I have a lot of personal opinions on the method, questions process, etc.
Many of them will be shared in the committee's post mortem (others I will
be discarding as I now process the last several weeks).
Also, we are beginning to post some statistics that folks may find helpful:
We will be posting more on the blog next week about what all goes into
running the elections, and I am open to feedback on what additional
information we can share that would be helpful to the community. Our group
made an early commitment to transparency, and I hope that has come across
in our posting of major meeting minutes, posting of these stats, open
dialogue on Meta and email, a post mortem from the committee, and the
upcoming blog post.
Finally, I want to give a big thank you to my colleagues on the Elections
Committee. I was, by the nature of my tasks, a bit more visible - but
please know that everyone worked very hard, did a great job, and deserves
equal gratitude. Thank you Adrian, Anders, Daniel, Katie, Mardetanha,
Ruslan, Savh, and Trijnstel - as well as Risker, James, Alice, Philippe,
Geoff, Stephen, Sylvia, Heather, Tim, and a few others I'm sure I'm
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> Congratulations to the new Board members - I am sure you will do a great
> job. And commiserations to those who will be leaving the Board - thank you
> for all your hard work over many years.
> Also it is good to see a much higher turnout in this year's elections than
> in 2013 - well done to those involved :)
> On the subject of voting systems, though...
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Anders Wennersten <
> > David Cuenca Tudela skrev den 2015-06-06 09:01:
> >> However I must say that the results of this election are hilarious. The
> >> person with the most support votes doesn't win because of oppose votes
> >> Why hilarious? We had a full consensus in the election Committee to go
> > for S/N/O voting, it is a kind of standard procedure in the Wikimedia
> Many people looked at voting systems before the Wikimedia movement existed
> and virtually none of them settled on the system we ended up with. Perhaps
> this should tell us something!
> To my mind the key problems with the present system are:
> 1) Oppose votes have greater weight than support votes. In this case, Maria
> would have needed 136 additional support votes to win, or 46 fewer oppose
> votes. In effect an Oppose vote was worth 2.96 times as much as a support
> vote for her. As a result, being non-opposed is much more important than
> being supported. The penalty for doing anything controversial is
> 2) There is nothing in the process to produce any diversity in the result.
> Say that there was a 2/3 to 1/3 split in the electorate on some important
> issue. The right answer would surely be that you elect 2 people with one
> view and 1 with the other. However, in this voting system you would likely
> end up electing 3 people from the majority point of view. Because the
> Wikimedia movement is much more complex than this it is difficult to
> conclude that there was any particular issue like this that would have
> affected the result, but still, the point applies. The voting system builds
> in homogeneity not diversity.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: