the May 7 end of election.
>> >
>> > Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
>> support
>> > less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
>> > chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
>> > reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
>> > result is more sound with more votes.
>> >
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>> >
>> > yours,
>> >
>> > --
>> > Lane Rasberry
>> > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
>> > 206.801.0814
>> > l...@bluerasberry.com
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Andrew Gray
>>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

I am unable to report which chapters voted. The voting process is closed.
Right now I have to recommend encouraging all chapters to vote.

The election rules are decided by chapters and chapters have said closed
election. I do not think this was a well-discussed rule, but whatever the
case, it cannot be changed by the community and needs to be changed by
chapters. Community discussion could influence it. I think that it is a
rule that could change. Asking chapters to have open voting could be
another reason to contact chapters, or open voting might be a problem - I
am not sure.

Even if voting were not completely open, there could be other kinds of
openness, like just a list of who voted. Right now, I cannot provide that.
Any chapter can look at the list and see who voted and who did not.

For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
chapters seem to want to self-disclose.

yours,



On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray 
wrote:

> Hi Lane,
>
> While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
> chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
> they've voted before doing this...
>
> As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
> which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
> However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
> has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
> presumably already know whether they've voted or not.
>
> Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
> voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
> materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
> help encourage some groups to actually vote.
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> chapters'
> > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> > In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
> wishes
> > to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to vote
> > by the May 7 end of election.
> >
> > Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
> support
> > less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> > chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
> > reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
> > result is more sound with more votes.
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> >
> > yours,
> >
> > --
> > Lane Rasberry
> > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > 206.801.0814
> > l...@bluerasberry.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

[Andrew Gray]

Hi Lane,

While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
they've voted before doing this...

As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
presumably already know whether they've voted or not.

Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
help encourage some groups to actually vote.

Andrew.

On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters'
> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who wishes
> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to vote
> by the May 7 end of election.
>
> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support
> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
> result is more sound with more votes.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>
> yours,
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,