On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> # We use S/N/O for many other kinds of votes, including FDC, steward,
> Arbitration Committee, and featured content votes. I have not heard
> disagreement with it until now, which suggests that generally there is
> consensus for this system.
> ...
> # One of the best features of S/N/O is that it works to favor candidates
> who have consensus for them, i.e. have both a good quantity of supporters
> and have few people who oppose their election. If someone has many support
> votes and many oppose votes, this suggests that the person is relatively
> controversial, which probably makes them a less optimal choice for roles
> like FDC, Steward, Arbitration Committee, and WMF Board roles.

From my perspective, and I don't think it's unique, those elections
are quite different:

* FDC: Realistically, just people from chapters and thematic
organizations are interested in this. And if I am a Board member of a
chapter, my rational approach would be to approach other chapters and
make a deal with them who should be elected. Basically, that
population decides anyway. Besides the fact that a lot of us don't
feel comfortable to make political decision for expert seats, while we
don't have precise clue what we should require from the candidates.
It's not the duty of *every* member of the community to be an expert
in hiring grantmaking staff.

* English Wikipedia ArbCom: At some point of time I was very active on
en.wp, but I was never interested in en.wp governance (not even to
become an admin). I think that the majority of non-native English
speakers have such approach to en.wp. On the other side, I would note
that being a member of en.wp's ArbCom is highly stressful position and
I don't think that there are many of long-term ArbCom members (in
comparison to, let's say, WMF Board). I am sure that one of the most
important reasons are negative votes, exactly. You can't do good job
if you want to be reelected.

* Stewards are the third category and this system is actually perfect
for their elections: both public and requiring 80% of support.
Stewards are not going to reelections. Other stewards review their
work, while openness of the group is guarantied by constant elections.

* Negative votes tend to make the whole atmosphere much more tense,
stressful for both the community and Board members. Besides the
reasons I (and others) have given into the previous emails.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to