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

2021-10-25 Thread Kaarel Vaidla
The voting for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee is now closed. We
are truly grateful to all the voters who participated (despite the
complexity of the voting procedure).
We will look through the data this week and plan to announce the election
results next Monday, November 1 2021.

Thank you for your kind attention!
Kaarel

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 12:01 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
wrote:

> This is a short note that *the elections of the Movement Charter Drafting
> Committee will close October 24, 23:59 Anywhere on Earth. This is in 3
> hours*.
> If you have not voted yet, but would like to do so, here is the link to
> the landing page
> 
> .
>
> Thank you for your kind attention and have a great week!
> Kaarel
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:20 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 10:10, Dan Garry (Deskana) 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You're definitely right about that. SecurePoll is a mess. I was the
>>> product lead for a project to improve it in 2014, and whilst we did manage
>>> to make quite a few improvements to the functionality and management, we
>>> only got a fraction done of what we wanted to, the tool is still sorely
>>> deficient. There's documentation about the project
>>> , if you're
>>> interested. I'm not surprised that WMF leadership is very reluctant to
>>> improve it, and if I were in their shoes, I'd be avoiding it, especially
>>> since none of the people involved in the 2014 project work at the WMF
>>> anymore.
>>>
>>> I think we need to get over the "not invested here"
>>>  tendency when it
>>> comes to running elections, and research to see if there's a good
>>> third-party solution. I suspect we'd actually save money using a
>>> third-party solution compared to trying to improve SecurePoll. I've not
>>> done a competitive analysis, so I don't know what sorts of things are
>>> available, and maybe there aren't any. But, at least, we should look.
>>>
>>
>> Or, scope out designing a lightweight tool hosted on Toolforge or similar
>> infrastructure, that integrates with the wikis and other data sources via
>> the API, rather than actually being a MediaWiki extension. So many of the
>> things that SecurePoll does (voter eligibility list generation,
>> authentication, vote collection and collation, etc.) can be done using API
>> integrations or data dumps; there's nothing instrinsic to it that requires
>> it to be a MediaWiki extension, it was only done that way because that's
>> the way we did everything back when. Developing a tool like that on
>> Toolforge is so much easier and less complex than developing a MediaWiki
>> extension. There's so many successful examples of this way of doing things;
>> pageviews.toolforge.org is a good example.
>>
>> (Sorry for the follow-up email spam, the thought occurred to me as soon
>> as I hit send.)
>>
>> Dan
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3UI7KRCUBZLI7OL2SZCTJ7YHUCCADZ4A/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
>
> Movement Strategy 
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>


-- 

Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)

Movement Strategy 

Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NSBQEAK2X76MS4GVFRUKFY4P2WBNVMZD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-25 Thread Kaarel Vaidla
This is a short note that *the elections of the Movement Charter Drafting
Committee will close October 24, 23:59 Anywhere on Earth. This is in 3
hours*.
If you have not voted yet, but would like to do so, here is the link to the
landing page

.

Thank you for your kind attention and have a great week!
Kaarel

On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:20 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 10:10, Dan Garry (Deskana) 
> wrote:
>
>> You're definitely right about that. SecurePoll is a mess. I was the
>> product lead for a project to improve it in 2014, and whilst we did manage
>> to make quite a few improvements to the functionality and management, we
>> only got a fraction done of what we wanted to, the tool is still sorely
>> deficient. There's documentation about the project
>> , if you're
>> interested. I'm not surprised that WMF leadership is very reluctant to
>> improve it, and if I were in their shoes, I'd be avoiding it, especially
>> since none of the people involved in the 2014 project work at the WMF
>> anymore.
>>
>> I think we need to get over the "not invested here"
>>  tendency when it comes
>> to running elections, and research to see if there's a good third-party
>> solution. I suspect we'd actually save money using a third-party solution
>> compared to trying to improve SecurePoll. I've not done a competitive
>> analysis, so I don't know what sorts of things are available, and maybe
>> there aren't any. But, at least, we should look.
>>
>
> Or, scope out designing a lightweight tool hosted on Toolforge or similar
> infrastructure, that integrates with the wikis and other data sources via
> the API, rather than actually being a MediaWiki extension. So many of the
> things that SecurePoll does (voter eligibility list generation,
> authentication, vote collection and collation, etc.) can be done using API
> integrations or data dumps; there's nothing instrinsic to it that requires
> it to be a MediaWiki extension, it was only done that way because that's
> the way we did everything back when. Developing a tool like that on
> Toolforge is so much easier and less complex than developing a MediaWiki
> extension. There's so many successful examples of this way of doing things;
> pageviews.toolforge.org is a good example.
>
> (Sorry for the follow-up email spam, the thought occurred to me as soon as
> I hit send.)
>
> Dan
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3UI7KRCUBZLI7OL2SZCTJ7YHUCCADZ4A/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 

Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)

Movement Strategy 

Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/SKC7WQSXYTXARM7MQRT5724L4OVN3HPL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-20 Thread Dan Garry (Deskana)
On Wed, 20 Oct 2021 at 10:10, Dan Garry (Deskana)  wrote:

> You're definitely right about that. SecurePoll is a mess. I was the
> product lead for a project to improve it in 2014, and whilst we did manage
> to make quite a few improvements to the functionality and management, we
> only got a fraction done of what we wanted to, the tool is still sorely
> deficient. There's documentation about the project
> , if you're
> interested. I'm not surprised that WMF leadership is very reluctant to
> improve it, and if I were in their shoes, I'd be avoiding it, especially
> since none of the people involved in the 2014 project work at the WMF
> anymore.
>
> I think we need to get over the "not invested here"
>  tendency when it comes
> to running elections, and research to see if there's a good third-party
> solution. I suspect we'd actually save money using a third-party solution
> compared to trying to improve SecurePoll. I've not done a competitive
> analysis, so I don't know what sorts of things are available, and maybe
> there aren't any. But, at least, we should look.
>

Or, scope out designing a lightweight tool hosted on Toolforge or similar
infrastructure, that integrates with the wikis and other data sources via
the API, rather than actually being a MediaWiki extension. So many of the
things that SecurePoll does (voter eligibility list generation,
authentication, vote collection and collation, etc.) can be done using API
integrations or data dumps; there's nothing instrinsic to it that requires
it to be a MediaWiki extension, it was only done that way because that's
the way we did everything back when. Developing a tool like that on
Toolforge is so much easier and less complex than developing a MediaWiki
extension. There's so many successful examples of this way of doing things;
pageviews.toolforge.org is a good example.

(Sorry for the follow-up email spam, the thought occurred to me as soon as
I hit send.)

