[Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Hello, fellow Wikimedians. On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election (2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits within 6 months. This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members. This still does not account for all community members though, and we would like your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and how to quantify other types of contributions). In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up: * Advisory Board members * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain number of commits (what number is sufficient?) * Donors ** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the limit?) * University students in the Ambassadors program * Researchers with access to the research user right So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be eligible to vote? Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board elections/2011]]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011or to the board elections list, board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! On behalf of the Election Committee, Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Is Google allowing users to block Wikipedia?
2011/3/20 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com One thing that might be worth telling Google would be to have some kind of warning when one searches from something else entirely, that would say results are also present in one of the sites you blocked or something like that, so that the hurdle of looking into your preferences is not barring people from even thinking about unblocking the websites they've blocked because of one page. Apparently they show a text like 2 blocked results are not shown, click to view them either at the top or the bottom of the results page depending on the place of the blocked results. Best regards, Bence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Allowing votes based on donations is likely to send the wrong message, however noble it might be. It really is too problematic - if the level is high then it allows buying votes where lower level donors could not; if it is low then paid-for voting swamps the informed users who may know the candidates and makes it more political. If donations are to be a criterion then I would suggest it must be met at least the last 2 years, not just one year - regular donors may be seen differently to once off donors. But this one is a can of worms and more trouble than it's worth - best not. What I would be interested in is some representative way to involve our other big category of the community - readers. Speculatively one could allow up to 50 or 100 reader votes, invite non-logged-in readers to apply by submitting their email address, select 50 - 100 by random poll proportionately by country (after checking for obvious duplicates) and allow them to vote. Again may be more trouble than it's worth, but it is important to consider if readers may have a say in what matters at the election. After all they are whom the project and all of our efforts are aimed at supporting. FT2 2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com Hello, fellow Wikimedians. On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election (2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits within 6 months. This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members. This still does not account for all community members though, and we would like your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and how to quantify other types of contributions). In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up: * Advisory Board members * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain number of commits (what number is sufficient?) * Donors ** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the limit?) * University students in the Ambassadors program * Researchers with access to the research user right So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be eligible to vote? Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board elections/2011]]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011 or to the board elections list, board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! On behalf of the Election Committee, Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people, we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to vote are expected to really make use of it. The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the home projects of the candidates without too much real interest in the elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your mail. The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to take part in them. Harel Cain Hebrew Wikipedia / Wikimedia Israel 2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com Hello, fellow Wikimedians. On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election (2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits within 6 months. This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members. This still does not account for all community members though, and we would like your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and how to quantify other types of contributions). In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up: * Advisory Board members * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain number of commits (what number is sufficient?) * Donors ** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the limit?) * University students in the Ambassadors program * Researchers with access to the research user right So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be eligible to vote? Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board elections/2011]]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011 or to the board elections list, board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! On behalf of the Election Committee, Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Relevance is a good point. I've always been a bit dubious about purely platform based voting, where you get N candidates and each says what they hope to do. It is common experience that once emplaced it's often difficult to deliver on promises. Wikimedia is built on radical grass-roots openness. Perhaps consider whether a different way might be better. Try this as a completely different approach, where the community suggests its priorities *prior to the election *. 