[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Leo Z]

I do agree, and I do think legally biding election could be a better way. 
Although,

1) Membership is not required to vote in WMF’s election. It is a requirement 
for Wiki Project Med’s election. Editors may want to vote while keeping their 
presence anonymous.
2) WMF and most non-profits are never structured to be a full direct democracy 
anyway, that may be ethically required for government elections. However, WMF 
is not a government even though those on Wikimedia projects may feel that way. 
Still, WMF is optional, not mandatory. It can set up rules as long as it helps 
promotes its mission.
3) WMF likely have paid a large sum to their legal counsels who suggested this 
structure as the best approach. Non-profit legislation is highly 
location-dependent. It also might just be how non-profit in California 
structure their election.

I’m leaning towards trusting the foundation on this matter without further 
investigation into the legal complexity of it. At least, until it reject one of 
the community elected trustees. I feel further effort would be expensive and 
likely result in no practical change...

Best,
Leo
On Sep 12, 2021, 9:15 PM +0800, Wikimedia Mailing List 
, wrote:
>
> Wiki
> Project Med Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZHLSTBISHYBQVWHK7DJQHLG4EDLQXV4Y/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[James Heilman]

Not sure paying membership is a requirement for direct elections. Wiki
Project Med Foundation has elections but free membership (one just
needs to be an active editor in good standing or otherwise involved).

James

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 5:46 PM Leo Z  wrote:
>
> Wikimedia Foundation is not a membership-based organization, you don’t pay a 
> membership dues like those of many professional organizations. Henceforth, it 
> is theoretically cannot be an election which would not be legally enforceable 
> without registered voting members, that’s paying members with verified 
> identity. The community wide voting is structured to function like an 
> election, and I have no doubt the board of trustee will follow established 
> convention on this matter.
>
> Hope this clear some of your confusion.
>
> Best,
> Leo
> On Sep 11, 2021, 11:25 PM +0800, Andy Mabbett , 
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia 
> Foundation.
>
>
> AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be.
> The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my
> **emphasis**):
>
> (iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated**
> through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other
> provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected
> who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or
> other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal
> law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a
> vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to
> this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below.
>
> while Article IV, Section 3(A) says:
>
> (i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of
> talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best
> fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by
> the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and
> inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of
> its work.
>
> Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that
> the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse
> set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to
> reject one or more of them.
>
> Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of
> the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates
> to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for
> the Board to consider.
>
> I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am?
>
>
> [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GLOFABTMEAK2PJCBKPC4AAZZKFZ344L2/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VE5QRABLGRTIODP3Z3ONAHOHDHQYAQ2J/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ABHO2CKQPPSJIWOVKO34AFLDRPE4MIXH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Andy Mabbett]

On Sat, 11 Sept 2021 at 16:45, Leo Z  wrote:

> Hope this clear some of your confusion.

Which confusion would that be?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VAZYKQXFUITEZVELVJCMYFJVM7ZBYATL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Leo Z]

Wikimedia Foundation is not a membership-based organization, you don’t pay a 
membership dues like those of many professional organizations. Henceforth, it 
is theoretically cannot be an election which would not be legally enforceable 
without registered voting members, that’s paying members with verified 
identity. The community wide voting is structured to function like an election, 
and I have no doubt the board of trustee will follow established convention on 
this matter.

Hope this clear some of your confusion.

Best,
Leo
On Sep 11, 2021, 11:25 PM +0800, Andy Mabbett , 
wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia 
> > Foundation.
>
> AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be.
> The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my
> **emphasis**):
>
> (iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated**
> through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other
> provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected
> who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or
> other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal
> law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a
> vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to
> this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below.
>
> while Article IV, Section 3(A) says:
>
> (i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of
> talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best
> fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by
> the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and
> inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of
> its work.
>
> Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that
> the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse
> set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to
> reject one or more of them.
>
> Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of
> the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates
> to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for
> the Board to consider.
>
> I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am?
>
>
> [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GLOFABTMEAK2PJCBKPC4AAZZKFZ344L2/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VE5QRABLGRTIODP3Z3ONAHOHDHQYAQ2J/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Lucas Werkmeister]

Wasn’t this mentioned in the results announcement [1]?

> == Waiting for the Board’s appointment ==
>
> While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote,
> they are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need
> to pass a successful background check and meet the qualifications
> outlined in the Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the
> country of residence of the candidates. The Board has set a tentative
> date to appoint new trustees at the end of this month. The Board also
> has approved a short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to
> allow a smooth transition.

Cheers,
Lucas

[1]:
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/09/07/results-for-the-most-contended-wikimedia-foundation-board-of-trustees-election/

On 11.09.21 17:23, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> 
>> My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia 
>> Foundation.
> 
> AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be.
> The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my
> **emphasis**):
> 
>(iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated**
> through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other
> provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected
> who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or
> other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal
> law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a
> vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to
> this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below.
> 
> while Article IV, Section 3(A) says:
> 
>(i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of
> talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best
> fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by
> the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and
> inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of
> its work.
> 
> Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that
> the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse
> set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to
> reject one or more of them.
> 
> Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of
> the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates
> to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for
> the Board to consider.
> 
> I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am?
> 
> 
> [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws
> 
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2P7KTCIHQWPODG3O4SGTFTISJULLKJXI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia 
> Foundation.

AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be.
The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my
**emphasis**):

   (iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated**
through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other
provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected
who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or
other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal
law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a
vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to
this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below.

while Article IV, Section 3(A) says:

   (i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of
talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best
fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by
the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and
inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of
its work.

Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that
the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse
set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to
reject one or more of them.

Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of
the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates
to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for
the Board to consider.

I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am?


[1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GLOFABTMEAK2PJCBKPC4AAZZKFZ344L2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Adam Wight]

It's remarkable that we elected 2/4 women and 3/4 people whose mother
tongue is not English, given the dominance of male and English-speaking
wiki contributors in surveys.  It's even more surprising that we
accomplished this given that only 4 of the 20 nominated candidates are
women, the odds of this happening randomly are low.

Also I'd like to point out that Dariusz shared his class background of
growing up with few economic means in a so-called developing country under
a communist government, and it's unfair of us to simply throw him into this
problematic "Global North" category.  Victoria is from Belarus, and
although we don't know her economic background this is certainly not a
country of great privileges.

I think we should give our voters credit for responding to the known
problem of a content and participant gender gap by electing women to the
WMF Board.  We have a bootstrapping challenge, but the discussion on this
thread and the outcome of the election shows that we might be able to
collectively find ways to balance democratic governance with better global
representation.

As others have pointed out, the Global Council might be an even more
important target for these ideas.

Two things that I didn't see during this cycle were anyone campaigning on
behalf of their preferred candidate, or creation of a slate of candidates
with common platform goals.  It seems like we should be more clear ahead of
time about which candidates might give us the outcomes we hope for.  If you
want to see us represented by a woman from a Global South country, amplify
her voice.  If you want to see a concept like devolution of decision-making
embraced by the Board, then mobilize to make it widely understood why this
is desirable, and make it clear which candidates support the policy.  It's
likely that I'm just out of touch and this  mobilization is already
happening—please share examples if so!

