Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Michael Snow]

On 4/30/2013 3:54 AM, Michael Peel wrote:

On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray  wrote:

I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
(those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
*both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
in Berlin!

(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
elections)

I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an 
inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve 
staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members).
I also agree that it would be best to treat all staff the same in this 
regard, whether they technically work for a chapter or the global 
foundation. I think that's particularly true because the technical 
employment arrangements don't necessarily line up with true function, 
and could lead to rather odd results in specific cases. As we've seen or 
could easily imagine, staff might be designated as temporary 
contractors, be delegated to work at another organization, or have their 
salary paid by one entity while working for another. All of these things 
could happen for perfectly good reasons in operational terms, but have 
no bearing on whether that person should be able to participate in these 
elections.

BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected 
seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, 
which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the 
community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the 
next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.
This is a valid consideration, but I'd like to offer a counterargument, 
which is (at least in my mind) an important reason the rotation of board 
seats was set up the way it is now. As we've seen, the process of 
organizing and conducting these elections is a significant burden, 
especially on the volunteers doing the work but also for the candidates 
who choose to participate. I would suggest that it also imposes costs on 
the community at large in terms of the attention and energy directed to 
the election. I consider those costs well worth paying overall, but 
believe that it's also better not to run them up too often. I'm not sure 
that the benefits of this change warrant effectively doubling the load 
the process creates.


--Michael Snow

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Michael Peel]

On 30 Apr 2013, at 14:30, Thehelpfulone  wrote:

> On 29 April 2013 21:01, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>  
> With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3
> by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the board
> members would be not directly coopted.
> Many other varieties are possible, of course. The staff could together vote
> one elector who would take part in the selection by the chapters, the same
> for the Wikimedia User Groups. But then, this voting group should select
> ultimately not 2 but 3 seats.
> People who don't edit but belong to the movement can have their influence
> via the chapters and in future the thorgs.
>  
> On 30 April 2013 11:54, Michael Peel  wrote:
>  
> I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an 
> inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve 
> staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community 
> members). Moving this discussion on-wiki would definitely be good, to reduce 
> the chances of this discussion being forgotten about next time around...
>  
> BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected 
> seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, 
> which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the 
> community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one 
> the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.
>  
> An alternative proposal, as suggested by Risker and James above is that even 
> if you don't necessarily edit substantially, you can still be part of the 
> movement, so lowering edit requirements to allow all staff and board members 
> of the WMF, Chapters and other thematic organisations (and everyone else 
> that's part of the movement) to elect all 5 of the "community" seats (3 
> community + 2 chapters) would bring everyone in the movement closer together.
>  
> This would arguably be the most fair option, can someone summarise the 
> justification for chapters to be able to exclusively select 2 of out 5 
> community seats through a much less-transparent process?

I'm not sure how low the edit requirements would have to be in order to allow 
all staff + board members to vote - has anyone looked at the statistics of edit 
counts of staff + board members to quantify this? It would also need to be 
balanced against the increased risk of election fraud (it's easier to create 
more new accounts with a smaller number of edits without being spotted).

My understanding of the chapter-selected seats is that those were intended to 
bring in people from the chapters' sphere of contacts who were unlikely to want 
to stand through very public elections, hence the reduced transparency involved 
in their appointments. So I'd personally view them as a sort of cross-over 
between expert and community seats, rather than simply as community seats (e.g. 
they wouldn't necessarily be filled by a Wikimedian).

Thanks,
Mike
(personal viewpoint)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Thehelpfulone]

On 29 April 2013 21:01, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:


> With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3
> by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the board
> members would be not directly coopted.
> Many other varieties are possible, of course. The staff could together vote
> one elector who would take part in the selection by the chapters, the same
> for the Wikimedia User Groups. But then, this voting group should select
> ultimately not 2 but 3 seats.
> People who don't edit but belong to the movement can have their influence
> via the chapters and in future the thorgs.
>

On 30 April 2013 11:54, Michael Peel  wrote:


> I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an
> inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't
> involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active
> community members). Moving this discussion on-wiki would definitely be
> good, to reduce the chances of this discussion being forgotten about next
> time around...
>


> BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected
> seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once,
> which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the
> community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one
> the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.
>

An alternative proposal, as suggested by Risker and James above is that
even if you don't necessarily edit substantially, you can still be part of
the movement, so lowering edit requirements to allow *all *staff and board
members of the WMF, Chapters and other thematic organisations (and everyone
else that's part of the movement) to elect all 5 of the "community" seats
(3 community + 2 chapters) would bring everyone in the movement closer
together.