1. This is done via a 2 week staging area where anyone can suggest a possible priority, duplicates can be dealt with, and proposed priorities getting more than 25 supports and 50% form a pool of “community priorities” 2. The resulting community priorities are listed 3. All candidates can comment briefly on each. This provides a far more focused election, where candidates can actually know and focus on what the community cares about. Matters that the community cares about will have received a specific comment from each candidate. The community can compare candidates' views on specific issues of wide interest, and vote based on the candidates' specific views on these. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com wrote: (snip) The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to take part in them. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com wrote: The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, I didn't vote last time. I ultimately didn't consider it worth my while researching the candidates and refreshing myself on issues that I'd missed given the steadily declining relevance of the community-elected board members on the operation of the Foundation. (This is not a comment on the members themselves - all of whom have been and continue to be excellent - but on the Board's composition, and the increasing dominance of the executive). -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com wrote: Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people, we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to vote are expected to really make use of it. The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the home projects of the candidates without too much real interest in the elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your mail. The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to take part in them. I don't think the point here is to increase voter turnout, though—rather, it's to prevent people who do quite a lot of off-wiki work to support Wikimedia, people who probably have more interest than most in the composition of the Board, from being unfairly disenfranchised as they (okay, we) have been in past elections. Incidentally, if the requirements are lowered as proposed, I can vote for the first time in three years! (Assuming I can vote from meta, that is.) Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:11, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Allowing votes based on donations is likely to send the wrong message, however noble it might be. It really is too problematic - if the level is high then it allows buying votes where lower level donors could not; if it is low then paid-for voting swamps the informed users who may know the candidates and makes it more political. If donations are to be a criterion then I would suggest it must be met at least the last 2 years, not just one year - regular donors may be seen differently to once off donors. But this one is a can of worms and more trouble than it's worth - best not. Yes, if it would be, let's say, $1000 and indiscriminately for the whole world. But, let's say $100 based on US nominal GDP PPP (let's say, according to CIA Factbook, as it is giving the widest range of countries) and adjusted for other countries' nominal GDP PPP would be, actually, a positive sign. That would mean that inhabitant of Qatar would have to give ~$350 to vote, while inhabitant of Burundi ~$0.5. That would, actually, raise a level of awareness that Wikimedia projects are working thanks to everybody's donations, while it would say that there is no need to be rich to give valued contribution. That's, BTW, the rule for present elections and based on previous donations. If the next Election committee realizes that there is significant abuse of that principle, it could change rules for the next elections. What I would be interested in is some representative way to involve our other big category of the community - readers. Speculatively one could allow up to 50 or 100 reader votes, invite non-logged-in readers to apply by submitting their email address, select 50 - 100 by random poll proportionately by country (after checking for obvious duplicates) and allow them to vote. Again may be more trouble than it's worth, but it is important to consider if readers may have a say in what matters at the election. After all they are whom the project and all of our efforts are aimed at supporting. That would be interesting! I would give that right not to 50-100 random users, but to 10,000. It is not likely that more than ~10% would use that right and readers are important to us. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think the point here is to increase voter turnout, though—rather, it's to prevent people who do quite a lot of off-wiki work to support Wikimedia, people who probably have more interest than most in the composition of the Board, from being unfairly disenfranchised as they (okay, we) have been in past elections. I would think there would be some developers contributing code to MediaWiki who are not also editors. Given the quasi-independence of MediaWiki development from everything else under the Wikimedia umbrella, would there still be enough connection to the Foundation's operations to render it desirable that they be enfranchised? (I would think so.) -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: But, let's say $100 based on US nominal GDP PPP (let's say, according to CIA Factbook, as it is giving the widest range of countries) and adjusted for other countries' nominal GDP PPP would be, actually, a positive sign. That would mean that inhabitant of Qatar would have to give ~$350 to vote, while inhabitant of Burundi ~$0.5. That would, actually, raise a level of awareness that Wikimedia projects are working thanks to everybody's donations, while it would say that there is no need to be rich to give valued contribution. Even so, it means that within a given country one can buy votes, and distribution can be very lop-sided. Still sends the wrong message. I would give that right not to 50-100 random users, but to 10,000. It is not likely that more than ~10% would use that right and readers are important to us. Because most readers would not vote (you reckon 10%, could be right), I suggested a different way of handling it. Instead of giving 10,000 readers at random a right to vote and expecting 10% to exercise it (=1000), I'd solicit all readers interested, and offer the desired number the right from within those who express interest. This means we know fairly closely how much say readers have in voting terms and aren't wrong-fotted by under or over response. An alternative would be that we decide the fixed percentage of the total vote given to readers (1/4? 1/3?), then however many readers vote, scale it as the agreed proportion of the cast votes. FT2 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy ... Marcos (aka Marctaltor) --- El dom, 20/3/11, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com escribió: De: FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: domingo, 20 de marzo, 2011 12:11 Allowing votes based on donations is likely to send the wrong message, however noble it might be. It really is too problematic - if the level is high then it allows buying votes where lower level donors could not; if it is low then paid-for voting swamps the informed users who may know the candidates and makes it more political. If donations are to be a criterion then I would suggest it must be met at least the last 2 years, not just one year - regular donors may be seen differently to once off donors. But this one is a can of worms and more trouble than it's worth - best not. What I would be interested in is some representative way to involve our other big category of the community - readers. Speculatively one could allow up to 50 or 100 reader votes, invite non-logged-in readers to apply by submitting their email address, select 50 - 100 by random poll proportionately by country (after checking for obvious duplicates) and allow them to vote. Again may be more trouble than it's worth, but it is important to consider if readers may have a say in what matters at the election. After all they are whom the project and all of our efforts are aimed at supporting. FT2 2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com Hello, fellow Wikimedians. On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election (2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits within 6 months. This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members. This still does not account for all community members though, and we would like your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and how to quantify other types of contributions). In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up: * Advisory Board members * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain number of commits (what number is sufficient?) * Donors ** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the limit?) * University students in the Ambassadors program * Researchers with access to the research user right So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be eligible to vote? Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board elections/2011]]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011 or to the board elections list, board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! On behalf of the Election Committee, Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Lowering the edit counts sounds good, it does however also have a downside, in that it makes it easier to vote using sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I agree with voices speaking out against giving voting rights based on donations; I do also think giving people voting rights based only on being 'readers' basically means giving it out to random people. There's two groups I would be first thinking of when extending the voting populace. The first is those with commit rights on the Mediawiki code (I'd feel a single commit in the last year would be enough - in general having been granted commit right shows already that one is active as a Mediawiki community member). The second would be participants of Wikimania or other Wikimedia or chapter events (using a specific but extensive list). -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
2011/3/20 marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es: I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy ... Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting rights, we usually call them members. :-) I understand well that those who already have voting rights are reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very beginning? Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Given our readership is random and a significant proportion of the global population, that seems quite appropriate. Not all readers will care but there will be enough who do and it's appropriate to give them a voice. (Also noteaworthy: we may also engage readers whom we otherwise don't reach as a byproduct. Not a big point but a plus) FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: I do also think giving people voting rights based only on being 'readers' basically means giving it out to random people. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
In the sense of members as participants, the world and our readers are ultimately our members. If one considers members to be those who tangibly contribute then I would say Wikimedia is not a members club. Its work is not done by members for benefit of members. It exists on a voluntary basis for the world as a whole, ie non-members (by that definition), and that is where our focus should always ultimately end up. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote: 2011/3/20 marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es: I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy ... Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting rights, we usually call them members. :-) I understand well that those who already have voting rights are reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very beginning? Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: Lowering the edit counts sounds good, it does however also have a downside, in that it makes it easier to vote using sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I agree with voices speaking out against giving voting rights based on donations; I do also think giving people voting rights based only on being 'readers' basically means giving it out to random people. There's two groups I would be first thinking of when extending the voting populace. The first is those with commit rights on the Mediawiki code (I'd feel a single commit in the last year would be enough - in general having been granted commit right shows already that one is active as a Mediawiki community member). The second would be participants of Wikimania or other Wikimedia or chapter events (using a specific but extensive list). -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I don't think it's a good idea to include donors especially donors above or below a certain point, to essentially buy the right to vote. As for developers, campus ambassadors - most of them are already community members, its their decision to vote or not. They are already composed of community members, their inclusion hasn't really been an issue in my opinion. The discussion about including readers into the voting pool has also been going on Meta [1]. I believe the 'reader' group is far too wide and random to be successfully considered a separate entity in the elections. Its also getting too close to the election to come up with policies and infrastructure to implement suffrage for random readers. I would point to the recently concluded Steward election as an example of who to include in the voting process. I would hope that the selection is limited to the community, at almost a 100,000, it's far larger than the voting pool of any other similar organization. Theo User:Theo10011 [1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011#Participation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
I think Wikimedia is not a club , and there's no fee for collaborating in its development. There is a difference, it seems to me, between a fee and a donation. I believe that FT 2 has explain it better than I. ;-) Marcos (aka Marctaltor) --- El dom, 20/3/11, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com escribió: De: Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: domingo, 20 de marzo, 2011 14:28 2011/3/20 marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es: I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy ... Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting rights, we usually call them members. :-) I understand well that those who already have voting rights are reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very beginning? Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Not so quick - I am paying fees, for Wikimedia Nederland and Wikimedia Deutschland. Would you say that they are not Wikimedia?`:-) Kind regards Ziko 2011/3/20 marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es: I think Wikimedia is not a club , and there's no fee for collaborating in its development. There is a difference, it seems to me, between a fee and a donation. I believe that FT 2 has explain it better than I. ;-) Marcos (aka Marctaltor) --- El dom, 20/3/11, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com escribió: De: Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: domingo, 20 de marzo, 2011 14:28 2011/3/20 marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es: I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy ... Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting rights, we usually call them members. :-) I understand well that those who already have voting rights are reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very beginning? Kind regards Ziko -- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
That's a different possible category. Should people who do not have capacity to vote as editors, but are paid-up members of a chapter, be able to vote in that capacity? (Alternatively, are chapter members' voting rights and involvement limited to the chapter if they haven't taken part in any wider activity?) I don't have a problem with it, provided their membership is long enough (6+ months?) before the election. There are probably good arguments both ways. A lot depends on personal philosophy: whether you see the foundation and chapters, as effectively different arms of the same thing or as distinct. For example, if they are different arms of the same thing then there would be commonsense reasons to share donor lists (as John Vandenberg raises) as there is no reason why 2 parts of the same project would withold information from each other. If they are distinct then paying membership to one may not lead to voting franchise for the board of the other. There's considerable philosophy here that spreads far beyond the election, it may be better to discuss it before it's a problem in any way while it's fresh and malleable, but the board election isn't really the context to do so. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote: Not so quick - I am paying fees, for Wikimedia Nederland and Wikimedia Deutschland. Would you say that they are not Wikimedia?`:-) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Hello FT2, as members of a chapter, people already can decide about the consistence of the WMF board - at least, indirectly. I mean the general principle that someone pays and can vote, it's not so strange. But I concede that we would then have to ask ourselves how much money is equivalent to what number of edits... Ziko 2011/3/20 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com: That's a different possible category. Should people who do not have capacity to vote as editors, but are paid-up members of a chapter, be able to vote in that capacity? (Alternatively, are chapter members' voting rights and involvement limited to the chapter if they haven't taken part in any wider activity?) I don't have a problem with it, provided their membership is long enough (6+ months?) before the election. There are probably good arguments both ways. A lot depends on personal philosophy: whether you see the foundation and chapters, as effectively different arms of the same thing or as distinct. For example, if they are different arms of the same thing then there would be commonsense reasons to share donor lists (as John Vandenberg raises) as there is no reason why 2 parts of the same project would withold information from each other. If they are distinct then paying membership to one may not lead to voting franchise for the board of the other. There's considerable philosophy here that spreads far beyond the election, it may be better to discuss it before it's a problem in any way while it's fresh and malleable, but the board election isn't really the context to do so. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.comwrote: Not so quick - I am paying fees, for Wikimedia Nederland and Wikimedia Deutschland. Would you say that they are not Wikimedia?`:-) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com: Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board elections/2011]]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011or to the board elections list, board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! So, Jon posted this just four hours ago, specifically pointing to a page on meta, and there are now more than 20 on-list replies. I've seen a lot of great ideas, but for the benefit of those who aren't subscribed to this list, perhaps we can try to keep the discussion there? Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com: Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board elections/2011]]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011or to the board elections list, board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! So, Jon posted this just four hours ago, specifically pointing to a page on meta, and there are now more than 20 on-list replies. I've seen a lot of great ideas, but for the benefit of those who aren't subscribed to this list, perhaps we can try to keep the discussion there? (And yes, I know Jon said you could reply here—this is just a personal request, because I'm already seeing crosstalk.) Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