Congratulations to the new Board and the voters who chose them, and thank
you for a great discussion so far.
—[[mw:User:Adamw]]

On Sat 11. Sep 2021 at 04:37, Ashwin Baindur - User AshLin <
ashwin.bain...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The voting system (single transferable vote) chosen reflects the
> electorate's choice fairly. In this case, the primarily Global North
> electorate prefers to elect Global North candidates, so the election system
> has faithfully expressed the voting outcome of that behaviour. So, I do not
> blame the election system for doing it's job. The issue is essentially
> about human behaviour and choice.
>
> What is unrealistic is to allow fully unfettered election but to  expect
> that the fully unfettered outcome of that election would faithfully provide
> the outcome of the Board's desire for a diverse set of elected candidates.
>
> In the absence of any kind of constraint, when presented with a field of
> candidates from all parts of the World, the primarily Global North
> electorate elected a completely Global North lineup in line with their
> views about what a suitable candidate should be like.
>
> So obviously, the WMF expressing a desire to have a diverse board is
> futile if no specific allocation or reservation for the unrepresented
> region is made.
>
> The same could happen for the next year's Board of Trustees election as
> well unless there is specific provision for diversity.
>
> On Sat, 11 Sep, 2021, 6:55 am Butch Bustria,  wrote:
>
>> We better set a new criteria that board candidates for 2022 and 2023 must
>> reside outside the 28th parallel north and 42nd meridian east.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Butch Bustria
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, 7:22 pm Mario Gómez,  wrote:
>>
>>> Fully agree with Mike.
>>>
>>> Also, rather than focusing on how different voting schemes would have
>>> affected some candidates to be one position up or down, wider diversity and
>>> representativity could be achieved by just electing 8 seats from community
>>> elections.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:47 PM Mike Peel  wrote:
>>>
 I don't get these kinds of arguments.

 I'm pretty much equally very active on enwiki + Wikidata + Commons -
 which should I chose as my 'resident' project? Most bytes (Commons),
 most edits (Wikidata), longest editing time (enwiki) - or something
 else? Or language for that matter - most of my editing right now is
 multilingual.

 I've lived in UK + Brazil + Spain (islands - off the coast of Africa) -
 am I global north or south?

 I've worked with two small affiliates: Wikimedia UK (back when it was
 founded), and Wiki Movimento Brasil - does that count as developed or
 emerging?

 What happens to others that fall on both sides of these arbitrary lines?

 Obrigado,
 Mike
 P.S., huge congrats to Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz and Lorenzo, who I know
 will do great jobs!

 On 8/9/21 05:36:41, Anupam Dutta wrote:
 > Congratulations to the winners and the participants also !
 >
 > Further to the ongoing di

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Ashwin Baindur - User AshLin]

The voting system (single transferable vote) chosen reflects the
electorate's choice fairly. In this case, the primarily Global North
electorate prefers to elect Global North candidates, so the election system
has faithfully expressed the voting outcome of that behaviour. So, I do not
blame the election system for doing it's job. The issue is essentially
about human behaviour and choice.

What is unrealistic is to allow fully unfettered election but to  expect
that the fully unfettered outcome of that election would faithfully provide
the outcome of the Board's desire for a diverse set of elected candidates.

In the absence of any kind of constraint, when presented with a field of
candidates from all parts of the World, the primarily Global North
electorate elected a completely Global North lineup in line with their
views about what a suitable candidate should be like.

So obviously, the WMF expressing a desire to have a diverse board is futile
if no specific allocation or reservation for the unrepresented region is
made.

The same could happen for the next year's Board of Trustees election as
well unless there is specific provision for diversity.

On Sat, 11 Sep, 2021, 6:55 am Butch Bustria,  wrote:

> We better set a new criteria that board candidates for 2022 and 2023 must
> reside outside the 28th parallel north and 42nd meridian east.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Butch Bustria
>
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, 7:22 pm Mario Gómez,  wrote:
>
>> Fully agree with Mike.
>>
>> Also, rather than focusing on how different voting schemes would have
>> affected some candidates to be one position up or down, wider diversity and
>> representativity could be achieved by just electing 8 seats from community
>> elections.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:47 PM Mike Peel  wrote:
>>
>>> I don't get these kinds of arguments.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty much equally very active on enwiki + Wikidata + Commons -
>>> which should I chose as my 'resident' project? Most bytes (Commons),
>>> most edits (Wikidata), longest editing time (enwiki) - or something
>>> else? Or language for that matter - most of my editing right now is
>>> multilingual.
>>>
>>> I've lived in UK + Brazil + Spain (islands - off the coast of Africa) -
>>> am I global north or south?
>>>
>>> I've worked with two small affiliates: Wikimedia UK (back when it was
>>> founded), and Wiki Movimento Brasil - does that count as developed or
>>> emerging?
>>>
>>> What happens to others that fall on both sides of these arbitrary lines?
>>>
>>> Obrigado,
>>> Mike
>>> P.S., huge congrats to Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz and Lorenzo, who I know
>>> will do great jobs!
>>>
>>> On 8/9/21 05:36:41, Anupam Dutta wrote:
>>> > Congratulations to the winners and the participants also !
>>> >
>>> > Further to the ongoing discussions, my idea is as follows :
>>> >
>>> > In this Wikimedia land, a person is the resident of the project
>>> > s/he/they have most contributed No arguments
>>> >
>>> > Now the person can chose to be a worker in 'n' number of projects.
>>> > The definition of worker must be clearly defined as per certain number
>>> > of contributions made.
>>> >
>>> > Below that you a tourist..
>>> >
>>> > In this way elections can have votes from residents and tourists
>>> >
>>> > Anupamdutta73
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 09:16 Butch Bustria >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Congratulations to the 4 winners.
>>> >
>>> > I saw that the STV system unveiled how the 4th and 5th positions
>>> > (appears to be from a G7 country and a non G7 country) had
>>> switched.
>>> > I am interested to know from which sector/s or Wikimedia project
>>> > brought the switch of those two positions (starting from the 8th
>>> > iteration).
>>> >
>>> > I also observed that I have no option to choose which wiki I will
>>> > represent. It appears that the system only allows which wiki I
>>> first
>>> > clicked the central notice link. I tried to go to the other
>>> projects
>>> > and vote, it allowed me to change my vote (still one eligible
>>> > ballot) but it did not change the project I will represent. I am
>>> > saying this because it would allow people reading the statistics
>>> > which project the eligible voter truly represents.
>>> >
>>> > Despite all the consultations made prior to the elections to bring
>>> > the emerging communities/ global south to the board it had not
>>> > accurately painted the picture. I would personally suggest in the
>>> > future not all candidates vie for the same set of seats. So for
>>> > instance, there are 4 seats up for grabs, two seats must be
>>> reserved
>>> > for sector A and two seats for sector B. Candidates must select
>>> > which sector they represent and cannot be both. Then the whole
>>> > electorate votes for candidates for Sector A board seats and Sector
>>> > B board seats using the same STV system. Qualifications for Sector
>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Butch Bustria]

We better set a new criteria that board candidates for 2022 and 2023 must
reside outside the 28th parallel north and 42nd meridian east.