This would arguably be the most fair option, can someone summarise the
justification for chapters to be able to exclusively select 2 of out 5
community seats through a much less-transparent process?

-- 
Thehelpfulone
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 30.04.2013 12:14, James Alexander wrote:

Very side note: I'm not sure if you're talking in the past sense or 
not

here but I did want to stick up for Wikiversity a bit here in the more
presente tense. I don't think I've checked in the past couple weeks 
but
I've trolled the recent changes there every month or so for a while 
and
have been really excited to see it doing some cool looking work for a 
while

now. It seems that many of the issues in the past have been mostly
resolved. I am sure, like us all, they still have some skeletons they 
would
like to get rid of but it seems that the internal process there did 
end

kicking into gear some. 

James
___


The founder and guru of the Russian Wikiversity was banned from Russian 
Wikipedia several years ago for trolling and disruptive behavior, and 
also made himself infamous for introducing obligatory "user reputation" 
template on the talk pages and blocking users with zero contribution 
(some of them indefinitely).


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Michael Peel]

On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
> (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
> or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
> *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
> should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
> Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
> in Berlin!
> 
> (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
> course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
> elections)

I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an 
inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve 
staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members). 
Moving this discussion on-wiki would definitely be good, to reduce the chances 
of this discussion being forgotten about next time around...

BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected 
seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, 
which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the 
community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the 
next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.

Thanks,
Mike
(personal viewpoint)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Fae]

On 30 April 2013 10:47, Ting Chen  wrote:
> And to come back to the topic.
>
> At least in the theory, if someone is blocked in a project, than he has a
> serious problem with that community. And the reason that his block is not
> lifted should be a serious one. And if someone has a serious problem with
> more than one community, than it is questionable if he should be eligible to
> take part in the decision of such an office. So from the theory I think the
> rule is ok.
>
> If in the praxis someone is blocked by a project arbitrarily and he is not
> able to appeal by that community, than that community and that project has a
> real problem. And we should look into detail what is going wrong in that
> project and in that community. But this is not an issue of the election
> committee.

Certainly that is a theory. However we also have people that are
voluntarily blocked as part of an enforced wiki-break, and we also
have examples of Wikimedians who were blocked on a project years ago,
and never could be bothered to go through the pain of an appeal but
instead successfully focus on some of the other Wikimedia projects and
leave that pain behind. In neither of these examples would it be fair
to claim that such folks are so set against our mission that they must
not have a vote. Perhaps we ought to separate these things and allow
individuals to apply for a right to vote if they can provide a case of
unusual circumstances that may make a waiver against the basic rules
seem reasonable to a panel?

As for when a block might be "arbitrary", I don't believe the WMF or
the community has any way of determining when this is the case.
Certainly some rationales for blocks appear arbitrary.

Thanks,
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[James Alexander]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:08 AM, David Gerard  wrote:

> (Remember that we've had an entire project,
> Wikiversity, pretty much taken over by disgruntled Wikipedia trolls.)



Very side note: I'm not sure if you're talking in the past sense or not
here but I did want to stick up for Wikiversity a bit here in the more
presente tense. I don't think I've checked in the past couple weeks but
I've trolled the recent changes there every month or so for a while and
have been really excited to see it doing some cool looking work for a while
now. It seems that many of the issues in the past have been mostly
resolved. I am sure, like us all, they still have some skeletons they would
like to get rid of but it seems that the internal process there did end
kicking into gear some. 

James
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[David Gerard]

On 30 April 2013 10:47, Ting Chen  wrote:

> At least in the theory, if someone is blocked in a project, than he has a
> serious problem with that community. And the reason that his block is not
> lifted should be a serious one. And if someone has a serious problem with
> more than one community, than it is questionable if he should be eligible to
> take part in the decision of such an office. So from the theory I think the
> rule is ok.


So if two trolls have admin rights on three tiny wikis, and block you
because they don't like you, then you'd be fine with being
disenfranchised by that? (Remember that we've had an entire project,
Wikiversity, pretty much taken over by disgruntled Wikipedia trolls.)