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3UI7KRCUBZLI7OL2SZCTJ7YHUCCADZ4A/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-20 Thread Dan Garry (Deskana)
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 12:30, Jan Ainali  wrote:

> I just wanted to note that UI of SecurePoll caused problem in the board
> election too, and that the same excuse was used then "in a short time once".
> Obviously this is a piece of infrastructure that we need in the movement
> and that any team doing one election should not need to fix the software
> for it.
>
> Hence, a specific project, unrelated to any election, should be tasked to
> solve this by the Wikimedia Foundation. And it should start soon to avoid
> us finding ourselves in the same problem when the next election is being
> called.
>

You're definitely right about that. SecurePoll is a mess. I was the product
lead for a project to improve it in 2014, and whilst we did manage to make
quite a few improvements to the functionality and management, we only got a
fraction done of what we wanted to, the tool is still sorely deficient.
There's documentation about the project
, if you're
interested. I'm not surprised that WMF leadership is very reluctant to
improve it, and if I were in their shoes, I'd be avoiding it, especially
since none of the people involved in the 2014 project work at the WMF
anymore.

I think we need to get over the "not invested here"
 tendency when it comes to
running elections, and research to see if there's a good third-party
solution. I suspect we'd actually save money using a third-party solution
compared to trying to improve SecurePoll. I've not done a competitive
analysis, so I don't know what sorts of things are available, and maybe
there aren't any. But, at least, we should look.

Dan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/S7T5WEEZ5GUV4MPLVFQ72T43CPWADMV4/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-19 Thread Samuel Klein
Risker writes:
> To the best of my knowledge, the Elections Committee has had no
involvement in the MCDC election,
> and there's no indication at all that the Board asked them to assist or
to manage the election.
> I would really like to see a couple of stewards acting as scrutineers for
this election, simply because they are
> really experienced at identifying the kinds of problems that turn up on
elections like this

I do hope there are scrutineers of that sort.  Can someone involved w/ the
process advise on how that is happening?

I'd like to see us have an explicit standing group that keeps up with all
of these large-scale selection processes, shares best practices from a
range of variations implemented on different projects, and can discuss them
publicly in a number of languages. Running polls + votes is broadly useful,
so we should expand the pool of people fluent in their implementation.

It is good to have staff support and complement this work, but it would be
a loss five times over (in cost, delay, warmth, capacity, communal
knowledge) to remove this work from active community maintenance and
oversight.

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:28 AM Chris Keating 
wrote:

>
> Agreed.  Is this something that the Election Committee
>> ,
>> as a standing committee not tied to a single election, can help with?   SJ
>>
>>
> I would like the answer to this to be 'yes', but the Elections Committee
> doesn't seem to do anything except supervise the community elections to the
> Board (which are, in effect, now run by WMF staff). They did not, for
> instance, appear to be particularly involved in the work that led to the
> changes to the Board election structure. They do not publish any
> information about what they are doing, and they don't appear to be
> particularly responsive to inquiries even when there is a Board election
> on. Making the elections committee a 'standing' committee does not appear
> to have resulted in anything changing, and suggests this committee is not
> the right group to take any further changes forward.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LIVTHULOCCB5Z5ILGJUUEHSHPKEPEOPO/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JGFCP7HC6OFTITURHS37U3WXJIGI4EWG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-19 Thread Guettarda
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:26 AM Todd Allen  wrote:

> Sorry I couldn't get back to you until now, as I didn't see this.
>
> Both you and Gerard's response share the same deficiency: Lack of detail.
> This is basically marketese "sounds good" speak, but without any detail.
> Sure, that stuff sounds good, but that's not anything to vote on. How do
> you plan to actually do that stuff? What particular steps will you take to
> reach those goals?
>
> Plans are detailed, not feel-good "We think this stuff sounds nice".
> Exactly what is it you are proposing to do? That is what the proposal is
> missing. Otherwise, you're basically asking us to write you a blank check.
> What EXACTLY are you proposing to do, step by step and detail by detail?
>

I feel like this is what the movement charter drafting committee is
supposed to do - translate these into something practical. I think that's
the point - to have community-selected people actually draft the movement
charter. It's better to have this process led by a group other than WMF
(deserved or not, there are a lot of people in the community who have
limited trust in WMF).

On one hand, limiting candidates to a 400-word statement makes it
impossible for people to address specifics in their candidate statements.
On the other hand, with 70 candidates, there's far too much to read even
after you've eliminated the candidates you can "quick-fail".

I wish there was space and time for a Q with the candidates where people
could ask specific questions of them. (Of us - just to be clear, I'm one of
those 70 candidates.) I don't think anyone expected this level of interest
in volunteering to do a vast, and almost certainly thankless task. But we
did.

Ian





>
> Regards,
>
> Todd Allen
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:34 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Todd,
>>
>> Thank you for the feedback!
>>
>> While working on the consolidation of the recommendations coming from the
>> working groups, the writers put a lot of effort into ensuring conciseness
>> of expression for the final recommendations. In some cases it meant that
>> the text became so condensed that It can indeed be somewhat difficult to
>> follow. Regarding the passage related to the Movement Charter, as a
>> non-native English speaker, I do not feel that this is really the case.
>>
>> We do not have a different presentation of the recommendation, but have
>> been using the same text. Perhaps you can point to what exactly is unclear
>> for you in the respective passage, so it could be clarified:
>>
>>
>>- Create a Movement Charter to:
>>   - Lay the values, principles
>>   
>> 
>>  and
>>   policy basis for Movement structures, including the roles and
>>   responsibilities of the Global Council, regional and thematic hubs
>>   
>> ,
>>   as well as other existing and new entities and decision-making bodies,
>>   - Set requirements and criteria for decisions and processes that
>>   are Movement-wide to be legitimate and trusted by all stakeholders, 
>> e.g. for
>>  - Maintaining safe collaborative environments,
>>  - Ensuring Movement-wide revenue generation and distribution,
>>  - Giving a common direction on how resources should be
>>  allocated with appropriate accountability mechanisms.
>>  - Defining how communities work together and are accountable to
>>  each other.
>>  - Setting expectations for participation and the rights of
>>  participants.
>>
>>
>> Wishing you a great continuation to your week!
>> Kaarel
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:50 AM Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Dear Todd, thank you for the invite to read up on this document full of
>>> "buzzwords and fury, signifying nothing". I did just that and not find what
>>> you suggested, what I found is a determined effort to bring more equity and
>>> diversity (you can look up the words in Wiktionary or any other dictionary
>>> of your choice). That is a boon for all of us and a necessary departure
>>> from the predominantly text based, English dominated culture we have.
>>>
>>> At this stage children of nine will not use Commons to find pictures for
>>> their schooling because whatever structure is English and search does not
>>> translate for "hond", "kat"of "eenhoorn". It is an example of how a more
>>> diverse and equitable movement leads to different priorities and
>>> effectively leads to more inclusion. Something we need to firmly support.
>>> Thanks,
>>>GerardM
>>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>>
 So, you linked to this:
 

