Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board members  
who took the initiative and launched this
process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election 
facilitators as well.

Best Regards,
Rajeeb Dutta.
(U: Marajozkee).
Sent from my iPhone

> On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski <> 
> wrote:
> The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important
> step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our movement. I
> thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
> process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked restlessly
> to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
> productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
> The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful. Congratulations!
> From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through such
> a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
> Cheers,
> João
> User:Joalpe
> Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven <>
> escreveu:
>> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
>> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
>> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
>> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
>> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
>> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
>> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
>> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
>> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
>> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
>> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
>> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
>> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
>> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
>> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
>> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
>> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
>> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
>> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
>> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
>> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
>> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
>> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
>> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
>> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
>> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
>> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
>> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
>> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
>> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
>> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were
>> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new
>> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been
>> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
>> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at
>> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our
>> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
>> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
>> modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
>> modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
>> caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the
>> entire election.  We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next
>> ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a
>> feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
>> Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.  Regards,
>> Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
>> Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
>> <
>> [2]
>> <
>> [3]
>> <
>> [4]
>> <
>> [5]
>> <>*
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> and
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:,
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> and 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to