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Itzik Edri]

Ting, you completely twisted things. I didn't criticize Election Committee,
or blamed them. Especially I didn't said they doing a bad job. I didn't
even mentioned them. I just raised the issue and said clearly that it is
something that has been around from the previous elections and wondered
whether we should consider the issue. Your offended tone and defensiveness
is not helpful to the discussion.


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Ting Chen  wrote:

> Hello Itzik
>
> yes, you are right.
>
> But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you
> know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and
> unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is
> also a volunteer driven committee. It is a tremendous effort. They have
> weekly meeting since February, and they did a lot of things. It is unfair
> to stand out now and say you are doing a bad job.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
>
> Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri:
>
>> Ting, Risker,
>>
>> 1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to
>> be
>> volunteer  in the committee.
>>
>> 2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read
>> the
>> voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still
>> doesn't
>> mean we need to ignore from this issue
>>
>> Itzik
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>>
>>  Hello dear all,
>>>
>>> I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the
>>> election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not
>>> very many people responded.
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>> Ting
>>>
>>> Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:
>>>
>>>   On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>>>
   On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri 
 wrote:

>   I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give
> equal
>
>> right to everyone.
>>
>> Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
>> processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations
>> the
>> right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
>> chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like
>> saying
>>
>>  the
>
>  first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
>>
>>  want
>
>  to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their
>> "bosses"..
>>
>>   That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and
>>
> staff
> definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.
>  I
> leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
>
>
>
>   The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election
>
 started,
 with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may
 start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed
 to
 give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too
 many
 people a vote).  There is almost no variation between the voter
 eligibility
 this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are
 dates
 for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed
 because
 the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).

 I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election
 post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't
 lost to time.

 Risker (Election Committee Member)



 [1]
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_**
 elections_2013/Post_mortem>>> Wikimedia_Foundation_**elections_2013/Post_mortem
 >

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
 
 >
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
 mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
 >


>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
>>> 
>>> >
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>> >
>>>
>>>  __**_
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Ting Chen]

And to come back to the topic.

At least in the theory, if someone is blocked in a project, than he has 
a serious problem with that community. And the reason that his block is 
not lifted should be a serious one. And if someone has a serious problem 
with more than one community, than it is questionable if he should be 
eligible to take part in the decision of such an office. So from the 
theory I think the rule is ok.


If in the praxis someone is blocked by a project arbitrarily and he is 
not able to appeal by that community, than that community and that 
project has a real problem. And we should look into detail what is going 
wrong in that project and in that community. But this is not an issue of 
the election committee.


Greetings
Ting

Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri:

Ting, Risker,

1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be
volunteer  in the committee.

2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the
voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't
mean we need to ignore from this issue

Itzik


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:


Hello dear all,

I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the
election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.

Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not
very many people responded.

Greetings
Ting

Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:

  On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

  On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:

  I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal

right to everyone.

Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations
the
right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying


the


first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even


want


to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..

  That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and

staff
definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.  I
leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.



  The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election

started,
with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may
start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to
give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many
people a vote).  There is almost no variation between the voter
eligibility
this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are
dates
for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed
because
the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).

I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election
post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't
lost to time.

Risker (Election Committee Member)



[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_**
elections_2013/Post_mortem
__**_
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



__**_
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Craig Franklin]

Ting,

I don't think that Itzik has said anywhere that the election committee is
doing a bad job.  I think he is simply saying that you shouldn't have to
commit to having a meeting every week since February just to have an
opinion on the topic that is taken seriously.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin


On 30 April 2013 19:40, Ting Chen  wrote:

> Hello Itzik
>
> yes, you are right.
>
> But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you
> know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and
> unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is
> also a volunteer driven committee. It is a tremendous effort. They have
> weekly meeting since February, and they did a lot of things. It is unfair
> to stand out now and say you are doing a bad job.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
>
> Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri:
>
>  Ting, Risker,
>>
>> 1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to
>> be
>> volunteer  in the committee.
>>
>> 2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read
>> the
>> voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still
>> doesn't
>> mean we need to ignore from this issue
>>
>> Itzik
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:
>>
>>  Hello dear all,
>>>
>>> I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the
>>> election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not
>>> very many people responded.
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>> Ting
>>>
>>> Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:
>>>
>>>   On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>>>
   On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri 
 wrote:

>   I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give
> equal
>
>> right to everyone.
>>
>> Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
>> processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations
>> the
>> right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
>> chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like
>> saying
>>
>>  the
>
>  first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
>>
>>  want
>
>  to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their
>> "bosses"..
>>
>>   That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and
>>
> staff
> definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.
>  I
> leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
>
>
>
>   The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election
>
 started,
 with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may
 start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed
 to
 give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too
 many
 people a vote).  There is almost no variation between the voter
 eligibility
 this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are
 dates
 for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed
 because
 the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).