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

2021-10-19 Thread Chris Keating
> Agreed.  Is this something that the Election Committee
> ,
> as a standing committee not tied to a single election, can help with?   SJ
>
>
I would like the answer to this to be 'yes', but the Elections Committee
doesn't seem to do anything except supervise the community elections to the
Board (which are, in effect, now run by WMF staff). They did not, for
instance, appear to be particularly involved in the work that led to the
changes to the Board election structure. They do not publish any
information about what they are doing, and they don't appear to be
particularly responsive to inquiries even when there is a Board election
on. Making the elections committee a 'standing' committee does not appear
to have resulted in anything changing, and suggests this committee is not
the right group to take any further changes forward.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LIVTHULOCCB5Z5ILGJUUEHSHPKEPEOPO/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-19 Thread Todd Allen
Sorry I couldn't get back to you until now, as I didn't see this.

Both you and Gerard's response share the same deficiency: Lack of detail.
This is basically marketese "sounds good" speak, but without any detail.
Sure, that stuff sounds good, but that's not anything to vote on. How do
you plan to actually do that stuff? What particular steps will you take to
reach those goals?

Plans are detailed, not feel-good "We think this stuff sounds nice".
Exactly what is it you are proposing to do? That is what the proposal is
missing. Otherwise, you're basically asking us to write you a blank check.
What EXACTLY are you proposing to do, step by step and detail by detail?

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:34 PM Kaarel Vaidla  wrote:

> Dear Todd,
>
> Thank you for the feedback!
>
> While working on the consolidation of the recommendations coming from the
> working groups, the writers put a lot of effort into ensuring conciseness
> of expression for the final recommendations. In some cases it meant that
> the text became so condensed that It can indeed be somewhat difficult to
> follow. Regarding the passage related to the Movement Charter, as a
> non-native English speaker, I do not feel that this is really the case.
>
> We do not have a different presentation of the recommendation, but have
> been using the same text. Perhaps you can point to what exactly is unclear
> for you in the respective passage, so it could be clarified:
>
>
>- Create a Movement Charter to:
>   - Lay the values, principles
>   
> 
>  and
>   policy basis for Movement structures, including the roles and
>   responsibilities of the Global Council, regional and thematic hubs
>   
> ,
>   as well as other existing and new entities and decision-making bodies,
>   - Set requirements and criteria for decisions and processes that
>   are Movement-wide to be legitimate and trusted by all stakeholders, 
> e.g. for
>  - Maintaining safe collaborative environments,
>  - Ensuring Movement-wide revenue generation and distribution,
>  - Giving a common direction on how resources should be allocated
>  with appropriate accountability mechanisms.
>  - Defining how communities work together and are accountable to
>  each other.
>  - Setting expectations for participation and the rights of
>  participants.
>
>
> Wishing you a great continuation to your week!
> Kaarel
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:50 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Dear Todd, thank you for the invite to read up on this document full of
>> "buzzwords and fury, signifying nothing". I did just that and not find what
>> you suggested, what I found is a determined effort to bring more equity and
>> diversity (you can look up the words in Wiktionary or any other dictionary
>> of your choice). That is a boon for all of us and a necessary departure
>> from the predominantly text based, English dominated culture we have.
>>
>> At this stage children of nine will not use Commons to find pictures for
>> their schooling because whatever structure is English and search does not
>> translate for "hond", "kat"of "eenhoorn". It is an example of how a more
>> diverse and equitable movement leads to different priorities and
>> effectively leads to more inclusion. Something we need to firmly support.
>> Thanks,
>>GerardM
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> So, you linked to this:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Ensure_Equity_in_Decision-making#Establish_a_common_framework_for_decision-making
>>>
>>> What does any of that mean? Right now, it is a document full of
>>> buzzwords and fury, signifying nothing. Is there a buzzword-to-English
>>> translation of it available?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Todd Allen
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kaarel Vaidla 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hello everyone,

 Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter
 drafting committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the
 world are running for seven seats in these elections.

 As recommended by the Movement Strategy recommendations, the goal is to
 assemble a Drafting Committee that will draft a Movement Charter to ensure
 a common framework for decision making in the Wikimedia movement
 .
 The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities
 vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates
 

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

2021-10-19 Thread Bodhisattwa Mandal
Hi,

IMHO, for a person to be in a committee which will shape the movement
charter, he/she needs to be experienced enough to have a broad
understanding of the movement. Newcomers without any insight of the
historical context will not be able to draft a charter effectively. Also,
popular elections don't properly judge the weightage of different
candidates; it puts every candidate to the same level, which they are not.
It would be absolutely unfair to put a Wikimedian with 10-15 years of
experience and having a good standing with the larger community and a
complete newcomer who is almost unknown to the community on the same ballot
box. It was not at all necessary to bring all the 70 candidates to the same
table. A certain threshold could be determined first and then candidates
could be filtered out before election. Plus, drafting movement charter is
not a capacity building program for newcomers, it will shape the future of
the movement, so quality control was necessary. I am not sure if these
points will be taken into consideration while (s)electing the committee
members, but if not, I am sure, it will frustrate many Wikimedians who care
about the movement.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 at 11:24, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I still believe that a screening phase where people with limited support below
> a certain threshold can quit the race or be removed is the best way to
> have a functional ballot... to me it's just simpler this way. Even at
> real-life elections you need to show some signatures to access the race.
>
> If, after weeks of debate, a person get 1/5th of the support of an average
> candidate, it simply does not have a real chance. I point out again here,
> this would not be an additional phase, it's just something that can be done
> in parallel to the presentation of the candidates. For example, at the nth
> support signature, you enter the ballot.
>
> For some reasons, some people assume that "plurality" means that everybody
> can join, but a crowded ballot is just chaotic. For n places to be
> selected, you should not give more than 2n-3n candidates on a final ballot,
> IMHO. Especially if you want to use certain electoral methods.
>
> I tried to revise all 70 profiles and it was really boring. So after a
> while, I just put 10 names I kinda liked and that's it, I probably missed
> some of them. I also had negative feedback... which went wasted but could
> have also helped. Maybe in this scenario, the old method of
> "positive-neutral-negative" tipping box per each candidate could have also
> worked better than a STV ranking.
>
> In any case with the other election I could more or less predict the
> probable final output (gender balanced, with actual limited chance for
> so-called GS), here it's almost impossible, the vote will be diluted so
> much and I really cannot focus on all the candidates. This ould probably
> mean that bugs of UI (fixed display of candidates, problem of selecting
> from menu if initial letter has an unusual accent...) might influence the
> outcome more than usual.
>
> Alessandro
>
>
> Il martedì 19 ottobre 2021, 06:41:56 CEST, Anupam Dutta <
> anupamdutt...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> To me, a slightly better approach would have been to divide the 70
> candidates into 7 blocks of 10 each, chosen in a random way, but the block
> remaining fixed. Then force the voter to visit each block and view the
> candidates ( so that nobody has any undue advantage). After that, the voter
> will have the choice to choose any or all or none..
>
> (Disclaimer : I am one of the candidates).
>
> Anupamdutta73
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 08:55 effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
> Just for quick context: I was mostly trying to say that any *simple*
> system may have benefits in the scenario when you don't have the resources
> to make a complex system work properly (read: userfriendly). A 7-member
> district was intended as shorthand for "out of these 70 people, pick 7
> favorites". That does not allow as much nuance as ranking, but it also has
> much less mental load. There are more systems that would have been easier
> on the voter, most likely. I fear that with the 'rank these 70 people into
> an order of 70' will scare away too many participants.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:40 PM Risker  wrote:
>
> 
> I am curious what is meant by a "7-member district".  Lodewijk, could you
> explain in more detail?
> 
>
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/W3XYWFSUTJ2XSFIUHZAPNMOQPECZTOTV/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> 