Kind regards,

Butch Bustria

On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, 7:22 pm Mario Gómez,  wrote:

> Fully agree with Mike.
>
> Also, rather than focusing on how different voting schemes would have
> affected some candidates to be one position up or down, wider diversity and
> representativity could be achieved by just electing 8 seats from community
> elections.
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:47 PM Mike Peel  wrote:
>
>> I don't get these kinds of arguments.
>>
>> I'm pretty much equally very active on enwiki + Wikidata + Commons -
>> which should I chose as my 'resident' project? Most bytes (Commons),
>> most edits (Wikidata), longest editing time (enwiki) - or something
>> else? Or language for that matter - most of my editing right now is
>> multilingual.
>>
>> I've lived in UK + Brazil + Spain (islands - off the coast of Africa) -
>> am I global north or south?
>>
>> I've worked with two small affiliates: Wikimedia UK (back when it was
>> founded), and Wiki Movimento Brasil - does that count as developed or
>> emerging?
>>
>> What happens to others that fall on both sides of these arbitrary lines?
>>
>> Obrigado,
>> Mike
>> P.S., huge congrats to Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz and Lorenzo, who I know
>> will do great jobs!
>>
>> On 8/9/21 05:36:41, Anupam Dutta wrote:
>> > Congratulations to the winners and the participants also !
>> >
>> > Further to the ongoing discussions, my idea is as follows :
>> >
>> > In this Wikimedia land, a person is the resident of the project
>> > s/he/they have most contributed No arguments
>> >
>> > Now the person can chose to be a worker in 'n' number of projects.
>> > The definition of worker must be clearly defined as per certain number
>> > of contributions made.
>> >
>> > Below that you a tourist..
>> >
>> > In this way elections can have votes from residents and tourists
>> >
>> > Anupamdutta73
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 09:16 Butch Bustria > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > Congratulations to the 4 winners.
>> >
>> > I saw that the STV system unveiled how the 4th and 5th positions
>> > (appears to be from a G7 country and a non G7 country) had switched.
>> > I am interested to know from which sector/s or Wikimedia project
>> > brought the switch of those two positions (starting from the 8th
>> > iteration).
>> >
>> > I also observed that I have no option to choose which wiki I will
>> > represent. It appears that the system only allows which wiki I first
>> > clicked the central notice link. I tried to go to the other projects
>> > and vote, it allowed me to change my vote (still one eligible
>> > ballot) but it did not change the project I will represent. I am
>> > saying this because it would allow people reading the statistics
>> > which project the eligible voter truly represents.
>> >
>> > Despite all the consultations made prior to the elections to bring
>> > the emerging communities/ global south to the board it had not
>> > accurately painted the picture. I would personally suggest in the
>> > future not all candidates vie for the same set of seats. So for
>> > instance, there are 4 seats up for grabs, two seats must be reserved
>> > for sector A and two seats for sector B. Candidates must select
>> > which sector they represent and cannot be both. Then the whole
>> > electorate votes for candidates for Sector A board seats and Sector
>> > B board seats using the same STV system. Qualifications for Sector A
>> > and Sector B seats shall be different and will be decided by the
>> > board of trustees with consent from an advisory/ electoral
>> > committee. I personally suggest developed communities (from big
>> > chapters and wiki projects with large edit participation) and
>> > emerging communities (small to medium sized affiliates and wiki
>> > projects with medium to small edit participation).
>> >
>> >
>> > Kind Regards,
>> >
>> > Butch
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:52 AM Alice Wiegand > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks, Jackie!
>> > That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad
>> > about the change :-)
>> >
>> > Alice.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Am 07.09.2021 um 23:42 schrieb Jackie Koerner
>> >> mailto:jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org
>> >>:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Alice,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is
>> >> that it was the election everyone was waiting for. :) It was
>> >> "pushed for" by the community for more than a year and now we
>> >> gladly announce: it happened and here are the results!
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Jackie
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand
>> >>  

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[James Heilman]

Congrats to the 4 winners. Looking forward to you taking on your roles
on the board :-)

James

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 2:52 PM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:
>
> For starters, I would like to thank outgoing board members DocJames and 
> Raystorm for their service to the community by dedicating a lot of time on 
> board meetings, processing tons of mail, and so on.
>
> Mario, you are right. An increase in the number of seats will increase the 
> diversity given a representative election system such as (Meek) STV.
> On meta you can find a table of the outcome of the election when varying the 
> available seats from 1 to 8.[1]
>
> In case 8 seats were available both Elina en Iván would have also been 
> elected, adding to the much wanted increase in diversity, in whatever way you 
> look at these two people. Electing 4 seats now, and 4 seats next year doesn't 
> help in increasing the diversity using a representative election system. 
> Against electing all seats at once is the argument for continuity and to 
> limit board turnover. Maybe we should lean more on appointed seats for 
> continuity, or as Chris Keating has suggested, select community sourced board 
> members from this year's election. However Nat and Shani didn't run this 
> year, and they might seek reelection next year. I wish the board a lot of 
> wisdom and strength regarding balancing multiple values.
>
> This is good news for what is next. What is next? Election of 7 seats in the 
> Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC). Given the analysis of the board 
> election and the availability of 7 seats in the election, I am confident the 
> election outcome will show a lot of diversity. Later 6 persons will be 
> appointed by affiliates, and another 2 by the WMF. The elections and the 
> appointments will come from the same pool of self-nominations.[2] The MCDC 
> will most likely institute a Global Council with a lot of room at the table - 
> some say 40 to 60 seats, others over a 100, we will see -  to accommodate the 
> diversity of our movement.
>
> There are already over 40 candidates for the MCDC. Compliments to the people 
> who have recruited so many nominations from the continent of Africa. So far 
> no one nominated themselves from East Asia. How can we recruit nominations 
> from that region? Without any of them in the pool, it is hard to elect or 
> appoint someone.
>
> The period of self-nomination closes in 5 days!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> [1] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Votes
> [2] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:22 PM Mario Gómez  wrote:
>
>> Also, rather than focusing on how different voting schemes would have 
>> affected some candidates to be one position up or down, wider diversity and 
>> representativity could be achieved by just electing 8 seats from community 
>> elections.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5SQWFARQHJ5JLOKNZYZSGC3NH4QFIA76/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2RFQZLKYXHWREWJUMJBAYVO4EO4FYIZA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Ad Huikeshoven]

For starters, I would like to thank outgoing board members DocJames and
Raystorm for their service to the community by dedicating a lot of time on
board meetings, processing tons of mail, and so on.

Mario, you are right. An increase in the number of seats will increase the
diversity given a representative election system such as (Meek) STV.
On meta you can find a table of the outcome of the election when varying
the available seats from 1 to 8.[1]

In case 8 seats were available both Elina en Iván would have also been
elected, adding to the much wanted increase in diversity, in whatever way
you look at these two people. Electing 4 seats now, and 4 seats next year
doesn't help in increasing the diversity using a representative election
system. Against electing all seats at once is the argument for continuity
and to limit board turnover. Maybe we should lean more on appointed seats
for continuity, or as Chris Keating has suggested, select community sourced
board members from this year's election. However Nat and Shani didn't run
this year, and they might seek reelection next year. I wish the board a lot
of wisdom and strength regarding balancing multiple values.

This is good news for what is next. What is next? Election of 7 seats in
the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC). Given the analysis of the
board election and the availability of 7 seats in the election, I am
confident the election outcome will show a lot of diversity. Later 6
persons will be appointed by affiliates, and another 2 by the WMF. The
elections and the appointments will come from the same pool of
self-nominations.[2] The MCDC will most likely institute a Global Council
with a lot of room at the table - some say 40 to 60 seats, others over a
100, we will see -  to accommodate the diversity of our movement.

There are already over 40 candidates for the MCDC. Compliments to the
people who have recruited so many nominations from the continent of Africa.
So far no one nominated themselves from East Asia. How can we recruit
nominations from that region? Without any of them in the pool, it is hard
to elect or appoint someone.

The period of self-nomination closes in 5 days!