 I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election
 post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't
 lost to time.

 Risker (Election Committee Member)



 [1]
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_**
 elections_2013/Post_mortem>>> Wikimedia_Foundation_**elections_2013/Post_mortem
 >
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
 
 >
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
 mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
 >


>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
>>> 
>>> >
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
>>> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>>> >
>>>
>>>  __**_
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Ting Chen]

Hello Itzik

yes, you are right.

But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you 
know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and 
unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is 
also a volunteer driven committee. It is a tremendous effort. They have 
weekly meeting since February, and they did a lot of things. It is 
unfair to stand out now and say you are doing a bad job.


Greetings
Ting


Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri:

Ting, Risker,

1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be
volunteer  in the committee.

2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the
voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't
mean we need to ignore from this issue

Itzik


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:


Hello dear all,

I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the
election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.

Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not
very many people responded.

Greetings
Ting

Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:

  On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

  On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:

  I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal

right to everyone.

Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations
the
right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying


the


first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even


want


to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..

  That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and

staff
definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.  I
leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.



  The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election

started,
with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may
start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to
give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many
people a vote).  There is almost no variation between the voter
eligibility
this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are
dates
for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed
because
the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).

I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election
post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't
lost to time.

Risker (Election Committee Member)



[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_**
elections_2013/Post_mortem
__**_
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



__**_
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Itzik Edri]

Ting, Risker,

1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be
volunteer  in the committee.

2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the
voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't
mean we need to ignore from this issue

Itzik


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen  wrote:

> Hello dear all,
>
> I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the
> election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.
>
> Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not
> very many people responded.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
> Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:
>
>  On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>>
>>  On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:
>>>
>>>  I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
 right to everyone.

 Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
 processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations
 the
 right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
 chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying

>>> the
>>>
 first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even

>>> want
>>>
 to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..

  That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and
>>> staff
>>> definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.  I
>>> leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election
>> started,
>> with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may
>> start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to
>> give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many
>> people a vote).  There is almost no variation between the voter
>> eligibility
>> this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are
>> dates
>> for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed
>> because
>> the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).
>>
>> I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election
>> post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't
>> lost to time.
>>
>> Risker (Election Committee Member)
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_**
>> elections_2013/Post_mortem
>> __**_
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Ting Chen]

Hello dear all,

I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the 
election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time.


Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not 
very many people responded.


Greetings
Ting

Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker:

On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov  wrote:


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:


I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.

Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the
right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying

the

first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even

want

to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..


That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff
definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.  I
leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.




The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started,
with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may
start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to
give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many
people a vote).  There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility
this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates
for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because
the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).

I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election
post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't
lost to time.

Risker (Election Committee Member)



[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[rupert THURNER]

Absolutely! If there would be some always available public interface to
check if a user has voting right then this could be used on other votes and
elections in various languages as well, a little like the German wikipedias
"stimmberechtigung". This then could later on be adjusted to consider code
contributions to repositories important to wikimedias mission as well.

Rupert
 Am 28.04.2013 22:43 schrieb "Sue Gardner" :

> Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
> been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
> surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify
> under the edit count requirement anyway.
>
> Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
> requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
> so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify.
> If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower
> the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
> most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
> On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray"  wrote:
>
> > On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> > > also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
> > > better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all
> > > elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
> > > donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> > > essential to run the site are included.
> >
> > The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the
> > community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
> > first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in
> > without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
> > ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell
> > access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have
> > commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
> > and 15 May 2011."
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
> >
> > So we've already got those in :-)
> >
> > I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
> > (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
> > or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
> > *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
> > should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
> > Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
> > in Berlin!
> >
> > (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
> > course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
> > elections)
> >
> > - Andrew.
> >
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> > >> Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not
> active
> > on
> > >> the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
> the
> > >> chapter-selected board seats.
> > >>
> > >>A.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> > nemow...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
> > >>>
> > >>>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
> >  for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
> >  community. Presumably that would include most members of most
> >  organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
> >  workers who also participate as volunteers.
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while
> complicating
> > >>> them for a few dozens voters is not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Nemo
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> __**_
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Asaf Bartov
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >>
> > >> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the
> > >> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > >> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> >
> > _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Risker]