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

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

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

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

Alessandro


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

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

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


Risker/Anne


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

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

2021-10-18 Thread Anupam Dutta
Hi all,

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

(Disclaimer : I am one of the candidates).

Anupamdutta73

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

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

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

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

Lodewijk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Risker/Anne


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lodewijk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your reply Kaarel,

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

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

Thanks,
Jan Ainali


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

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

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

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

  *   Ensuring the supporting materials to help people to make informed 
decisions has been a complex matter. The candidate 
statements<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Candidates>
 add up to 55 pages of text, which is difficult to navigate. It seemed like a 
compass tool could be of help here, but it comes with its own complications:
 *   There was a 10-day window to submit the statements and a 5-day 
upvoting period. We did our best to communicate it widely on mailing lists 
(e.g. 
here<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7HVBI6M55MNVBKHNEDBEIUPSWFGJIBIE/>
 and 
here<https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/FAJ57JAR3VP75V23OKX6MEBYUHWIAYUY/>)
 as well as social media groups, yet as there is so.much going on, not everyone 
noticed it in the timely manner.
 *   We are no longer collecting or upvoting statements. We hope that 19 
that were selected are at least to some extent helpful in informing the voting. 
We are happy to receive the feedback regarding the statement collection and 
upvoting, so it would be possible to improve the process in the future.
 *   Election compass has its own user interface and experience challenges. 
We have opted for all the candidates being selected as default for comparison, 
as it provides a good comparison across the pool - this helps to have a good 
overview of the positions of all the candidates. However, this makes navigating 
their rationale statements more difficult, as it involves a lot of scrolling. 
Also, if one is interested in comparing 2 candidates, there is a lot of 
deselecting that needs to happen. It seemed that selecting candidates manually 
would bring more personal bias into use of the tool, so we have chosen the 
select all approach as default. Overall, it is the number of candidates that is 
creating the bulk of the navigation and comparison issues and we are open to 
feedback on how to improve this in the future.
 *   The length of the statements made by the candidates in the compass 
tool was capped to prevent us from creating another wall of text. While it 
helps to better understand the position of the candidate, it would create a 
further barrier for voter engagement, if the expression is not clear and 
concise. I believe that the

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Jan Ainali


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best,

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

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

2021-10-17 Thread effe iets anders
This is a horribly problematic election. Not only does it take hours to go
through the candidates if you actually want to rank them, but you would
also need to be willing to spend about a lot of time to enter them into the
broken voting interface (which works great for up to 5 candidates - not for
70).

If anyone is planning to go through anyway - after some experimenting i
found out that the silly random order of the ballot dropdown (making it
impossible to find the candidate to input) can be worked around by clicking
the dropdown, and then typing their first letter several times until the
right candidate is selected. Then hit enter.

This interface was non-userfriendly with the board elections but for this
election it is prohibitively so. With this number of candidates, a 7-member
district would have been much more userfriendly (even if it is suboptimal
from the perspective of a mathematical modeling).

Lodewijk

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:34 PM Guettarda  wrote:

>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:04 PM Mike Peel  wrote:
>
>> Cool. How do we find those pages from the advertised tools? Were they
>> shared here before (sorry if I missed them), or can we still vote on
>> them somewhere?
>>
>>
> The underlying problem is that we ended up with 70+ candidates for the
> MCDC. We were allowed up to 400 words for our statements, so there is a lot
> to work through. In a case like that, there's a tendency to only vote for
> people you know, or only based on regional representation, or tenure, or
> something similar. The Compass was an imperfect tool, and one that was put
> together in response to the problem of too much participation (after all,
> there was uncertainty initially as to whether 19 people would actually put
> their names forward).
>
> I think there was a week at the end of September when people could
> suggest statements (the final tally was 108). After that there was
> another week in which people were able to vote for the statements they
> wanted the candidates to answer. Not everyone got it right - there were
> some responses that made it clear that some people were voting based on
> their own opinions about the statement, rather than what they wanted to
> hear.
>
> Once they were narrowed down, Cornelius created a Google sheet where the
> candidates were able to give our opinions on the statements, based on a
> five-point scale. We were also able to add up to 500 characters clarifying
> our stances. (These were interesting, because it's obvious that some people
> who voted "support" and some who voted "oppose" had pretty much the same
> opinion, once you allowed for nuance.
>
> After that the Compass tool was created. But even that output is too much
> to parse. I put together a Google sheet for myself, where I could split
> people into arbitrary groups - for example, only 54 people gave their
> opinions on the compass, so I decided to separate those from the rest of
> the group. I also split Europe/US/Canada from the rest of the world because
> I want to make sure that I wasn't too biased by *who* I knew well. Being
> able to sort people by tenure (thanks to Andrew's table) also allows me to
> be more cogniscent of my biases (as an old-timer, I'm likely to gravitate
> to people just because I've seen them around for the last 17 years).
>
> Dusan's tool is great because it lets you compare responses to individual
> questions, and lets you see the explanatory statements. Again, as I work my
> way through the list and try to decide between people it helps me check
> responses to individual questions.
>
> I think confirmation bias would be to pick people you know and like (or
> and maybe not like so much, but think the committee could use some
> bomb-throwers). I'm grateful for the tools and summaries that people have
> created. Now if there was only some way to compare pairs of candidate
> statements side-by-side
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>> Or would it be fairer now to the candidates to let their statements
>> stand alone and for people to vote based on those alone, rather than
>> trying to provide 'advanced tools' that are intrinsically biased?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike
>>
>> On 15/10/21 22:51:21, Guettarda wrote:
>> > Hi Mike
>> >
>> > The questions were selected from this list:
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
>> >
>> >
>> > People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that
>> > ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data
>> > underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here:
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
>> > <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
>> >
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel > > > wrote:

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

2021-10-15 Thread Guettarda
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:04 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Cool. How do we find those pages from the advertised tools? Were they
> shared here before (sorry if I missed them), or can we still vote on
> them somewhere?
>
>
The underlying problem is that we ended up with 70+ candidates for the
MCDC. We were allowed up to 400 words for our statements, so there is a lot
to work through. In a case like that, there's a tendency to only vote for
people you know, or only based on regional representation, or tenure, or
something similar. The Compass was an imperfect tool, and one that was put
together in response to the problem of too much participation (after all,
there was uncertainty initially as to whether 19 people would actually put
their names forward).