I agree with Harel, there are huge numbers of editors who are entitled to vote and don't do so. I think we put some effort into welcoming newbies and forget that becoming part of the community is a process and state of mind rather than a single event. I think that a bot message from Jimbo or the foundation thanking people for their 500th edit and saying that they are now entitled to vote in trustee elections could be a very good way to build the community. You'd need to phrase it carefully though:) WereSpielChequers -- Message: 6 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:32:35 +0200 From: Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTinno=bdmacweqsqwfduwspegnoq0yvwh7adp...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people, we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to vote are expected to really make use of it. The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the home projects of the candidates without too much real interest in the elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your mail. The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to take part in them. Harel Cain Hebrew Wikipedia / Wikimedia Israel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
I don't think I voted, I seldom vote in any election. The reason is that I seldom know much about the candidates, and have no reliable way of finding out much. I could, together with others, seriously investigate who the candidates are and what they stand for, but I don't think publishing such information and talking about it would be welcome; spending that much time and effort just to determine one vote, mine, is not worthwhile. Correct me if I'm wrong. Frankly, I think the combination of secret ballots and lack of communication among disinterested voters will in short order put control of both the Foundation and the English Wikipedia in the hands of people with agendas who do communicate with one another, privately. That has certainly been my experience in any organization I was in. Fred I agree with Harel, there are huge numbers of editors who are entitled to vote and don't do so. I think we put some effort into welcoming newbies and forget that becoming part of the community is a process and state of mind rather than a single event. I think that a bot message from Jimbo or the foundation thanking people for their 500th edit and saying that they are now entitled to vote in trustee elections could be a very good way to build the community. You'd need to phrase it carefully though:) WereSpielChequers -- Message: 6 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:32:35 +0200 From: Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTinno=bdmacweqsqwfduwspegnoq0yvwh7adp...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people, we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to vote are expected to really make use of it. The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the home projects of the candidates without too much real interest in the elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your mail. The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to take part in them. Harel Cain Hebrew Wikipedia / Wikimedia Israel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com: * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain number of commits (what number is sufficient?) Some things to keep in mind: * Anyone can create an account to edit. Getting commit access by itself requires as much effort as a fairly large number of typical edits. * There are very few developers. git shortlog -sn | wc -l says there were 278 separate accounts who made commits anywhere in Wikimedia's SVN repository, *ever*. Some of those are duplicates, too, so the actual figure is probably slightly lower. * Almost all developers who would be interested in voting will have made at least twenty edits to some project in the last six months. I'd consider myself almost totally inactive as an editor -- I mostly just fix the occasional error in articles I'm reading -- but I've made more than that many edits to enwiki in the last six months. So if you just allowed everyone with commit access to vote, you'd probably wind up with like five extra people voting. Given that most developers do work that requires a lot more skill than most editing, it seems fair to me (although maybe I'm biased :) ). Alternatively, if you allow only people who have made at least one commit in the last six months, it's about 100 people total. On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: I would think there would be some developers contributing code to MediaWiki who are not also editors. Given the quasi-independence of MediaWiki development from everything else under the Wikimedia umbrella, would there still be enough connection to the Foundation's operations to render it desirable that they be enfranchised? (I would think so.) I don't know why you think MediaWiki is quasi-independent from other Wikimedia endeavors. MediaWiki is a registered trademark of Wikimedia, mediawiki.org is a Wikimedia site, the code is hosted by Wikimedia, Wikimedia is the biggest and most important user, and Wikimedia employees make the final determination on things like commit access and code review. It's certainly as much a Wikimedia project as is, say, Wikiversity. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
2011/3/21 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: I don't know why you think MediaWiki is quasi-independent from other Wikimedia endeavors. Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I know how many of them there are. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