On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:
>
> > I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
> > right to everyone.
> >
> > Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
> > processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the
> > right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
> > chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
> the
> > first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
> want
> > to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
> >
>
> That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff
> definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.  I
> leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
>
>
>

The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started,
with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may
start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to
give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many
people a vote).  There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility
this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates
for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because
the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done).

I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election
post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't
lost to time.

Risker (Election Committee Member)



[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[phoebe ayers]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:
>
> > I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
> > right to everyone.
> >
> > Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
> > processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the
> > right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
> > chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying
> the
> > first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even
> want
> > to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
> >
>
> That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff
> definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.  I
> leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.
>

N.B. the discussion page for the election is here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013

-- phoebe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Asaf Bartov]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:

> I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
> right to everyone.
>
> Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
> processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the
> right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
> chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the
> first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want
> to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
>

That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff
definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections.  I
leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions.

A.
-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
If those three seats are to be elected by the community, then voting should
be restricted actually to the power editors. I could imagine that one of
those three seats - or, instead, a fourth one - is elected by the staff,
maybe plus the members of the Advisory board. E.g. Greenpeace Germany has
1/4 of its board members elected by staff.
With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3
by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the board
members would be not directly coopted.
Many other varieties are possible, of course. The staff could together vote
one elector who would take part in the selection by the chapters, the same
for the Wikimedia User Groups. But then, this voting group should select
ultimately not 2 but 3 seats.
People who don't edit but belong to the movement can have their influence
via the chapters and in future the thorgs.

>
> Kind regards
Ziko


-- 

---
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wikimedia.nl

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
---
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Mike Godwin]

Sue writes:


"Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
> been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
> surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify
> under the edit count requirement anyway.
>
> "Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
> requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
> so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify.
> If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower
> the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
> most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?"
>

It makes sense to me. I think many thoughtful people recognize that the
edit-count requirement is a fairly weak metric of engagement in the
Wikimedia community. I also think the exemptions actually have reflected
the same recognition -- that someone who is not a dedicated editor may be a
committed and contributing member of the community in other ways than
super-numerous recent edits.

That there should be some threshold of engagement I think is necessary to
prevent capture of WMF board, but I'm not sure it needs to be as high as it
is right now.

FWIW, when I was on staff I did not vote for WMF board positions, even
though I could, because I thought it was important in the role I was
playing to recuse myself from engagement in the elections. I don't think
that reasoning would apply to all staff members, but it felt applicable in
my particular case.


--Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[James Alexander]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I'd actually suggest the opposite:  That the only people eligible to vote
> for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia
> projects.  That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board
> eligibility.  Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter
> staffbut eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election
> every year that involves the entire community.
>
> Risker
>


Also speaking personally I'd completely agree. I think the chapter
community, while different, certainly deserves a role in the elections but
have never been fully comfortable with the separation of "chapter seats"
(or, I imagine if they were kept 'organization seats for movement groups
would probably be included too) and 'community seats'. Rather then push the
different community groups apart let us push them together and have them
all vote on all 5 of the community seats. Our community is spread out in to
many different areas but I'd say they are all part of the wider community
and I do not think any one deserves special recognition or status over the
others. These are 'your' board members compared to 'our' board members,
they should all be there to work for the foundation (as they are required
by law to do) and the movement as a whole.

James
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Steven Walling]

On Sunday, April 28, 2013, Risker wrote:

> I'd actually suggest the opposite:  That the only people eligible to vote
> for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia
> projects.  That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board
> eligibility.  Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter
> staffbut eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election
> every year that involves the entire community.
>
> Risker


Speaking personally, I agree with Risker.