I think there was a week at the end of September when people could
suggest statements (the final tally was 108). After that there was
another week in which people were able to vote for the statements they
wanted the candidates to answer. Not everyone got it right - there were
some responses that made it clear that some people were voting based on
their own opinions about the statement, rather than what they wanted to
hear.

Once they were narrowed down, Cornelius created a Google sheet where the
candidates were able to give our opinions on the statements, based on a
five-point scale. We were also able to add up to 500 characters clarifying
our stances. (These were interesting, because it's obvious that some people
who voted "support" and some who voted "oppose" had pretty much the same
opinion, once you allowed for nuance.

After that the Compass tool was created. But even that output is too much
to parse. I put together a Google sheet for myself, where I could split
people into arbitrary groups - for example, only 54 people gave their
opinions on the compass, so I decided to separate those from the rest of
the group. I also split Europe/US/Canada from the rest of the world because
I want to make sure that I wasn't too biased by *who* I knew well. Being
able to sort people by tenure (thanks to Andrew's table) also allows me to
be more cogniscent of my biases (as an old-timer, I'm likely to gravitate
to people just because I've seen them around for the last 17 years).

Dusan's tool is great because it lets you compare responses to individual
questions, and lets you see the explanatory statements. Again, as I work my
way through the list and try to decide between people it helps me check
responses to individual questions.

I think confirmation bias would be to pick people you know and like (or and
maybe not like so much, but think the committee could use some
bomb-throwers). I'm grateful for the tools and summaries that people have
created. Now if there was only some way to compare pairs of candidate
statements side-by-side

Ian



> Or would it be fairer now to the candidates to let their statements
> stand alone and for people to vote based on those alone, rather than
> trying to provide 'advanced tools' that are intrinsically biased?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 15/10/21 22:51:21, Guettarda wrote:
> > Hi Mike
> >
> > The questions were selected from this list:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
> >
> >
> > People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that
> > ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data
> > underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
> >
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel  > > wrote:
> >
> > Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic
> > biases.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table
> >
> >
> > - this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you
> are
> > limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor
> since.
> >
> >
> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> > <
> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> >
> >
> > - this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and
> > encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on
> > their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by
> Q2 -
> > or looking up where Q6 was posted).
> >
> > We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> > On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
> >  > To echo 

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

2021-10-15 Thread Andrew Lih
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:44 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic biases.
>

That's a pretty grim way of looking at things. I could find a bigger
problem with the fact that the main page has images of the candidates, of
varying quality, aspect ratio, etc. with no attempt for normalization. The
effect of candidate presentation on voter preference is a highly studied
area in psychology and political science which should give us a lot more
pause than the side effects of either of these tools.[1]

Both of these tools allow one to cluster and examine the data in a
structured form. It doesn't prescribe or afford any type of interpretation.
As both of us are heavily into Wikidata, how is this different than
returning the value of a SPARQL query and relying on the user to be smart
about using the output?

The alternative to having these sense-making tools is scrolling down a page
with 70+ candidates trying to track five different parameters in one's
brain, by relying only on memory. Or giving up and reverting to voting for
those you recognize as friends. I don't think that's a good state of
affairs.

-Andrew

[1] - An issue I raised back in July 2021 -
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WMF_elections_candidate/2021/candidates
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3A6R5PA4PEG4S6DQCRYXY2JAGTLY2Q2Y/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-15 Thread Mike Peel
Cool. How do we find those pages from the advertised tools? Were they 
shared here before (sorry if I missed them), or can we still vote on 
them somewhere?


Or would it be fairer now to the candidates to let their statements 
stand alone and for people to vote based on those alone, rather than 
trying to provide 'advanced tools' that are intrinsically biased?


Thanks,
Mike

On 15/10/21 22:51:21, Guettarda wrote:

Hi Mike

The questions were selected from this list: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements 



People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that 
ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data 
underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data 



Ian


On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel > wrote:


Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic
biases.


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table



- this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you are
limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor since.

https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/



- this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and
encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on
their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by Q2 -
or looking up where Q6 was posted).

We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.

Thanks,
Mike

On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
 > To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by
voters.
 > On meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:
 >
 >

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates



 >

>
 >
 > The links point to:
 > - A table of all the factual information supplied by the
candidates in a
 > wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
 > - A browsable interface to all the compass questions and responses,
 > providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam
brought up is
 > that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the
 > answers of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in
showing
 > that the following questions had the most diverse responses and are
 > likely to be the most useful for voters to examine directly.
 >
 > 6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
 > 11 - democratic governance structure
 > 20 - new forms of knowledge representation
 > 24 - regional elections
 > 27 - "counter-voice"
 > 45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
 > 92 - ratification from all
 >
 > I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.
 >
 > -Andrew
 >
 > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker mailto:risker...@gmail.com>
 > >> wrote:
 >
 >     Adam, you may find the tool discussed here
 >   
  >

 >     to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is
based on
 >     the information submitted by candidates for the election compass,
 >     and is quite visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)
 >
 >     I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the
differences
 >     between candidates a little more specifically than the general
 >     five-point compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that
there's
 >     some consensus amongst candidates (at least on the surface)
is that
 >     they could be representative of a pretty broad consensus
throughout
 >     the global community on 

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

2021-10-15 Thread Guettarda
Hi Mike

The questions were selected from this list:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements

People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that
ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data
underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data