Sent from my mobile device. On Mar 20, 2011 12:16 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I don't think I voted, I seldom vote in any election. The reason is that I seldom know much about the candidates, and have no reliable way of finding out much. I could, together with others, seriously investigate who the candidates are and what they stand for, but I don't think publishing such information and talking about it would be welcome; spending that much time and effort just to determine one vote, mine, is not worthwhile. Correct me if I'm wrong. Frankly, I think the combination of secret ballots and lack of communication among disinterested voters will in short order put control of both the Foundation and the English Wikipedia in the hands of people with agendas who do communicate with one another, privately. That has certainly been my experience in any organization I was in. Fred I agree with Harel, there are huge numbers of editors who are entitled to vote and don't do so. I think we put some effort into welcoming newbies and forget that becoming part of the community is a process and state of mind rather than a single event. I think that a bot message from Jimbo or the foundation thanking people for their 500th edit and saying that they are now entitled to vote in trustee elections could be a very good way to build the community. You'd need to phrase it carefully though:) WereSpielChequers -- Message: 6 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:32:35 +0200 From: Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTinno=bdmacweqsqwfduwspegnoq0yvwh7adp...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people, we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to vote are expected to really make use of it. The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the home projects of the candidates without too much real interest in the elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your mail. The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to take part in them. Harel Cain Hebrew Wikipedia / Wikimedia Israel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
Thumb placed on problem. FT2 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:33 PM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: I think we ... forget that becoming part of the community is a process and state of mind rather than a single event. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I know how many of them there are. I don't see how that makes them any more separate from other projects than, say, Wikibooks is separate from Wikipedia. Yes, there are probably participants who aren't interested in any other Wikimedia project, but that's true for all of Wikimedia's projects (well, maybe not Commons). MediaWiki itself is a Wikimedia project, at least according to this official-looking list: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects So contributions to MediaWiki are contributions to a Wikimedia project, even if the contributions aren't useful to other Wikimedia projects (e.g., extensions that Wikimedia has no interest in). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Hoi, How about the 622 people registered as MediaWiki localisers. They make the experience of the different language versions as good as it is. Thanks, GerardM http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Category:MediaWiki_translators On 20 March 2011 17:32, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/3/21 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: I don't know why you think MediaWiki is quasi-independent from other Wikimedia endeavors. Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I know how many of them there are. -- Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Sent from my mobile device. On Mar 20, 2011 1:07 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I know how many of them there are. I don't see how that makes them any more separate from other projects than, say, Wikibooks is separate from Wikipedia. Yes, there are probably participants who aren't interested in any other Wikimedia project, but that's true for all of Wikimedia's projects (well, maybe not Commons). MediaWiki itself is a Wikimedia project, at least according to this official-looking list: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects So contributions to MediaWiki are contributions to a Wikimedia project, even if the contributions aren't useful to other Wikimedia projects (e.g., extensions that Wikimedia has no interest in). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Oops. Wanted to comment that commits are essentially project edits - so treat them as such. Sent from my mobile device. On Mar 20, 2011 1:08 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote: Sent from my mobile device. On Mar 20, 2011 1:07 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I know how many of them there are. I don't see how that makes them any more separate from other projects than, say, Wikibooks is separate from Wikipedia. Yes, there are probably participants who aren't interested in any other Wikimedia project, but that's true for all of Wikimedia's projects (well, maybe not Commons). MediaWiki itself is a Wikimedia project, at least according to this official-looking list: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects So contributions to MediaWiki are contributions to a Wikimedia project, even if the contributions aren't useful to other Wikimedia projects (e.g., extensions that Wikimedia has no interest in). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
Hoi, When you look at the people who put themselves forward and stood in the elections for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation in the past, those that were chosen had a great resume of activities and known points of view before they stood. Many of these people are known, well known, As our total community is so big, you may find that some of the people are not known to you. When this is the case, there will be others who know them quite well. Voting for a board member is not like voting for a politician in the United States; they do not belong to one or the other party. They are all part of the same community, the one you belong to. This makes voting quite a different thing. Possibly even pleasant. Thanks, GerardM On 20 March 2011 17:16, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I don't think I voted, I seldom vote in any election. The reason is that I seldom know much about the candidates, and have no reliable way of finding out much. I could, together with others, seriously investigate who the candidates are and what they stand for, but I don't think publishing such information and talking about it would be welcome; spending that much time and effort just to determine one vote, mine, is not worthwhile. Correct me if I'm wrong. Frankly, I think the combination of secret ballots and lack of communication among disinterested voters will in short order put control of both the Foundation and the English Wikipedia in the hands of people with agendas who do communicate with one another, privately. That has certainly been my experience in any organization I was in. Fred I agree with Harel, there are huge numbers of editors who are entitled to vote and don't do so. I think we put some effort into welcoming newbies and forget that becoming part of the community is a process and state of mind rather than a single event. I think that a bot message from Jimbo or the foundation thanking people for their 500th edit and saying that they are now entitled to vote in trustee elections could be a very good way to build the community. You'd need to phrase it carefully though:) WereSpielChequers -- Message: 6 Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:32:35 +0200 From: Harel Cain harel.c...