Regards,

Ad Huikeshoven

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Votes
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:22 PM Mario Gómez  wrote:

Also, rather than focusing on how different voting schemes would have
> affected some candidates to be one position up or down, wider diversity and
> representativity could be achieved by just electing 8 seats from community
> elections.
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/5SQWFARQHJ5JLOKNZYZSGC3NH4QFIA76/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Mario Gómez]

Fully agree with Mike.

Also, rather than focusing on how different voting schemes would have
affected some candidates to be one position up or down, wider diversity and
representativity could be achieved by just electing 8 seats from community
elections.

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:47 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> I don't get these kinds of arguments.
>
> I'm pretty much equally very active on enwiki + Wikidata + Commons -
> which should I chose as my 'resident' project? Most bytes (Commons),
> most edits (Wikidata), longest editing time (enwiki) - or something
> else? Or language for that matter - most of my editing right now is
> multilingual.
>
> I've lived in UK + Brazil + Spain (islands - off the coast of Africa) -
> am I global north or south?
>
> I've worked with two small affiliates: Wikimedia UK (back when it was
> founded), and Wiki Movimento Brasil - does that count as developed or
> emerging?
>
> What happens to others that fall on both sides of these arbitrary lines?
>
> Obrigado,
> Mike
> P.S., huge congrats to Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz and Lorenzo, who I know
> will do great jobs!
>
> On 8/9/21 05:36:41, Anupam Dutta wrote:
> > Congratulations to the winners and the participants also !
> >
> > Further to the ongoing discussions, my idea is as follows :
> >
> > In this Wikimedia land, a person is the resident of the project
> > s/he/they have most contributed No arguments
> >
> > Now the person can chose to be a worker in 'n' number of projects.
> > The definition of worker must be clearly defined as per certain number
> > of contributions made.
> >
> > Below that you a tourist..
> >
> > In this way elections can have votes from residents and tourists
> >
> > Anupamdutta73
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 09:16 Butch Bustria  > > wrote:
> >
> > Congratulations to the 4 winners.
> >
> > I saw that the STV system unveiled how the 4th and 5th positions
> > (appears to be from a G7 country and a non G7 country) had switched.
> > I am interested to know from which sector/s or Wikimedia project
> > brought the switch of those two positions (starting from the 8th
> > iteration).
> >
> > I also observed that I have no option to choose which wiki I will
> > represent. It appears that the system only allows which wiki I first
> > clicked the central notice link. I tried to go to the other projects
> > and vote, it allowed me to change my vote (still one eligible
> > ballot) but it did not change the project I will represent. I am
> > saying this because it would allow people reading the statistics
> > which project the eligible voter truly represents.
> >
> > Despite all the consultations made prior to the elections to bring
> > the emerging communities/ global south to the board it had not
> > accurately painted the picture. I would personally suggest in the
> > future not all candidates vie for the same set of seats. So for
> > instance, there are 4 seats up for grabs, two seats must be reserved
> > for sector A and two seats for sector B. Candidates must select
> > which sector they represent and cannot be both. Then the whole
> > electorate votes for candidates for Sector A board seats and Sector
> > B board seats using the same STV system. Qualifications for Sector A
> > and Sector B seats shall be different and will be decided by the
> > board of trustees with consent from an advisory/ electoral
> > committee. I personally suggest developed communities (from big
> > chapters and wiki projects with large edit participation) and
> > emerging communities (small to medium sized affiliates and wiki
> > projects with medium to small edit participation).
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Butch
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:52 AM Alice Wiegand  > > wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Jackie!
> > That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad
> > about the change :-)
> >
> > Alice.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Am 07.09.2021 um 23:42 schrieb Jackie Koerner
> >> mailto:jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org
> >>:
> >>
> >> Hi Alice,
> >>
> >> Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is
> >> that it was the election everyone was waiting for. :) It was
> >> "pushed for" by the community for more than a year and now we
> >> gladly announce: it happened and here are the results!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Jackie
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand
> >> mailto:me.ly...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >> congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see
> >> people stepping up and taking responsibility, especially
> >> in times where leadership is needed.
> >>
> >> Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subje

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Mohamed ElGohary]

Slightly unrelated. My personal unscientific analysis is that some (or
many) Wikimedia communities lack governance awareness. I don't know what
should be done about that.

Best,
Gohary (ircpresident)

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:18 AM Gnangarra  wrote:

> The failure wasnt in the election system, the failure was in the lack of
> candidates having the global presence that gives people the confidence to
> vote for them. The question is how do we raise the global identities of
> more candidates and how do we counter the benefits of 20 years of EU/NA
> dominance of the movement in a way that brings new voices to the table.
> Quotas and regional specific seats is only a temporary solution to achieve
> an immediate adjustment, longer term we need to support better solutions
> including significant focus of activities in those areas, building of
> bigger formal Chapters, more significant events like Wikicom, Wikimania,
> Hackathon as these are where the global profiles grow and people develop
> the community insights to be able to speak about what matters to the whole
> community.
>
> On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:11, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:40 PM Chris Keating 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I too am disappointed (but not surprised) that STV had almost no effect
 at all on the outcome of this election

>>>
>>> This may be true, but if it's true, it was only true very narrowly. The
>>> margin between the 4th and 5th placed candidates was 12.27 votes in a
>>> situation where 1,188 were needed to win.
>>>
>>
>> Now that the full ballot data is available, it appears very likely that
>> using STV did indeed change the result of the election. Though not at
>> people had hoped.
>>
>> Ad Huikeshoven has tabulated the numbers of preferences received by each
>> candidate here:
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Rank_counts
>>
>> Trying to work out what would have happened under a different voting
>> system is obviously a bit tricky. But there are several ways to look at who
>> would have received most Support votes. We could interpret any vote in
>> positions 1-4 as a 'support' as in 'this person is in my top 4 picks to
>> fill the 4 spots on the board', though probably many people would Support
>> more than 4 candidates. Or we could interpret any positive vote as a
>> 'support', though in some cases low preference votes are an indication of
>> opposition.
>>
>> The order of candidates in each of these cases is as follows:
>> Looking at top 4: Rosie, Victoria, Eliane, Dariusz (Lorenzo 5th)
>> Looking at total preferences: Rosie, Victoria, Eliane, Lorenzo (Dariusz
>> 5th)
>> (vs the actual result: Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz, Lorenzo with Eliane 5th)
>>
>> We'd also obviously need to look at Oppose votes (which of course under
>> the old system counted 4x as much as support votes). But usually in
>> elections under the support/oppose system we observed candidates getting
>> the most Support also having the least Oppose (except for 2015 when the
>> re-standing board members got many extra Oppose votes and therefore didn't
>> get re-elected). We could also look at patterns of very low preferences,
>> but it is really difficult to find any pattern that changes the order of
>> the top 3 candidates there.
>>
>> So I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that had the election been
>> conducted under the old system, Eliane would have been elected and one of
>> Dariusz and Lorenzo not elected.
>>
>> It does pain me to say this, as I have often been heard arguing that STV
>> would help make the board diverse, but it's the only conclusion I can draw
>> based on the votes cast.
>>
>> In terms of what should happen next - in my view the Board should say
>> "ok, we're fine for people from North America, Western Europe and Eastern
>> Europe as they're all fairly well represented" and say that 2 (or more)
>> seats in the next election should be reserved for people who don't match
>> that description. (Though still the next election should be under STV).
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chris
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/R32UAYJKKQAPIIU7DUXPPQOPOBTCBVXU/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
>
> *Wikimania 2021*
> *Celebrating 20 years of Wikipedia*
> *Acknowledging everyone who made it a great event*
>
> Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guideline

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Gnangarra]

The failure wasnt in the election system, the failure was in the lack of
candidates having the global presence that gives people the confidence to
vote for them. The question is how do we raise the global identities of
more candidates and how do we counter the benefits of 20 years of EU/NA
dominance of the movement in a way that brings new voices to the table.
Quotas and regional specific seats is only a temporary solution to achieve
an immediate adjustment, longer term we need to support better solutions
including significant focus of activities in those areas, building of
bigger formal Chapters, more significant events like Wikicom, Wikimania,
Hackathon as these are where the global profiles grow and people develop
the community insights to be able to speak about what matters to the whole
community.

