We should be careful in not shaming communities to vote poorly to save
face, or even vote for people they dont want as some may truly feel that
the candidates who have nominated wont be a good representative of the
community.

The individual votes are visable to every affiliate who has access to vote
and we all know that the more people who have access the more likely it'll
be shared anyway either in part or in full.

On 4 May 2016 at 00:24, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:

> Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
> voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
> electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.
>
> I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
> Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.
>
> But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
> chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
> isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
> order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
> voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
> cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
> is what we all want to achieve :-)
>
> A.
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same
> time:
> >
> > - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
> > after the election has finished)
> >
> > - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> > right now.
> >
> > It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made,
> and
> > it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election
> works
> > (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> > wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
> > (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> > with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
> >
> > So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of
> Chapters
> > in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so,
> would
> > it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> > voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they
> have
> > indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Liam
> >
> >
> > --
> > wittylama.com
> > Peace, love & metadata
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to