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTinno=bdmacweqsqwfduwspegnoq0yvwh7adp...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people, we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to vote are expected to really make use of it. The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the home projects of the candidates without too much real interest in the elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your mail. The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to take part in them. Harel Cain Hebrew Wikipedia / Wikimedia Israel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
Funny, secret ballots are actually meant to discourage cabalism, voting for favors and voter intimidation. Mileage may vary... In our situation, due to low turnout, secret and anonymous voting and lack of information, although involved Wikipedians do have some clue, we are quite vulnerable. I don't think there are any good solutions. I just know that I am often at a loss with respect to voting. In situations where I am informed, such as the U.S. presidential elections I may vote for someone who I know will do exactly the opposite of what they say they will do, but at least I know what I'm getting. Fred But yeah, with both lack of turnout and lack of information on candidates they do tend to make things easy to manipulate. I really don't think that going to an open ballot is right though because the problems can better be solved elsewhere and once they are it will provide a valuable safeguard to maintain secret ballots. The nomination process might be one area we can counter the problem. Nominations can be public and with some degree of support needed to stand for election the names of editors endorsing a candidate can be very telling as to what their interests are. Sent from my mobile device. On Mar 20, 2011 12:16 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote: Funny, secret ballots are actually meant to discourage cabalism, voting for favors and voter intimidation. But yeah, with both lack of turnout and lack of information on candidates they do tend to make things easy to manipulate. I really don't think that going to an open ballot is right though because the problems can better be solved elsewhere and once they are it will provide a valuable safeguard to maintain secret ballots. The nomination process might be one area we can counter the problem. Nominations can be public and with some degree of support needed to stand for election the names of editors endorsing a candidate can be very telling as to what their interests are. I believe that we did this in... 2007, I think? (with open endorsements). Anyway, it seemed to lead to cabal-ism and so was dropped. Yes, we should have open nominations! Of course, then, people have to agree to run :P I don't know how we can make the candidates more visible. But if there are questions about the role of the Board, why it's important, what qualities make for a good board member, etc. that are keeping people from voting, please say so. Maybe we can write up some more helpful documentation from the Board side. -- Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
What Phoebe of course meant to say was: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_board_manual Is a great document containing answers to all the topics you might need ;) Jan-Bart PS: If you have suggestions for topics that are missing or something like that, please leave them at the talk page :) On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:42 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: I don't know how we can make the candidates more visible. But if there are questions about the role of the Board, why it's important, what qualities make for a good board member, etc. that are keeping people from voting, please say so. Maybe we can write up some more helpful documentation from the Board side. -- Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede janb...@wikimedia.org wrote: What Phoebe of course meant to say was: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_board_manual Is a great document containing answers to all the topics you might need ;) Jan-Bart PS: If you have suggestions for topics that are missing or something like that, please leave them at the talk page :) Yes, my previous email was suffering from link-deficiency (a terrible disease...)! Thanks Jan-Bart :) phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
I believe that we did this in... 2007, I think? (with open endorsements). Anyway, it seemed to lead to cabal-ism and so was dropped. -- Phoebe Don't take this personally, but who is we and who are the cabals? Who is in them and what is their agenda? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
