Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-02-01 Thread Steinsplitter Wiki

"We are fully committed to filling the open community-selected seat through a 
transparent proces (...)"  
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/James_Heilman_removal_FAQ#Will_the_Board_support_and_accept_the_next_community-selected_member.3F)

So it wasn't true what was wrote there? :/

> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> From: m...@gondwanaland.com
> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:51:37 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari 
> to Wikimedia Foundation Board
> 
> On 01/30/2016 07:19 AM, Risker wrote:
> > While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the
> > Board.  Does the community voting process want to try to take that on?  How
> > would we do such a thing?
> 
> I wildly speculate that it could be done through a voter pledge,
> sketched at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Linksvayer/Community-led_board_diversity_quotas
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-02-01 Thread Pharos
I think an analysis of the past Wikimedia community election results, with
a variety of different voting (and counting) methods, could show the best
path toward achieving diversity in elected seats, without necesarilly
resorting to quotas or separate contests.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Mike Linksvayer 
wrote:

> On 01/30/2016 07:19 AM, Risker wrote:
> > While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the
> > Board.  Does the community voting process want to try to take that on?
> How
> > would we do such a thing?
>
> I wildly speculate that it could be done through a voter pledge,
> sketched at
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Linksvayer/Community-led_board_diversity_quotas
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-31 Thread Mike Linksvayer
On 01/30/2016 07:19 AM, Risker wrote:
> While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the
> Board.  Does the community voting process want to try to take that on?  How
> would we do such a thing?

I wildly speculate that it could be done through a voter pledge,
sketched at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Linksvayer/Community-led_board_diversity_quotas

Mike




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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-30 Thread Anders Wennersten
My personal analysis comes to the conclusion that the voting 
formula/voting system needs to be redesigned before next election. The 
current one has serious flaws related to the oppose option. It is both 
open to "smart" voting (manipulation) and it also gives undue weight to 
the oppose option.


There are several ways a redesign can be done, from keeping the SNO but 
with a modified formula to changing it to one of the options Chris 
mention or others.


With the set up of a standing committee there will be ample time to work 
with this issue before next election. And I expect it will be done with 
involving the community on lists and meta


Anders

Den 2016-01-30 kl. 10:00, skrev Chris Keating:

It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best
option in these circumstances.

Simple positive voting,  single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze
would all do that.

I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election
committee to consider now how the next community election will be set up?

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




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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-30 Thread Chris Keating
It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best
option in these circumstances.

Simple positive voting,  single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze
would all do that.

I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election
committee to consider now how the next community election will be set up?

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-30 Thread James Alexander
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best
> option in these circumstances.
>
> Simple positive voting,  single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze
> would all do that.
>
> I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election
> committee to consider now how the next community election will be set up?
>
> Chris



There is indeed, the board approved a resolution to create the committee
 in
November which was published recently. I've already talked a bit about it
with the members of the most recent election committee but once it was
published I was wary of moving forward with the conversion to a standing
committee until we knew exactly what was happening with James' seat. Now
that that seems to be done I'm hoping to work with everyone over the next
couple weeks to get it going.


James Alexander
Manager
Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-30 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter



While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the
Board.  Does the community voting process want to try to take that on?  
How

would we do such a thing?

Risker/Anne



I think here we only have two options:

1) To decide that one (or two) of the community-elected seats is only 
given to a certain group of people, for example, women, or residents of 
the Global South (in which case, obviously, the latter should be defined 
properly - I already indicate previously that currently Russia and 
Moldova are counted as Global North, and Ukraine and Belarus as Global 
South which affects e.g. Wikimania fellowships - nobody seems to care). 
This would probably mean a separate contest for these seats and the 
general contest for the remaining ones.


2) To decide that the diversity should be ensured by appointed and 
possibly by chapter-selected seats. This is pretty much what we are 
doing now.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-30 Thread Risker
Well, the easiest way to determine a "next best" option is to build it into
the bylaws.  It's clear what would happen if, before an appointment, a
"selected" candidate was found to be problematic - it goes to the 4th place
candidate - but the bylaws don't go into what happens post appointment.
Really, the selection of who steps up if a trustee-elect or trustee post
appointment leaves/is removed from the Board has nothing much to do with
the voting system.  Once the vote is done and the candidates are ranked,
that's the end of it.  It's whether or not the results of the most recent
vote will be used to replace a trustee-elect or trustee post appointment
that is only partially answered at this time.