>
>
>
>
> On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner  wrote:
>
> > Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff
> had
> > been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
> > surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would
> qualify
> > under the edit count requirement anyway.
> >
> > Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
> > requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
> > so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would
> qualify.
> > If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to
> lower
> > the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
> > most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sue
> > On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray" 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
> > > > also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
> > > > better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for
> all
> > > > elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
> > > > donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> > > > essential to run the site are included.
> > >
> > > The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the
> > > community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
> > > first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in
> > > without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
> > > ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell
> > > access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have
> > > commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
> > > and 15 May 2011."
> > >
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
> > >
> > > So we've already got those in :-)
> > >
> > > I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
> > > (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
> > > or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
> > > *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
> > > should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
> > > Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
> > > in Berlin!
> > >
> > > (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
> > > course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
> > > elections)
> > >
> > > - Andrew.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >> Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not
> > active
> > > on
> > > >> the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
> > the
> > > >> chapter-selected board seats.
> > > >>
> > > >>A.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> > > nemow...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the
> election
> > >  for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
> > >  community. Presumably that would include most members of most
> > >  organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
> > > 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Risker]

I'd actually suggest the opposite:  That the only people eligible to vote
for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia
projects.  That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board
eligibility.  Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter
staffbut eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election
every year that involves the entire community.

Risker




On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner  wrote:

> Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
> been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
> surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify
> under the edit count requirement anyway.
>
> Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
> requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
> so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify.
> If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower
> the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
> most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
> On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray"  wrote:
>
> > On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> > > also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
> > > better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all
> > > elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
> > > donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> > > essential to run the site are included.
> >
> > The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the
> > community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
> > first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in
> > without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
> > ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell
> > access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have
> > commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
> > and 15 May 2011."
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
> >
> > So we've already got those in :-)
> >
> > I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
> > (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
> > or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
> > *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
> > should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
> > Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
> > in Berlin!
> >
> > (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
> > course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
> > elections)
> >
> > - Andrew.
> >
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> > >> Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not
> active
> > on
> > >> the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
> the
> > >> chapter-selected board seats.
> > >>
> > >>A.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> > nemow...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
> > >>>
> > >>>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
> >  for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
> >  community. Presumably that would include most members of most
> >  organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
> >  workers who also participate as volunteers.
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while
> complicating
> > >>> them for a few dozens voters is not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Nemo
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> __**_
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Asaf Bartov
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >>
> > >> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the
> > >> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > >> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.g...

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[MF-Warburg]

2013/4/28 Pavel Richter 

> 2013/4/28 Sue Gardner 
>
> > If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to
> lower
> > the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
> > most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
> >
> > Yes, that would be a very good solution!
>
> Pavel
>
>

That's probably why edits on all wikis count already.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013#Requirements
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Pavel Richter]

2013/4/28 Sue Gardner 

> If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower
> the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
> most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
>
> Yes, that would be a very good solution!

Pavel


> Thanks,
> Sue
> On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray"  wrote:
>
> > On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> > > also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
> > > better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all
> > > elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
> > > donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> > > essential to run the site are included.
> >
> > The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the
> > community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
> > first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in
> > without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
> > ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell
> > access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have
> > commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
> > and 15 May 2011."
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
> >
> > So we've already got those in :-)
> >
> > I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
> > (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
> > or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
> > *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
> > should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
> > Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
> > in Berlin!
> >
> > (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
> > course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
> > elections)
> >
> > - Andrew.
> >
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> > >> Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not
> active
> > on
> > >> the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
> the
> > >> chapter-selected board seats.
> > >>
> > >>A.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> > nemow...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
> > >>>
> > >>>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
> >  for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
> >  community. Presumably that would include most members of most
> >  organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
> >  workers who also participate as volunteers.
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while
> complicating
> > >>> them for a few dozens voters is not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Nemo
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> __**_
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Asaf Bartov
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >>
> > >> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the
> > >> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > >> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Sarah Stierch]

I think it's a good idea Sue. Wikipedians are different than Wikimedians,
etc.. There are many people on boards of chapters and involved in the
community that might not "edit" on wiki spaces, making them perhaps unable
to vote. And there are a lot of people involved in the community that
aren't editors or active on wiki, but, are strong voices involved in
helping to shape the movement into what it is.