Ian


On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic biases.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table
> - this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you are
> limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor since.
>
>
> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> - this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and
> encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on
> their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by Q2 -
> or looking up where Q6 was posted).
>
> We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
> > To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by voters.
> > On meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates
> >
> >
> > The links point to:
> > - A table of all the factual information supplied by the candidates in a
> > wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
> > - A browsable interface to all the compass questions and responses,
> > providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam brought up is
> > that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the
> > answers of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in showing
> > that the following questions had the most diverse responses and are
> > likely to be the most useful for voters to examine directly.
> >
> > 6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
> > 11 - democratic governance structure
> > 20 - new forms of knowledge representation
> > 24 - regional elections
> > 27 - "counter-voice"
> > 45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
> > 92 - ratification from all
> >
> > I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker  > > wrote:
> >
> > Adam, you may find the tool discussed here
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Candidates_Compass:_One_statement,_all_answers
> >
> > to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is based on
> > the information submitted by candidates for the election compass,
> > and is quite visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)
> >
> > I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the differences
> > between candidates a little more specifically than the general
> > five-point compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that there's
> > some consensus amongst candidates (at least on the surface) is that
> > they could be representative of a pretty broad consensus throughout
> > the global community on some points.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla
> > mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
> > ” for this
> > election. Click yourself through the tool and respond to the
> > 19 statements, and you will see which candidate is closest
> > to you!
> >
> >
> > Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the
> > interesting "election compass" experiment.  After trying the
> > tool, I urge you to take it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque,
> > and in my opinion very unlikely to give a helpful result.  It's
> > explicitly meant to influence how we vote, but without us having
> > done any validation of what it's actually calculating.  If you
> > want to test this tool, you could position it as an "exit poll",
> > to compare the tool's results with how each person actually
> > voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring.
> >
> > My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly
> > support" or "support" to almost every question, which suggests
> > that the axes were not chosen in a 

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

2021-10-15 Thread Mike Peel

Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic biases.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table 
- this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you are 
limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor since.


https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/ 
- this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and 
encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on 
their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by Q2 - 
or looking up where Q6 was posted).


We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.

Thanks,
Mike

On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by voters. 
On meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:


https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates 



The links point to:
- A table of all the factual information supplied by the candidates in a 
wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
- A browsable interface to all the compass questions and responses, 
providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam brought up is 
that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the 
answers of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in showing 
that the following questions had the most diverse responses and are 
likely to be the most useful for voters to examine directly.


6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
11 - democratic governance structure
20 - new forms of knowledge representation
24 - regional elections
27 - "counter-voice"
45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
92 - ratification from all

I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.

-Andrew

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker > wrote:


Adam, you may find the tool discussed here


to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is based on
the information submitted by candidates for the election compass,
and is quite visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)

I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the differences
between candidates a little more specifically than the general
five-point compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that there's
some consensus amongst candidates (at least on the surface) is that
they could be representative of a pretty broad consensus throughout
the global community on some points.

Risker/Anne

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight mailto:adam.m.wi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla
mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:

Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
” for this
election. Click yourself through the tool and respond to the
19 statements, and you will see which candidate is closest
to you!


Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the
interesting "election compass" experiment.  After trying the
tool, I urge you to take it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque,
and in my opinion very unlikely to give a helpful result.  It's
explicitly meant to influence how we vote, but without us having
done any validation of what it's actually calculating.  If you
want to test this tool, you could position it as an "exit poll",
to compare the tool's results with how each person actually
voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring.

My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly
support" or "support" to almost every question, which suggests
that the axes were not chosen in a way that differentiates
between the candidates.  Instead, it seems like it's going to
amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs "support"—is this true?

Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in mind?  Are
there reasons to believe that the "alignment" scores are
meaningful in our scenario?

Kind regards,
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
Writing in my volunteer capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 and

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

2021-10-15 Thread Mario Gómez
Thank you for the Election Compass!

While the quantitative ranking was not very useful for me, these clear
statements and concise answers by all candidates helped me a lot in the
decision, and also the Election Compass tool was quite decent to explore
them. The process of wider community input to draft questions and upvoting
them has clearly led to a much more useful set of questions than what we
had at the Board of Trustees election.

So, while tooling could be improved in the future, I think the general
approach to questions was great, and next elections (for Board of Trustees
or whatever other body) should do it in a similar way.

Best,

Mario

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting
> committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are
> running for seven seats in these elections.
>
> As recommended by the Movement Strategy recommendations, the goal is to
> assemble a Drafting Committee that will draft a Movement Charter to ensure
> a common framework for decision making in the Wikimedia movement
> .
> The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities
> vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates
> through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the
> Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1,
> 2021.
>
> Voting is open from October 12 10:00 UTC to October 24, 2021 23:59 (Anywhere
> on Earth ).
>
>
>
> Learn more about the candidates
>
> Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn
> about each candidate to inform your vote
> .
> The statements are translated to a number of languages, so you can have
> access to the information in many of your preferred languages.
>
> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
> ” for this election. Click
> yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you will
> see which candidate is closest to you! The tool is available in ~9
> languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Arabic,
> Indonesian, Hausa).
>
>
>
> Voting
>
> Similar to the previous Board elections, we have chosen Single
> Transferable Vote
> 
> for the voting system. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices
> in order of preference. Learn more about voting requirements
> ,
> how to vote
> ,
> and frequently asked questions about voting
> 
> .
>
>
> To cast your vote, please go to SecurePoll
> 
> .
>
>
> We also offer two question and answer times, if you have any questions
> regarding the Movement Charter and the voting process:w
>
>-
>
>Wednesday, 19:00 UTC, on Google Meet
>-
>
>Thursday, 13:00 UTC, on Zoom (that’s the Conversation Time with Maggie
>Dennis)
>
> Please write a short message to answ...@wikimedia.org if you want to
> participate in one of these.
>
>
>
> Please help select people who best fit the needs of the movement at this
> time. Vote and spread the word so more people can vote for candidates. Our
> aim is to have a committee with Wikimedians that combine the diversity of
> the Wikimedia Movement as well as a great mix of competencies.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Kaarel Vaidla, on behalf of the Movement Strategy & Governance team,
> Wikimedia Foundation
> --
>
> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
>
> Movement Strategy 
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/O6EYQSHWXT5JH7DZZDNLD4BRPEYPQZTF/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 

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

2021-10-15 Thread Andrew Lih
To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by voters. On
meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates

The links point to:
- A table of all the factual information supplied by the candidates in a
wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
- A browsable interface to all the compass questions and responses,
providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam brought up is
that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the answers
of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in showing that the
following questions had the most diverse responses and are likely to be the
most useful for voters to examine directly.

6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
11 - democratic governance structure
20 - new forms of knowledge representation
24 - regional elections
27 - "counter-voice"
45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
92 - ratification from all

I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.