On Thu, 9 Sept 2021 at 03:11, Chris Keating 
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:40 PM Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
>> I too am disappointed (but not surprised) that STV had almost no effect
>>> at all on the outcome of this election
>>>
>>
>> This may be true, but if it's true, it was only true very narrowly. The
>> margin between the 4th and 5th placed candidates was 12.27 votes in a
>> situation where 1,188 were needed to win.
>>
>
> Now that the full ballot data is available, it appears very likely that
> using STV did indeed change the result of the election. Though not at
> people had hoped.
>
> Ad Huikeshoven has tabulated the numbers of preferences received by each
> candidate here:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Rank_counts
>
> Trying to work out what would have happened under a different voting
> system is obviously a bit tricky. But there are several ways to look at who
> would have received most Support votes. We could interpret any vote in
> positions 1-4 as a 'support' as in 'this person is in my top 4 picks to
> fill the 4 spots on the board', though probably many people would Support
> more than 4 candidates. Or we could interpret any positive vote as a
> 'support', though in some cases low preference votes are an indication of
> opposition.
>
> The order of candidates in each of these cases is as follows:
> Looking at top 4: Rosie, Victoria, Eliane, Dariusz (Lorenzo 5th)
> Looking at total preferences: Rosie, Victoria, Eliane, Lorenzo (Dariusz
> 5th)
> (vs the actual result: Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz, Lorenzo with Eliane 5th)
>
> We'd also obviously need to look at Oppose votes (which of course under
> the old system counted 4x as much as support votes). But usually in
> elections under the support/oppose system we observed candidates getting
> the most Support also having the least Oppose (except for 2015 when the
> re-standing board members got many extra Oppose votes and therefore didn't
> get re-elected). We could also look at patterns of very low preferences,
> but it is really difficult to find any pattern that changes the order of
> the top 3 candidates there.
>
> So I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that had the election been
> conducted under the old system, Eliane would have been elected and one of
> Dariusz and Lorenzo not elected.
>
> It does pain me to say this, as I have often been heard arguing that STV
> would help make the board diverse, but it's the only conclusion I can draw
> based on the votes cast.
>
> In terms of what should happen next - in my view the Board should say "ok,
> we're fine for people from North America, Western Europe and Eastern Europe
> as they're all fairly well represented" and say that 2 (or more) seats in
> the next election should be reserved for people who don't match that
> description. (Though still the next election should be under STV).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/R32UAYJKKQAPIIU7DUXPPQOPOBTCBVXU/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
GN.

*Wikimania 2021*
*Celebrating 20 years of Wikipedia*
*Acknowledging everyone who made it a great event*

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NVM2WNGXIDUHRRNWF2WWNJZIKZD6ZOQO/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Chris Keating]

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:40 PM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> I too am disappointed (but not surprised) that STV had almost no effect at
>> all on the outcome of this election
>>
>
> This may be true, but if it's true, it was only true very narrowly. The
> margin between the 4th and 5th placed candidates was 12.27 votes in a
> situation where 1,188 were needed to win.
>

Now that the full ballot data is available, it appears very likely that
using STV did indeed change the result of the election. Though not at
people had hoped.

Ad Huikeshoven has tabulated the numbers of preferences received by each
candidate here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Rank_counts

Trying to work out what would have happened under a different voting system
is obviously a bit tricky. But there are several ways to look at who would
have received most Support votes. We could interpret any vote in positions
1-4 as a 'support' as in 'this person is in my top 4 picks to fill the 4
spots on the board', though probably many people would Support more than 4
candidates. Or we could interpret any positive vote as a 'support', though
in some cases low preference votes are an indication of opposition.

The order of candidates in each of these cases is as follows:
Looking at top 4: Rosie, Victoria, Eliane, Dariusz (Lorenzo 5th)
Looking at total preferences: Rosie, Victoria, Eliane, Lorenzo (Dariusz 5th)
(vs the actual result: Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz, Lorenzo with Eliane 5th)

We'd also obviously need to look at Oppose votes (which of course under the
old system counted 4x as much as support votes). But usually in
elections under the support/oppose system we observed candidates getting
the most Support also having the least Oppose (except for 2015 when the
re-standing board members got many extra Oppose votes and therefore didn't
get re-elected). We could also look at patterns of very low preferences,
but it is really difficult to find any pattern that changes the order of
the top 3 candidates there.

So I think it is a reasonable hypothesis that had the election been
conducted under the old system, Eliane would have been elected and one of
Dariusz and Lorenzo not elected.

It does pain me to say this, as I have often been heard arguing that STV
would help make the board diverse, but it's the only conclusion I can draw
based on the votes cast.

In terms of what should happen next - in my view the Board should say "ok,
we're fine for people from North America, Western Europe and Eastern Europe
as they're all fairly well represented" and say that 2 (or more) seats in
the next election should be reserved for people who don't match that
description. (Though still the next election should be under STV).

Thanks,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/R32UAYJKKQAPIIU7DUXPPQOPOBTCBVXU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Mike Peel]

I don't get these kinds of arguments.

I'm pretty much equally very active on enwiki + Wikidata + Commons - 
which should I chose as my 'resident' project? Most bytes (Commons), 
most edits (Wikidata), longest editing time (enwiki) - or something 
else? Or language for that matter - most of my editing right now is 
multilingual.


I've lived in UK + Brazil + Spain (islands - off the coast of Africa) - 
am I global north or south?


I've worked with two small affiliates: Wikimedia UK (back when it was 
founded), and Wiki Movimento Brasil - does that count as developed or 
emerging?


What happens to others that fall on both sides of these arbitrary lines?

Obrigado,
Mike
P.S., huge congrats to Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz and Lorenzo, who I know 
will do great jobs!


On 8/9/21 05:36:41, Anupam Dutta wrote:

Congratulations to the winners and the participants also !

Further to the ongoing discussions, my idea is as follows :

In this Wikimedia land, a person is the resident of the project 
s/he/they have most contributed No arguments


Now the person can chose to be a worker in 'n' number of projects. 
The definition of worker must be clearly defined as per certain number 
of contributions made.


Below that you a tourist..

In this way elections can have votes from residents and tourists

Anupamdutta73



On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 09:16 Butch Bustria > wrote:


Congratulations to the 4 winners.

I saw that the STV system unveiled how the 4th and 5th positions
(appears to be from a G7 country and a non G7 country) had switched.
I am interested to know from which sector/s or Wikimedia project
brought the switch of those two positions (starting from the 8th
iteration).

I also observed that I have no option to choose which wiki I will
represent. It appears that the system only allows which wiki I first
clicked the central notice link. I tried to go to the other projects
and vote, it allowed me to change my vote (still one eligible
ballot) but it did not change the project I will represent. I am
saying this because it would allow people reading the statistics
which project the eligible voter truly represents.