I'd be supportive of changing to a system that doesn't overweight
opposition to a candidate,but any replacement system should be very easily
understood by voters.  The Schulze system is remarkably easy to game, was
definitely misunderstood by many voters, and often resulted in candidates
nobody wanted getting ranked higher than candidates that people were
indifferent about.  Organizations that used to use forms of the Schulze
system have largely moved away from it and use other systems now that are
more intuitive for voters. Hardly anyone in the WIkimedia world would even
know about the Schulze system if it hadn't been selected many years back;
retrospective review of that decision process showed it was very flawed and
was based at least in part on the Enwiki article about the Schulze system -
an article that has needed cleanup since at least 2006.

There are plenty of voting systems out there that are intended to give
multiple-winner results.  I'd like to see something selected that is (a)
designed to give multiple winners, (b) is simple and intuitive for voters
and (c) has some sort of process for voters to identify clearly the
candidates they feel are very inappropriate for the role.

While we're at it...diversity remains a very serious problem for the
Board.  Does the community voting process want to try to take that on?  How
would we do such a thing?

Risker/Anne

On 30 January 2016 at 04:00, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> It would be good if the voting system was built to give a clear next best
> option in these circumstances.
>
> Simple positive voting,  single transferable vote, and proportional Schulze
> would all do that.
>
> I wonder if there's any movement on the idea of a standing election
> committee to consider now how the next community election will be set up?
>
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-29 Thread Anders Wennersten
Actually the formula used (S/S+O) is from a ranking point identical to 
(S-O/S+O) (=(S-O)/(Total-Neutral). And the result would have been 
different if the formula (S-O)/Total had been used (Maria would have 
been in). So in some ways it was the Neutral votes who decided, or 
rather that the formula used disregard the Neutral ones, saw them as 
identical to abstain.


A discussion exist on the election pages already and for future election 
it is worthwhile to look into how the neutral votes should be taken into 
account  (and if there a distinction between abstain and neutral).


Anders



Den 2016-01-29 kl. 18:02, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter:


Whereas this is a correct statement, it is irrelevant. The voters 
voted knowing that only support votes count. If the system were 
different, they could have voted differently.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voting formula was Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-29 Thread Adam Wight
I found that the "support percentage" formula S/(S+O) fails some important
criteria for voting systems, for example it gives more weight to a vote for
minor candidates, which violates the one person, one vote principle among
others.  "Net support" (S-O) is equally obscure and problematic.  My
personal suggestion is to stick with straight "approval" voting, ranking
winners by the total number of support votes, rather than attempting to
invent or explain more exotic systems.

If we still want to factor in oppose votes as a measure of
"controversiality", we can set a minimum support percentage, rather than
using it to rank directly.  Looking at the support percentages for the top
5 candidates in the last election, they were within 5% of one another and
the score was quite inappropriate to use for ranking.  Sigh, lessons
learned!

Here's my analysis, I'd be happy to move to the main namespace if others
want to expand on it:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis

-Adam
[[mw:User:Adamw]]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:28 AM Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> Actually the formula used (S/S+O) is from a ranking point identical to
> (S-O/S+O) (=(S-O)/(Total-Neutral). And the result would have been
> different if the formula (S-O)/Total had been used (Maria would have
> been in). So in some ways it was the Neutral votes who decided, or
> rather that the formula used disregard the Neutral ones, saw them as
> identical to abstain.
>
> A discussion exist on the election pages already and for future election
> it is worthwhile to look into how the neutral votes should be taken into
> account  (and if there a distinction between abstain and neutral).
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2016-01-29 kl. 18:02, skrev Yaroslav M. Blanter:
> >
> > Whereas this is a correct statement, it is irrelevant. The voters
> > voted knowing that only support votes count. If the system were
> > different, they could have voted differently.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,