-Andrew

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker  wrote:

> Adam, you may find the tool discussed here
> 
> to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is based on the
> information submitted by candidates for the election compass, and is quite
> visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)
>
> I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the differences
> between candidates a little more specifically than the general five-point
> compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that there's some consensus
> amongst candidates (at least on the surface) is that they could be
> representative of a pretty broad consensus throughout the global community
> on some points.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
>>> ” for this election.
>>> Click yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you
>>> will see which candidate is closest to you!
>>>
>>
>> Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the
>> interesting "election compass" experiment.  After trying the tool, I urge
>> you to take it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque, and in my opinion very
>> unlikely to give a helpful result.  It's explicitly meant to influence how
>> we vote, but without us having done any validation of what it's actually
>> calculating.  If you want to test this tool, you could position it as an
>> "exit poll", to compare the tool's results with how each person actually
>> voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring.
>>
>> My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly support" or
>> "support" to almost every question, which suggests that the axes were not
>> chosen in a way that differentiates between the candidates.  Instead, it
>> seems like it's going to amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs
>> "support"—is this true?
>>
>> Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in mind?  Are there
>> reasons to believe that the "alignment" scores are meaningful in our
>> scenario?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Adam Wight
>> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>> Writing in my volunteer capacity.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 

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

2021-10-14 Thread Vi to
Exactly this, according to the tool I'm somehow far from Risker but reading
her replies I feel quite close.

Vito

Il giorno gio 14 ott 2021 alle ore 15:38 Risker  ha
scritto:

> Adam, you may find the tool discussed here
> 
> to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is based on the
> information submitted by candidates for the election compass, and is quite
> visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)
>
> I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the differences
> between candidates a little more specifically than the general five-point
> compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that there's some consensus
> amongst candidates (at least on the surface) is that they could be
> representative of a pretty broad consensus throughout the global community
> on some points.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
>>> ” for this election.
>>> Click yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you
>>> will see which candidate is closest to you!
>>>
>>
>> Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the
>> interesting "election compass" experiment.  After trying the tool, I urge
>> you to take it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque, and in my opinion very
>> unlikely to give a helpful result.  It's explicitly meant to influence how
>> we vote, but without us having done any validation of what it's actually
>> calculating.  If you want to test this tool, you could position it as an
>> "exit poll", to compare the tool's results with how each person actually
>> voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring.
>>
>> My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly support" or
>> "support" to almost every question, which suggests that the axes were not
>> chosen in a way that differentiates between the candidates.  Instead, it
>> seems like it's going to amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs
>> "support"—is this true?
>>
>> Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in mind?  Are there
>> reasons to believe that the "alignment" scores are meaningful in our
>> scenario?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Adam Wight
>> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>> Writing in my volunteer capacity.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/XBR3LJ6YVY2LRAYQLFRQK76ZBL57X3QC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-14 Thread Risker
Adam, you may find the tool discussed here

to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is based on the
information submitted by candidates for the election compass, and is quite
visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)

I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the differences
between candidates a little more specifically than the general five-point
compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that there's some consensus
amongst candidates (at least on the surface) is that they could be
representative of a pretty broad consensus throughout the global community
on some points.

Risker/Anne

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
>> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
>> ” for this election. Click
>> yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you will
>> see which candidate is closest to you!
>>
>
> Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the
> interesting "election compass" experiment.  After trying the tool, I urge
> you to take it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque, and in my opinion very
> unlikely to give a helpful result.  It's explicitly meant to influence how
> we vote, but without us having done any validation of what it's actually
> calculating.  If you want to test this tool, you could position it as an
> "exit poll", to compare the tool's results with how each person actually
> voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring.
>
> My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly support" or
> "support" to almost every question, which suggests that the axes were not
> chosen in a way that differentiates between the candidates.  Instead, it
> seems like it's going to amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs
> "support"—is this true?
>
> Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in mind?  Are there
> reasons to believe that the "alignment" scores are meaningful in our
> scenario?
>
> Kind regards,
> Adam Wight
> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
> Writing in my volunteer capacity.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KKNSAX5FKNUYRRKIZQJZP4OAURUN2JZ5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-14 Thread Adam Wight
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
wrote:

> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
> ” for this election. Click
> yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you will
> see which candidate is closest to you!
>

Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the interesting
"election compass" experiment.  After trying the tool, I urge you to take
it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque, and in my opinion very unlikely to
give a helpful result.  It's explicitly meant to influence how we vote, but
without us having done any validation of what it's actually calculating.
If you want to test this tool, you could position it as an "exit poll", to
compare the tool's results with how each person actually voted, or you
could turn off the "alignment" scoring.

My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly support" or
"support" to almost every question, which suggests that the axes were not
chosen in a way that differentiates between the candidates.  Instead, it
seems like it's going to amplify tiny differences like "strongly" vs
"support"—is this true?

Was the tool analyzed with this sort of concern in mind?  Are there reasons
to believe that the "alignment" scores are meaningful in our scenario?

Kind regards,
Adam Wight
[[mw:User:Adamw]]
Writing in my volunteer capacity.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ORUIO7XSLVBBW57GIVPG53LJA3CIBNDG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

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

2021-10-13 Thread Kaarel Vaidla
Dear Todd,

Thank you for the feedback!

While working on the consolidation of the recommendations coming from the
working groups, the writers put a lot of effort into ensuring conciseness
of expression for the final recommendations. In some cases it meant that
the text became so condensed that It can indeed be somewhat difficult to
follow. Regarding the passage related to the Movement Charter, as a
non-native English speaker, I do not feel that this is really the case.

We do not have a different presentation of the recommendation, but have
been using the same text. Perhaps you can point to what exactly is unclear
for you in the respective passage, so it could be clarified:


   - Create a Movement Charter to:
  - Lay the values, principles
  

and
  policy basis for Movement structures, including the roles and
  responsibilities of the Global Council, regional and thematic hubs
  
,
  as well as other existing and new entities and decision-making bodies,
  - Set requirements and criteria for decisions and processes that are
  Movement-wide to be legitimate and trusted by all stakeholders, e.g. for
 - Maintaining safe collaborative environments,
 - Ensuring Movement-wide revenue generation and distribution,
 - Giving a common direction on how resources should be allocated
 with appropriate accountability mechanisms.
 - Defining how communities work together and are accountable to
 each other.
 - Setting expectations for participation and the rights of
 participants.