Despite all the consultations made prior to the elections to bring
the emerging communities/ global south to the board it had not
accurately painted the picture. I would personally suggest in the
future not all candidates vie for the same set of seats. So for
instance, there are 4 seats up for grabs, two seats must be reserved
for sector A and two seats for sector B. Candidates must select
which sector they represent and cannot be both. Then the whole
electorate votes for candidates for Sector A board seats and Sector
B board seats using the same STV system. Qualifications for Sector A
and Sector B seats shall be different and will be decided by the
board of trustees with consent from an advisory/ electoral
committee. I personally suggest developed communities (from big
chapters and wiki projects with large edit participation) and
emerging communities (small to medium sized affiliates and wiki
projects with medium to small edit participation).


Kind Regards,

Butch

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:52 AM Alice Wiegand mailto:me.ly...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Thanks, Jackie!
That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad
about the change :-)

Alice.




Am 07.09.2021 um 23:42 schrieb Jackie Koerner
mailto:jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org>>:

Hi Alice,

Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is
that it was the election everyone was waiting for. :) It was
"pushed for" by the community for more than a year and now we
gladly announce: it happened and here are the results!

Best,

Jackie

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand
mailto:me.ly...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi all,
congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see
people stepping up and taking responsibility, especially
in times where leadership is needed.

Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subject of
this thread? You say „most contended … election“ and I
wonder what that means. In my understanding this is a
nuance of controversial and I don’t get the point where it
is more controversial than any other election. Maybe it
gets lost in translation, maybe it’s me not having the
complete insight of what has been discussed.

Alice.






Am 07.09.2021 um 20:10 schrieb Jackie Koerner
mailto:jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org>>:

/Translations can be found on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi

a_Foun

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Anupam Dutta]

Sorry

I meant

/* Votes from residents and workers*/

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 10:06 Anupam Dutta  wrote:

> Congratulations to the winners and the participants also !
>
> Further to the ongoing discussions, my idea is as follows :
>
> In this Wikimedia land, a person is the resident of the project s/he/they
> have most contributed No arguments
>
> Now the person can chose to be a worker in 'n' number of projects. The
> definition of worker must be clearly defined as per certain number of
> contributions made.
>
> Below that you a tourist..
>
> In this way elections can have votes from residents and tourists
>
> Anupamdutta73
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 09:16 Butch Bustria  wrote:
>
>> Congratulations to the 4 winners.
>>
>> I saw that the STV system unveiled how the 4th and 5th positions (appears
>> to be from a G7 country and a non G7 country) had switched. I am interested
>> to know from which sector/s or Wikimedia project brought the switch of
>> those two positions (starting from the 8th iteration).
>>
>> I also observed that I have no option to choose which wiki I will
>> represent. It appears that the system only allows which wiki I first
>> clicked the central notice link. I tried to go to the other projects and
>> vote, it allowed me to change my vote (still one eligible ballot) but it
>> did not change the project I will represent. I am saying this because it
>> would allow people reading the statistics which project the eligible voter
>> truly represents.
>>
>> Despite all the consultations made prior to the elections to bring the
>> emerging communities/ global south to the board it had not accurately
>> painted the picture. I would personally suggest in the future not all
>> candidates vie for the same set of seats. So for instance, there are 4
>> seats up for grabs, two seats must be reserved for sector A and two seats
>> for sector B. Candidates must select which sector they represent and cannot
>> be both. Then the whole electorate votes for candidates for Sector A board
>> seats and Sector B board seats using the same STV system. Qualifications
>> for Sector A and Sector B seats shall be different and will be decided by
>> the board of trustees with consent from an advisory/ electoral committee. I
>> personally suggest developed communities (from big chapters and wiki
>> projects with large edit participation) and emerging communities (small to
>> medium sized affiliates and wiki projects with medium to small edit
>> participation).
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Butch
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:52 AM Alice Wiegand  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Jackie!
>>> That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad about the
>>> change :-)
>>>
>>> Alice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 07.09.2021 um 23:42 schrieb Jackie Koerner <
>>> jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org>:
>>>
>>> Hi Alice,
>>>
>>> Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is that it was
>>> the election everyone was waiting for. :) It was "pushed for" by the
>>> community for more than a year and now we gladly announce: it happened and
>>> here are the results!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jackie
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand  wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,
 congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see people
 stepping up and taking responsibility, especially in times where leadership
 is needed.

 Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subject of this thread?
 You say „most contended … election“ and I wonder what that means. In my
 understanding this is a nuance of controversial and I don’t get the point
 where it is more controversial than any other election. Maybe it gets lost
 in translation, maybe it’s me not having the complete insight of what has
 been discussed.

 Alice.





 Am 07.09.2021 um 20:10 schrieb Jackie Koerner <
 jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org>:

 *Translations can be found on
 Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi
 a_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results
 *
 Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The
 Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation
 Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record
 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following
 four candidates received the most support:



1. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
2. Victoria Doronina
3. Dariusz Jemielniak
4. Lorenzo Losa


 Waiting for the Board’s appointment
 While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote,
 they are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to
 pass a successful background check and meet the qual

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Anupam Dutta]

Congratulations to the winners and the participants also !

Further to the ongoing discussions, my idea is as follows :

In this Wikimedia land, a person is the resident of the project s/he/they
have most contributed No arguments

Now the person can chose to be a worker in 'n' number of projects. The
definition of worker must be clearly defined as per certain number of
contributions made.

Below that you a tourist..

In this way elections can have votes from residents and tourists

Anupamdutta73



On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 09:16 Butch Bustria  wrote:

> Congratulations to the 4 winners.
>
> I saw that the STV system unveiled how the 4th and 5th positions (appears
> to be from a G7 country and a non G7 country) had switched. I am interested
> to know from which sector/s or Wikimedia project brought the switch of
> those two positions (starting from the 8th iteration).
>
> I also observed that I have no option to choose which wiki I will
> represent. It appears that the system only allows which wiki I first
> clicked the central notice link. I tried to go to the other projects and
> vote, it allowed me to change my vote (still one eligible ballot) but it
> did not change the project I will represent. I am saying this because it
> would allow people reading the statistics which project the eligible voter
> truly represents.
>
> Despite all the consultations made prior to the elections to bring the
> emerging communities/ global south to the board it had not accurately
> painted the picture. I would personally suggest in the future not all
> candidates vie for the same set of seats. So for instance, there are 4
> seats up for grabs, two seats must be reserved for sector A and two seats
> for sector B. Candidates must select which sector they represent and cannot
> be both. Then the whole electorate votes for candidates for Sector A board
> seats and Sector B board seats using the same STV system. Qualifications
> for Sector A and Sector B seats shall be different and will be decided by
> the board of trustees with consent from an advisory/ electoral committee. I
> personally suggest developed communities (from big chapters and wiki
> projects with large edit participation) and emerging communities (small to
> medium sized affiliates and wiki projects with medium to small edit
> participation).
>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Butch
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:52 AM Alice Wiegand  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Jackie!
>> That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad about the
>> change :-)
>>
>> Alice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 07.09.2021 um 23:42 schrieb Jackie Koerner > >:
>>
>> Hi Alice,
>>
>> Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is that it was
>> the election everyone was waiting for. :) It was "pushed for" by the
>> community for more than a year and now we gladly announce: it happened and
>> here are the results!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jackie
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see people stepping
>>> up and taking responsibility, especially in times where leadership is
>>> needed.
>>>
>>> Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subject of this thread?
>>> You say „most contended … election“ and I wonder what that means. In my
>>> understanding this is a nuance of controversial and I don’t get the point
>>> where it is more controversial than any other election. Maybe it gets lost
>>> in translation, maybe it’s me not having the complete insight of what has
>>> been discussed.
>>>
>>> Alice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 07.09.2021 um 20:10 schrieb Jackie Koerner <
>>> jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org>:
>>>
>>> *Translations can be found on
>>> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi
>>> a_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results
>>> *
>>> Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The
>>> Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation
>>> Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record
>>> 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following
>>> four candidates received the most support:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>>>2. Victoria Doronina
>>>3. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>>4. Lorenzo Losa
>>>
>>>
>>> Waiting for the Board’s appointment
>>> While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, they
>>> are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to pass a
>>> successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the
>>> Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the country of residence of
>>> the candidates. The Board has set a tentative date to appoint new trustees
>>> at the end of this month. The Board also has approved
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Anders Wennersten]

A very good set of candidates and a good work done organizing the election.