2011/3/20 FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com Allowing votes based on donations is likely to send the wrong message, however noble it might be. It really is too problematic - if the level is high then it allows buying votes where lower level donors could not; if it is low then paid-for voting swamps the informed users who may know the candidates and makes it more political. If donations are to be a criterion then I would suggest it must be met at least the last 2 years, not just one year - regular donors may be seen differently to once off donors. But this one is a can of worms and more trouble than it's worth - best not. What I would be interested in is some representative way to involve our other big category of the community - readers. Speculatively one could allow up to 50 or 100 reader votes, invite non-logged-in readers to apply by submitting their email address, select 50 - 100 by random poll proportionately by country (after checking for obvious duplicates) and allow them to vote. Again may be more trouble than it's worth, but it is important to consider if readers may have a say in what matters at the election. After all they are whom the project and all of our efforts are aimed at supporting. FT2 2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com Hello, fellow Wikimedians. On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election (2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits within 6 months. This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members. This still does not account for all community members though, and we would like your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and how to quantify other types of contributions). In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up: * Advisory Board members * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain number of commits (what number is sufficient?) * Donors ** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the limit?) * University students in the Ambassadors program * Researchers with access to the research user right So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be eligible to vote? Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board elections/2011]] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011 or to the board elections list, board-electi...@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter! On behalf of the Election Committee, Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l The idea of including readers in the election is very interesting, but I'm afraid we don't have the time and resources to make it happen for this election (not to mention reaching a consensus on if and/or how it should be done). But do hang on to the thought for the post-mortem, so it can be considered for future elections. -- Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I believe that we did this in... 2007, I think? (with open endorsements). Anyway, it seemed to lead to cabal-ism and so was dropped. -- Phoebe Don't take this personally, but who is we and who are the cabals? Who is in them and what is their agenda? Fred We = the foundation, by way of the election committee: see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/en I said cabal-ism, not specific cabals :) Meaning that endorsements didn't seem that effective because everyone just endorsed the people they knew. But I wasn't on the election committee, and I'm writing this from memory without looking at the lists archives etc, so hopefully someone else has a more clear recollection of why it was tried and dropped can say for sure. best, Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:42 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I believe that we did this in... 2007, I think? (with open endorsements). Anyway, it seemed to lead to cabal-ism and so was dropped. -- Phoebe Don't take this personally, but who is we and who are the cabals? Who is in them and what is their agenda? Fred We = the foundation, by way of the election committee: see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/en I said cabal-ism, not specific cabals :) Meaning that endorsements didn't seem that effective because everyone just endorsed the people they knew. But I wasn't on the election committee, and I'm writing this from memory without looking at the lists archives etc, so hopefully someone else has a more clear recollection of why it was tried and dropped can say for sure. grammar fail. How about: Hopefully someone else who has a clearer recollection of why endorsements were tried, but dropped, can say for sure. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
I said cabal-ism, not specific cabals :) Meaning that endorsements didn't seem that effective because everyone just endorsed the people they knew. Phoebe That's kind of the problem. Lots of times that is pretty much how I, and probably others, vote; without a lot of insightful information. What I'm always looking for is people with a proven track record of standing up to a mob... Fairy wonderland attitude I guess. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
I served on the 2007 Eleccom so I could tell my account on attempting the open endorsement, which aimed to give candidates more visibility and shifted away those who had least possibility to elect (so that voters might give thought on a reasonable number of candidates) but I wasn't on the 2008 one which dropped the 2007 trial, so not in the position to give the reason why it was dropped. Phillipe could give the whole recollection perhaps? Or it would be somehow embarrassing for now a WMF staffer? :D Cheers, On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:42 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I believe that we did this in... 2007, I think? (with open endorsements). Anyway, it seemed to lead to cabal-ism and so was dropped. -- Phoebe Don't take this personally, but who is we and who are the cabals? Who is in them and what is their agenda? Fred We = the foundation, by way of the election committee: see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/en I said cabal-ism, not specific cabals :) Meaning that endorsements didn't seem that effective because everyone just endorsed the people they knew. But I wasn't on the election committee, and I'm writing this from memory without looking at the lists archives etc, so hopefully someone else has a more clear recollection of why it was tried and dropped can say for sure. best, Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 elections - low turnout
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:58 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 2:33 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: .. I think that a bot message from Jimbo or the foundation thanking people for their 500th edit and saying that they are now entitled to vote in trustee elections could be a very good way to build the community. Is there a proposal like this on strategy.wikimedia.org *clicking* the 'like' button for this idea! Can we have 'like' buttons on strategy.wikimedia.org ? -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Free Credo Reference accounts for Wikipedians
Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's first come, first served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at 22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CREDO Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the 400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible. Good luck! Sarah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