Wishing you a great continuation to your week!
Kaarel

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:50 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Dear Todd, thank you for the invite to read up on this document full of
> "buzzwords and fury, signifying nothing". I did just that and not find what
> you suggested, what I found is a determined effort to bring more equity and
> diversity (you can look up the words in Wiktionary or any other dictionary
> of your choice). That is a boon for all of us and a necessary departure
> from the predominantly text based, English dominated culture we have.
>
> At this stage children of nine will not use Commons to find pictures for
> their schooling because whatever structure is English and search does not
> translate for "hond", "kat"of "eenhoorn". It is an example of how a more
> diverse and equitable movement leads to different priorities and
> effectively leads to more inclusion. Something we need to firmly support.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> So, you linked to this:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Ensure_Equity_in_Decision-making#Establish_a_common_framework_for_decision-making
>>
>> What does any of that mean? Right now, it is a document full of buzzwords
>> and fury, signifying nothing. Is there a buzzword-to-English translation of
>> it available?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Todd Allen
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kaarel Vaidla 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter
>>> drafting committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the
>>> world are running for seven seats in these elections.
>>>
>>> As recommended by the Movement Strategy recommendations, the goal is to
>>> assemble a Drafting Committee that will draft a Movement Charter to ensure
>>> a common framework for decision making in the Wikimedia movement
>>> .
>>> The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities
>>> vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates
>>> through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1,
>>> 2021.
>>>
>>> Voting is open from October 12 10:00 UTC to October 24, 2021 23:59 (Anywhere
>>> on Earth ).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Learn more about the candidates
>>>
>>> Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn
>>> about each candidate to inform your vote
>>> .
>>> The statements are translated to a number of languages, so you can have
>>> access to the information in many of your preferred languages.
>>>
>>> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
>>> ” for this election.
>>> Click yourself through the 

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

2021-10-12 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Dear Todd, thank you for the invite to read up on this document full of
"buzzwords and fury, signifying nothing". I did just that and not find what
you suggested, what I found is a determined effort to bring more equity and
diversity (you can look up the words in Wiktionary or any other dictionary
of your choice). That is a boon for all of us and a necessary departure
from the predominantly text based, English dominated culture we have.

At this stage children of nine will not use Commons to find pictures for
their schooling because whatever structure is English and search does not
translate for "hond", "kat"of "eenhoorn". It is an example of how a more
diverse and equitable movement leads to different priorities and
effectively leads to more inclusion. Something we need to firmly support.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Todd Allen  wrote:

> So, you linked to this:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Ensure_Equity_in_Decision-making#Establish_a_common_framework_for_decision-making
>
> What does any of that mean? Right now, it is a document full of buzzwords
> and fury, signifying nothing. Is there a buzzword-to-English translation of
> it available?
>
> Regards,
>
> Todd Allen
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting
>> committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are
>> running for seven seats in these elections.
>>
>> As recommended by the Movement Strategy recommendations, the goal is to
>> assemble a Drafting Committee that will draft a Movement Charter to ensure
>> a common framework for decision making in the Wikimedia movement
>> .
>> The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities
>> vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates
>> through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the
>> Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1,
>> 2021.
>>
>> Voting is open from October 12 10:00 UTC to October 24, 2021 23:59 (Anywhere
>> on Earth ).
>>
>>
>>
>> Learn more about the candidates
>>
>> Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn
>> about each candidate to inform your vote
>> .
>> The statements are translated to a number of languages, so you can have
>> access to the information in many of your preferred languages.
>>
>> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
>> ” for this election. Click
>> yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you will
>> see which candidate is closest to you! The tool is available in ~9
>> languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Arabic,
>> Indonesian, Hausa).
>>
>>
>>
>> Voting
>>
>> Similar to the previous Board elections, we have chosen Single
>> Transferable Vote
>> 
>> for the voting system. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices
>> in order of preference. Learn more about voting requirements
>> ,
>> how to vote
>> ,
>> and frequently asked questions about voting
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>> To cast your vote, please go to SecurePoll
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>> We also offer two question and answer times, if you have any questions
>> regarding the Movement Charter and the voting process:w
>>
>>-
>>
>>Wednesday, 19:00 UTC, on Google Meet
>>-
>>
>>Thursday, 13:00 UTC, on Zoom (that’s the Conversation Time with
>>Maggie Dennis)
>>
>> Please write a short message to answ...@wikimedia.org if you want to
>> participate in one of these.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please help select people who best fit the needs of the movement at this
>> time. Vote and spread the word so more people can vote for candidates. Our
>> aim is to have a committee with Wikimedians that combine the diversity of
>> the Wikimedia Movement as well as a great mix of competencies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Kaarel Vaidla, on behalf of the Movement Strategy & Governance team,
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> --
>>
>> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
>>
>> Movement Strategy 

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

2021-10-12 Thread Todd Allen
So, you linked to this:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Ensure_Equity_in_Decision-making#Establish_a_common_framework_for_decision-making

What does any of that mean? Right now, it is a document full of buzzwords
and fury, signifying nothing. Is there a buzzword-to-English translation of
it available?

Regards,

Todd Allen

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 4:02 AM Kaarel Vaidla  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting
> committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are
> running for seven seats in these elections.
>
> As recommended by the Movement Strategy recommendations, the goal is to
> assemble a Drafting Committee that will draft a Movement Charter to ensure
> a common framework for decision making in the Wikimedia movement
> .
> The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities
> vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates
> through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the
> Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1,
> 2021.
>
> Voting is open from October 12 10:00 UTC to October 24, 2021 23:59 (Anywhere
> on Earth ).
>
>
>
> Learn more about the candidates
>
> Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn
> about each candidate to inform your vote
> .
> The statements are translated to a number of languages, so you can have
> access to the information in many of your preferred languages.
>
> Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
> ” for this election. Click
> yourself through the tool and respond to the 19 statements, and you will
> see which candidate is closest to you! The tool is available in ~9
> languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Arabic,
> Indonesian, Hausa).
>
>
>
> Voting
>
> Similar to the previous Board elections, we have chosen Single
> Transferable Vote
> 
> for the voting system. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices
> in order of preference. Learn more about voting requirements
> ,
> how to vote
> ,
> and frequently asked questions about voting
> 
> .
>
>
> To cast your vote, please go to SecurePoll
> 
> .
>
>
> We also offer two question and answer times, if you have any questions
> regarding the Movement Charter and the voting process:w
>
>-
>
>Wednesday, 19:00 UTC, on Google Meet
>-
>
>Thursday, 13:00 UTC, on Zoom (that’s the Conversation Time with Maggie
>Dennis)
>
> Please write a short message to answ...@wikimedia.org if you want to
> participate in one of these.
>
>
>
> Please help select people who best fit the needs of the movement at this
> time. Vote and spread the word so more people can vote for candidates. Our
> aim is to have a committee with Wikimedians that combine the diversity of
> the Wikimedia Movement as well as a great mix of competencies.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Kaarel Vaidla, on behalf of the Movement Strategy & Governance team,
> Wikimedia Foundation
> --
>
> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
>
> Movement Strategy 
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/O6EYQSHWXT5JH7DZZDNLD4BRPEYPQZTF/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6INWKXWJ77WEDTGSOTKIL3NXJYZLNAEM/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org