Elaine, also a very strong candidate was, with a small margin, just 
outside. Could she be made a official "reserve" candidate?


In the election 2015 Danny resigned very soon after election, and the 
election committee then recommended Maria to take up the vacant seat, 
she being with a very small margin just behind the ones elected.


Also in the election for affiliates seats after, Alice did not got 
enough votes to stay on, but the Board then let her stay on a board 
assigned seat.


Anders


Den 2021-09-07 kl. 20:10, skrev Jackie Koerner:


/Translations can be found on Meta: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results 
/ 
Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The 
Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia 
Foundation Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new 
trustees. A record 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their 
valid votes. The following four candidates received the most support:



1.

Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight

2.

Victoria Doronina

3.

Dariusz Jemielniak

4.

Lorenzo Losa


Waiting for the Board’s appointment

While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, 
they are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need 
to pass a successful background check and meet the qualifications 
outlined in the Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the 
country of residence of the candidates. The Board has set a tentative 
date to appoint new trustees at the end of this month. The Board also 
has approved 
a 
short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to allow a smooth 
transition.



Thanks to all the candidatesThanks to all candidates for their 
participation. They achieved a record in the number of candidates and 
regional diversity, with more than half of the 19 candidates from 
regions outside North America and Western Europe. This election used 
Single Transferable Voting 
for 
the first time. This system does not indicate a number of votes or 
percentage of support. Rather, it shows in which round each candidate 
was eliminated. You can review the full results on Meta-Wiki 
, 
which document the order in which the candidates were mathematically 
eliminated.



Thanks to all the election volunteers

The Board of Trustees stressed 
the 
importance of increasing diversity on the Board. Dozens of volunteers 
supported by a team of multilingual facilitators promoted the election 
in up to 61 languages. They hosted many conversations about the Board 
election in more than 50 languages and encouraged community members to 
participate in all areas of the election.



Statistics

The 2021 Board of Trustees election broke new ground in several areas. 
The Movement Strategy and Governance team will publish a report with 
the most remarkable metrics soon. In the meantime, some statistics 
can 
be found on Meta-Wiki. Here you have some highlights.



 *

Participation increased by 1,753 voters over 2017. Overall turnout
was 10.13%, 1.1 percentage points more than in 2017.

 *

The highest participation among wikis with at least 5 eligible
voters was seen on the Hausa and Igbo Wikipedias. Both wikis had a
participation of 75% (6 of 8 eligible voters). Other high
participation numbers were seen on the Telugu, Nepalese, and
Punjabi Wikipedias.

 *

The largest increase in participation among wikis with at least 50
eligible voters was the Catalan Wikipedia, on which 36.3% of
eligible voters voted (28 percentage points higher than in 2017).

 *

There were 214 wikis represented in the election. This is
determined by the wiki on which the account was originally created.

 *

A total of 74 wikis that did not participate in 2017 produced
voters in this election.

 *

A total of 226 wikis had at least one eligible voter but produced
no voters. The largest electorate in this group was Cantonese
Wikipedia, with 25 eligible voters.


In the upcoming days, an anonymized list of votes will be released 
that will allow deeper inspection and publication of more metrics.


2022 election

The next Board of Trustees election is planned to take place in 202

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Butch Bustria]

Congratulations to the 4 winners.

I saw that the STV system unveiled how the 4th and 5th positions (appears
to be from a G7 country and a non G7 country) had switched. I am interested
to know from which sector/s or Wikimedia project brought the switch of
those two positions (starting from the 8th iteration).

I also observed that I have no option to choose which wiki I will
represent. It appears that the system only allows which wiki I first
clicked the central notice link. I tried to go to the other projects and
vote, it allowed me to change my vote (still one eligible ballot) but it
did not change the project I will represent. I am saying this because it
would allow people reading the statistics which project the eligible voter
truly represents.

Despite all the consultations made prior to the elections to bring the
emerging communities/ global south to the board it had not accurately
painted the picture. I would personally suggest in the future not all
candidates vie for the same set of seats. So for instance, there are 4
seats up for grabs, two seats must be reserved for sector A and two seats
for sector B. Candidates must select which sector they represent and cannot
be both. Then the whole electorate votes for candidates for Sector A board
seats and Sector B board seats using the same STV system. Qualifications
for Sector A and Sector B seats shall be different and will be decided by
the board of trustees with consent from an advisory/ electoral committee. I
personally suggest developed communities (from big chapters and wiki
projects with large edit participation) and emerging communities (small to
medium sized affiliates and wiki projects with medium to small edit
participation).


Kind Regards,

Butch

On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:52 AM Alice Wiegand  wrote:

> Thanks, Jackie!
> That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad about the
> change :-)
>
> Alice.
>
>
>
> Am 07.09.2021 um 23:42 schrieb Jackie Koerner  >:
>
> Hi Alice,
>
> Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is that it was the
> election everyone was waiting for. :) It was "pushed for" by the community
> for more than a year and now we gladly announce: it happened and here are
> the results!
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see people stepping
>> up and taking responsibility, especially in times where leadership is
>> needed.
>>
>> Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subject of this thread? You
>> say „most contended … election“ and I wonder what that means. In my
>> understanding this is a nuance of controversial and I don’t get the point
>> where it is more controversial than any other election. Maybe it gets lost
>> in translation, maybe it’s me not having the complete insight of what has
>> been discussed.
>>
>> Alice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 07.09.2021 um 20:10 schrieb Jackie Koerner > >:
>>
>> *Translations can be found on
>> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi
>> a_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results
>> *
>> Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The
>> Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation
>> Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record
>> 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following
>> four candidates received the most support:
>>
>>
>>
>>1. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>>2. Victoria Doronina
>>3. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>4. Lorenzo Losa
>>
>>
>> Waiting for the Board’s appointment
>> While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, they
>> are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to pass a
>> successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the
>> Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the country of residence of
>> the candidates. The Board has set a tentative date to appoint new trustees
>> at the end of this month. The Board also has approved
>> 
>> a short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to allow a smooth
>> transition.
>>
>> Thanks to all the candidates
>> Thanks to all candidates for their participation. They achieved a record
>> in the number of candidates and regional diversity, with more than half of
>> the 19 candidates from regions outside North America and Western Europe.
>> This election used Single Transferable Voting
>> 
>> for the first time. This system does not indicate a number of votes or
>> percentage of support. Rather, it show

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Alice Wiegand]

Thanks, Jackie! 
That is indeed different from what I understood and I’m glad about the change 
:-)

Alice.



