Agreed. Is this something that the Election Committee <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee>, as a standing committee not tied to a single election, can help with? SJ
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 7:30 AM Jan Ainali <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your reply Kaarel, > > I just wanted to note that UI of SecurePoll caused problem in the board > election too, and that the same excuse was used then "in a short time once". > Obviously this is a piece of infrastructure that we need in the movement > and that any team doing one election should not need to fix the software > for it. > > Hence, a specific project, unrelated to any election, should be tasked to > solve this by the Wikimedia Foundation. And it should start soon to avoid > us finding ourselves in the same problem when the next election is being > called. > > Thanks, > Jan Ainali > > > Den mån 18 okt. 2021 kl 13:02 skrev Kaarel Vaidla <[email protected]>: > >> Thank you everyone for taking the time to vote on the elections, for >> engaging with the tools that have been created to facilitate the voting, >> and for taking the time to provide the feedback. Running these elections >> with 70 candidates is a pilot and it is a great opportunity to learn >> together and with your support and input. We are gathering the lessons >> learned, so there can be improvements for the next time. >> >> I am responding to some of the points made in the thread: >> >> - The *user interface* and, as a result, the user experience for >> voting on the SecurePoll for 70 candidates with a Single Transferable >> Voting method is indeed sub-optimal. Unfortunately, we could not figure >> out >> how to make it more user friendly in a short time once it became clear >> that >> there would be 70 candidates. It would need essential changes on how the >> voting would happen. There are some suggestions for improvements in this >> thread (no dropbox, but clickable or drag & drop candidate chips; choosing >> a different voting method or creating 7-member districts). It would be >> great to receive further perspectives on this! >> >> >> - Thank you, Lodewijk, for sharing *practical guidance* on how to >> make the most of the current user interface. Typing the first letter of >> the >> candidate name to find the right one in the dropdown box with 70 names is >> probably the best way to do it. A huge thank you to everyone who is taking >> the time to cast their vote! >> >> >> - Ensuring the supporting materials to help people to make informed >> decisions has been a complex matter. The candidate statements >> >> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Candidates> >> add up to 55 pages of text, which is difficult to navigate. It seemed like >> a *compass tool* could be of help here, but it comes with its own >> complications: >> - There was a 10-day window to submit the statements and a 5-day >> upvoting period. We did our best to communicate it widely on mailing >> lists >> (e.g. here >> >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/7HVBI6M55MNVBKHNEDBEIUPSWFGJIBIE/> >> and here >> >> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/FAJ57JAR3VP75V23OKX6MEBYUHWIAYUY/>) >> as well as social media groups, yet as there is so.much going on, not >> everyone noticed it in the timely manner. >> - We are no longer collecting or upvoting statements. We hope that >> 19 that were selected are at least to some extent helpful in informing >> the >> voting. We are happy to receive the feedback regarding the statement >> collection and upvoting, so it would be possible to improve the >> process in >> the future. >> - Election compass has its own user interface and experience >> challenges. We have opted for all the candidates being selected as >> default >> for comparison, as it provides a good comparison across the pool - this >> helps to have a good overview of the positions of all the candidates. >> However, this makes navigating their rationale statements more >> difficult, >> as it involves a lot of scrolling. Also, if one is interested in >> comparing >> 2 candidates, there is a lot of deselecting that needs to happen. It >> seemed >> that selecting candidates manually would bring more personal bias into >> use >> of the tool, so we have chosen the select all approach as default. >> Overall, >> it is the number of candidates that is creating the bulk of the >> navigation >> and comparison issues and we are open to feedback on how to improve >> this in >> the future. >> - The length of the statements made by the candidates in the >> compass tool was capped to prevent us from creating another wall of >> text. >> While it helps to better understand the position of the candidate, it >> would >> create a further barrier for voter engagement, if the expression is not >> clear and concise. I believe that the word limits will be an essential >> part >> of the future elections and candidate statements, because it reduces >> the >> access barrier for voters and also facilitates translations to a wider >> range of languages, which makes the information even more accessible. >> What >> can be discussed is the exact limit size and also what information is >> the >> most helpful to collect from candidates. >> - The tool that we used is Open Election Compass >> <https://open-election-compass.com/>. We did not do a full code >> review for this, but we did not experience any anomalies in weighing >> of the >> votes during testing. If there are people who are interested in doing >> the >> code review, here is the link to the tool in GitHub >> <https://github.com/open-election-compass/client>. >> - We are truly grateful to the community members who have stepped in >> and tried to make the information regarding the candidates more easily >> digestible. This goes a long way in supporting informed voting in this >> process! Thank you Dušan Kreheľ and Andrew Lih for your proactive and >> constructive approach! >> >> I apologize for the length of the response - I have tried to break it up >> so the single points are more clear. I am available to respond to any >> further questions and specifications, as well as happy to receive any >> further feedback. >> >> Wishing everyone a great week ahead! >> Kaarel >> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:44 AM Mario Gómez <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:57 AM effe iets anders < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> This is a horribly problematic election. Not only does it take hours to >>>> go through the candidates if you actually want to rank them, but you would >>>> also need to be willing to spend about a lot of time to enter them into the >>>> broken voting interface (which works great for up to 5 candidates - not for >>>> 70). >>>> >>> >>> I filled about 14 candidates and it was not extremely bad, but for >>> anyone looking to rank more candidates, I guess it might have been >>> daunting. I agree that the dropdowns are a very inconvenient UI for this >>> kind of votation. I can imagine something more efficient like having chips >>> for every candidate (no dropdown), and then sequentially click on them to >>> add them to the ballot in order, then maybe supporting drag and drop to >>> re-order. Changing the order of candidates once the ballot is prepared is >>> particularly cumbersome. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Mario >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/B5KAHUEMXXPSFBDPM2ZQC6OFHUNVPUQS/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him) >> >> Movement Strategy <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2030> >> >> Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/A77244U2OHCS3SQHE4RADPHCTEWSF7IB/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/3SPBQENPZ3Y7EGCUCUHENK6DDKA3RRQO/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/GAFHVLXBMJFBZWRSS6BYU2ZAJKX3BDBX/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
