Alright, it's almost 8pm MT, so I think we should call this. As of,
the winning candidate is Abhay Natu with three votes. Every candidate
got at least two votes, which I think is a testament to the strengths
of all of them. Thanks to everybody who applied, voted or discussed
this proposal!

Abhay: you need to apply at ASAP
-- hopefully you'll still make it before anybody shows up at the
office Monday morning (in around four hours!). Congratulations, and we
look forward to hearing from you once you get back!


On 8 January 2017 at 14:52, Isarra Yos <> wrote:
> On 08/01/17 19:22, Neal McBurnett wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 02:04:23PM -0500, Gaurav Vaidya wrote:
>>>> On 8 Jan 2017, at 1:54 PM, Neal McBurnett <>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> The hard deadline to apply is sometime today (unclear exactly when), so
>>>> please jump in now so our winning candidate can register and actually
>>>> attend!
>>>> See background, candidates and "Support" votes at
>>>> I imagine that people can express opinions about and support as many
>>>> candidates as they like, "Approval voting style"
>>>> ( so I've done so.  If folks
>>>> think we should have different ground rules, please speak up about that 
>>>> also
>>>> ;)
>>> Yay, thanks! How does Approval Voting work if you vote for all the
>>> candidates, though? Doesn’t that mean that only my (old-fashioned,
>>> first-past-the-post) vote counts?
>> Good question.  All votes of support count.  Supporting everyone is a
>> valid opinion (and the world would be a better place with more widespread
>> support of each other ;).  The winner (if we use this process, vs random
>> selection) would simply be the candidate with the most support.
>> But even as an election geek, I haven't dug properly in to the various
>> ways decisions are made in Wikimedia-land, so I welcome insights and
>> alternative proposals.  If more of us had responded back when you brought
>> this all up, Gaurav, we might have done something more sensible.  E.g. does
>> it make more sense to have public votes, or a secret ballot for this sort of
>> thing?  Hopefully our delegate will find out more at the conference ;)
> Generally speaking, if it works at all, you can be pretty sure at least SOME
> group within wikimedia does it. It's a wide and very diverse movement, so I
> don't think we need to worry about being strange, at least...
> And I see no problem with approval voting, at least.
>>> We could set a deadline for 5pm or 7pm MT unless we hear back from your
>>> query to the Foundation. If we don’t have enough votes for a winning
>>> candidate (maybe three?), it might be more fair to pick one randomly, which
>>> I’d have no problem with — all three candidates are GREAT, and I’d no
>>> problem with sending any of them to this meeting!
>> Great questions and ideas.  Thanks again, Gaurav!
> Yeah, sure, unless either you or Abhay feel particularly inclined (more than
> the other, I mean) to put in a very rushed official registration thing.
> Given they didn't specify a time zone, we can probably get away with using
> MST, but normally it probably would be UTC, and it's already pretty late on
> that clock.
> So, uh, let's just move forward and send a thorough prodding to the unlucky
> winner (you're going to have to do work, you know) around 18:00 local.
> -I
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-US-CO mailing list

Wikimedia-US-CO mailing list

Reply via email to