I also think, culturally, it's critical that we consider moving away from
assuming people with high edit counts are more "important" than those
without. (bytes versus edit counts)

Regarding staff members who vote - I have a feeling most staff members who
do not contribute to the projects outside of their work obligations
probably won't vote. Just a guess (based on what I gather around the office
- just because you work for Wikimedia doesn't mean you contribute to our
projects outside of work hours).


-Sarah


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Sue Gardner  wrote:

> Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
> been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
> surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify
> under the edit count requirement anyway.
>
> Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
> requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
> so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify.
> If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower
> the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
> most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
> On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray"  wrote:
>
> > On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> > > also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
> > > better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all
> > > elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
> > > donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> > > essential to run the site are included.
> >
> > The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the
> > community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
> > first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in
> > without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
> > ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell
> > access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have
> > commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
> > and 15 May 2011."
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
> >
> > So we've already got those in :-)
> >
> > I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
> > (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
> > or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
> > *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
> > should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
> > Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
> > in Berlin!
> >
> > (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
> > course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
> > elections)
> >
> > - Andrew.
> >
> >
> > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> > >> Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not
> active
> > on
> > >> the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting
> the
> > >> chapter-selected board seats.
> > >>
> > >>A.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> > nemow...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
> > >>>
> > >>>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
> >  for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
> >  community. Presumably that would include most members of most
> >  organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
> >  workers who also participate as volunteers.
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while
> complicating
> > >>> them for a few dozens voters is not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Nemo
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> __**_
> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Asaf Bartov
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >>
> > >> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the
> > >> sum of all knowledge. Help us make

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Sue Gardner]

Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify
under the edit count requirement anyway.

Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify.
If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower
the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?

Thanks,
Sue
On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, "Andrew Gray"  wrote:

> On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> > also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
> > better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all
> > elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
> > donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> > essential to run the site are included.
>
> The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the
> community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
> first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in
> without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
> ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell
> access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have
> commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
> and 15 May 2011."
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en
>
> So we've already got those in :-)
>
> I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
> (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
> or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
> *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
> should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
> Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
> in Berlin!
>
> (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
> course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
> elections)
>
> - Andrew.
>
>
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> >> Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not active
> on
> >> the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the
> >> chapter-selected board seats.
> >>
> >>A.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> nemow...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
> >>>
> >>>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
>  for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
>  community. Presumably that would include most members of most
>  organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
>  workers who also participate as volunteers.
> 
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating
> >>> them for a few dozens voters is not.
> >>>
> >>> Nemo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> __**_
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Asaf Bartov
> >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> >>
> >> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the
> >> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> >> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Andrew Gray]

On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER  wrote:
> also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
> better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all
> elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
> donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> essential to run the site are included.

The first elections (in 2004) had a simple "three months in the
community" rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The
first election with any "complicated" rules - allowing people in
without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff,
ex-Board members, *and* "Wikimedia server administrators with shell
access" were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who "have
commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010
and 15 May 2011."

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en

So we've already got those in :-)

I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
(those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
*both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
in Berlin!

(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
elections)

- Andrew.


> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
>> Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not active on
>> the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the
>> chapter-selected board seats.
>>
>>A.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
>>>
>>>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
 for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
 community. Presumably that would include most members of most
 organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
 workers who also participate as volunteers.

>>>
>>> I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating
>>> them for a few dozens voters is not.
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>>
>>> __**_
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
>>> Unsubscribe: 
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Asaf Bartov
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>
>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
>> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Huib Laurens]

I would say my view on the voting rules also, like last year where I was a
active editor but wasn't allowed to vote because of the rule that you can't
be blocked on more then one project.

I was that year a administrator, list administrator and member of the
LangCom. But was blocked on a project where I was active before and on a
project where I never editted.. This made me not able to vote.

With the rule of being blocked it will be very EASY to remove people you
don't want to vote... Just block them for a while and they can't vote.

The rules of the voting should be changed, so that it would be more easy
for people to vote and not let there be a change that people can be
excluded from voting by just random facts.

Huib


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Itzik Edri  wrote:

> I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
> right to everyone.
>
> Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
> processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the
> right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
> chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the
> first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want
> to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
> > I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
> > for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
> > community. Presumably that would include most members of most
> > organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
> > workers who also participate as volunteers.
> >
> > Most chapter members and representatives participate not only in the
> > community elections but also in the selection of chapter-nominated
> > board seats. It doesn't seem like chapters as a group are at all
> > disenfranchised.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,

Huib Laurens
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Itzik Edri]

I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.

Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the
right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not
chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the
first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want
to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses"..


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
> for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
> community. Presumably that would include most members of most
> organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
> workers who also participate as volunteers.
>
> Most chapter members and representatives participate not only in the
> community elections but also in the selection of chapter-nominated
> board seats. It doesn't seem like chapters as a group are at all
> disenfranchised.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Katie Chan]

On 28/04/2013 06:15, rupert THURNER wrote:

also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all
elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
essential to run the site are included.


Erm...

"Developers qualify to vote if they:



Have commit access and have made at least one merged commit in git 
between 1 May 2012 and 30 April 2013."


--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the 
author is associated with or employed by.



Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Benjamin Lees]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:15 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:

> and at least my wish would be that people who
> donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> essential to run the site are included.
>

In the 2011 election, anyone active with commit access (that is, the
ability to change code in the software repository) also got a vote.  It
looks like that will be the case for this election, too.

In principle, I would expect more people to be eligible to vote as
developers this time, because the new version control system (Git instead
of Subversion) doesn't have the same barriers to access.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

agreed - I actually don't see a reason why the elections should not be
limited to Wikimedia editors with some edit count. I would assume that if
there are people in other categories currently eligible to vote, who would
lose this privilege if they were required to do some minimal amount of
editing, it is not too much of a burden to ask them to start editing, if
they indeed want to participate in the community also through elections.

best,

dj / pundit


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:15 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:

> also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
> better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all
> elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
> donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
> essential to run the site are included.
>
> rupert.
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
> > Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not active
> on
> > the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the
> > chapter-selected board seats.
> >
> >A.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <
> nemow...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
> >>
> >>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
> >>> for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
> >>> community. Presumably that would include most members of most
> >>> organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
> >>> workers who also participate as volunteers.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating
> >> them for a few dozens voters is not.
> >>
> >> Nemo
> >>
> >>
> >> __**_
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Asaf Bartov
> > Wikimedia Foundation 
> >
> > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 

__
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[rupert THURNER]

also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to
better standardize and with it simplify "volunteer community", for all
elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who
donate their time by sending code patches to software considered
essential to run the site are included.

rupert.

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
> Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not active on
> the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the
> chapter-selected board seats.
>
>A.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
>
>> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
>>
>>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
>>> for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
>>> community. Presumably that would include most members of most
>>> organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
>>> workers who also participate as volunteers.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating
>> them for a few dozens voters is not.
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>>
>> __**_
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
>> Unsubscribe: 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Asaf Bartov]

Also agree with Nathan.  Those chapter board members who are not active on
the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the
chapter-selected board seats.

   A.


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

> Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:
>
>  I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
>> for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
>> community. Presumably that would include most members of most
>> organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
>> workers who also participate as volunteers.
>>
>
> I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating
> them for a few dozens voters is not.
>
> Nemo
>
>
> __**_
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org 
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34:

I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
community. Presumably that would include most members of most
organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
workers who also participate as volunteers.


I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating 
them for a few dozens voters is not.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Nathan]

I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election
for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer
community. Presumably that would include most members of most
organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid
workers who also participate as volunteers.

Most chapter members and representatives participate not only in the
community elections but also in the selection of chapter-nominated
board seats. It doesn't seem like chapters as a group are at all
disenfranchised.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Itzik Edri]

As you know, the Wikimedia Foundation elections is approaching. As always,
the voters will be the community, developers, current board member and..
WMF staff and contractors. Nothing changed. same as two years ago.

But I wonder - we had this policy when the chapters and others recognized
Wikimedia organization doesn't been really part of the equation.

Yes, many of the chapters board and staff are community members and have
the right the vote - but this is also the case with many of the WMF
employees, but still we giving some of them the right to vote even if they
hardly ever edit on the projects. But we not giving the same right to our's
board and chapters staff, who are also part of the movement.

I'm raising this issue, and asking if should chapter (and
thematic organization) staff and board members should be granted the right
to vote in the movement elections, in the same way as Foundation staff and
board members have right now? To me it's making sense.

Itzik
WMIL
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l