> Am 07.09.2021 um 23:42 schrieb Jackie Koerner :
> 
> Hi Alice,
> 
> Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is that it was the 
> election everyone was waiting for. :) It was "pushed for" by the community 
> for more than a year and now we gladly announce: it happened and here are the 
> results!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Jackie
> 
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand  > wrote:
> Hi all,
> congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see people stepping up 
> and taking responsibility, especially in times where leadership is needed.
> 
> Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subject of this thread? You say 
> „most contended … election“ and I wonder what that means. In my understanding 
> this is a nuance of controversial and I don’t get the point where it is more 
> controversial than any other election. Maybe it gets lost in translation, 
> maybe it’s me not having the complete insight of what has been discussed. 
> 
> Alice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 07.09.2021 um 20:10 schrieb Jackie Koerner > >:
>> 
>> Translations can be found on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi 
>> a_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The 
>> Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation 
>> Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record 
>> 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following 
>> four candidates received the most support:
>> 
>> 
>> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>> Victoria Doronina
>> Dariusz Jemielniak 
>> Lorenzo Losa
>> 
>> Waiting for the Board’s appointment
>> While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, they are 
>> not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to pass a 
>> successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the 
>> Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the country of residence of 
>> the candidates. The Board has set a tentative date to appoint new trustees 
>> at the end of this month. The Board also has approved 
>> 
>>  a short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to allow a smooth 
>> transition.
>> 
>> Thanks to all the candidates
>> Thanks to all candidates for their participation. They achieved a record in 
>> the number of candidates and regional diversity, with more than half of the 
>> 19 candidates from regions outside North America and Western Europe. This 
>> election used Single Transferable Voting 
>> 
>>  for the first time. This system does not indicate a number of votes or 
>> percentage of support. Rather, it shows in which round each candidate was 
>> eliminated. You can review the full results on Meta-Wiki 
>> ,
>>  which document the order in which the candidates were mathematically 
>> eliminated.
>> 
>> Thanks to all the election volunteers
>> The Board of Trustees stressed 
>> 
>>  the importance of increasing diversity on the Board. Dozens of volunteers 
>> supported by a team of multilingual facilitators promoted the election in up 
>> to 61 languages. They hosted many conversations about the Board election in 
>> more than 50 languages and encouraged community members to participate in 
>> all areas of the election.
>> 
>> Statistics
>> The 2021 Board of Trustees election broke new ground in several areas. The 
>> Movement Strategy and Governance team will publish a report with the most 
>> remarkable metrics soon. In the meantime, some statistics 
>>  
>> can be found on Meta-Wiki. Here you have some highlights.
>> 
>> Participation increased by 1,753 voters over 2017. Overall turnout was 
>> 10.13%, 1.1 percentage points more than in 2017.
>> The highest participation among wikis with at least 5 eligible voters was 
>> seen on the Hausa and Igbo Wikipedias. Both wikis had a participation of 75% 
>> (6 of 8 eligible voters). Other high participation numbers were seen on the 
>> Telugu, Nepalese, and Punjabi Wikipedias.
>> The largest increase in participation among wikis with at least 50 eligible 
>> voters was the Catalan 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Jackie Koerner]

Hi Alice,

Thanks for asking! The way we are intending "contended" is that it was the
election everyone was waiting for. :) It was "pushed for" by the community
for more than a year and now we gladly announce: it happened and here are
the results!

Best,

Jackie

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:29 PM Alice Wiegand  wrote:

> Hi all,
> congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see people stepping
> up and taking responsibility, especially in times where leadership is
> needed.
>
> Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subject of this thread? You
> say „most contended … election“ and I wonder what that means. In my
> understanding this is a nuance of controversial and I don’t get the point
> where it is more controversial than any other election. Maybe it gets lost
> in translation, maybe it’s me not having the complete insight of what has
> been discussed.
>
> Alice.
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 07.09.2021 um 20:10 schrieb Jackie Koerner  >:
>
> *Translations can be found on
> Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi
> a_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results
> *
> Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The
> Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation
> Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record
> 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following
> four candidates received the most support:
>
>
>
>1. Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>2. Victoria Doronina
>3. Dariusz Jemielniak
>4. Lorenzo Losa
>
>
> Waiting for the Board’s appointment
> While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, they
> are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to pass a
> successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the
> Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the country of residence of
> the candidates. The Board has set a tentative date to appoint new trustees
> at the end of this month. The Board also has approved
> 
> a short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to allow a smooth
> transition.
>
> Thanks to all the candidates
> Thanks to all candidates for their participation. They achieved a record
> in the number of candidates and regional diversity, with more than half of
> the 19 candidates from regions outside North America and Western Europe.
> This election used Single Transferable Voting
> 
> for the first time. This system does not indicate a number of votes or
> percentage of support. Rather, it shows in which round each candidate was
> eliminated. You can review the full results on Meta-Wiki
> ,
> which document the order in which the candidates were mathematically
> eliminated.
>
> Thanks to all the election volunteers
> The Board of Trustees stressed
> 
> the importance of increasing diversity on the Board. Dozens of volunteers
> supported by a team of multilingual facilitators promoted the election in
> up to 61 languages. They hosted many conversations about the Board election
> in more than 50 languages and encouraged community members to participate
> in all areas of the election.
>
> Statistics
> The 2021 Board of Trustees election broke new ground in several areas. The
> Movement Strategy and Governance team will publish a report with the most
> remarkable metrics soon. In the meantime, some statistics
> 
> can be found on Meta-Wiki. Here you have some highlights.
>
>
>- Participation increased by 1,753 voters over 2017. Overall turnout
>was 10.13%, 1.1 percentage points more than in 2017.
>- The highest participation among wikis with at least 5 eligible
>voters was seen on the Hausa and Igbo Wikipedias. Both wikis had a
>participation of 75% (6 of 8 eligible voters). Other high participation
>numbers were seen on the Telugu, Nepalese, and Punjabi Wikipedias.
>- The largest increase in participation among wikis with at least 50
>eligible voters was the Catalan Wikipedia, on which 36.3% of eligible
>voters voted (28 percentage points higher than in 2017).
>- There were 214 wikis represented in the election. This is determined
>by the wiki on which the account was originally created.
>- A total of 74 wikis that did not participate in 2017 produced voters
>in

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi all,
congrats to the elected Board members. It’s great to see people stepping up and 
taking responsibility, especially in times where leadership is needed.

Jackie, may I ask for some elaboration on the subject of this thread? You say 
„most contended … election“ and I wonder what that means. In my understanding 
this is a nuance of controversial and I don’t get the point where it is more 
controversial than any other election. Maybe it gets lost in translation, maybe 
it’s me not having the complete insight of what has been discussed. 

Alice.





> Am 07.09.2021 um 20:10 schrieb Jackie Koerner :
> 
> Translations can be found on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedi 
> a_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results
>  
> 
> 
> Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The 
> Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation 
> Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record 
> 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following 
> four candidates received the most support:
> 
> 
> Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
> Victoria Doronina
> Dariusz Jemielniak 
> Lorenzo Losa
> 
> Waiting for the Board’s appointment
> While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, they are 
> not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to pass a 
> successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the 
> Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the country of residence of 
> the candidates. The Board has set a tentative date to appoint new trustees at 
> the end of this month. The Board also has approved 
> 
>  a short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to allow a smooth 
> transition.
> 
> Thanks to all the candidates
> Thanks to all candidates for their participation. They achieved a record in 
> the number of candidates and regional diversity, with more than half of the 
> 19 candidates from regions outside North America and Western Europe. This 
> election used Single Transferable Voting 
> 
>  for the first time. This system does not indicate a number of votes or 
> percentage of support. Rather, it shows in which round each candidate was 
> eliminated. You can review the full results on Meta-Wiki 
> ,
>  which document the order in which the candidates were mathematically 
> eliminated.
> 
> Thanks to all the election volunteers
> The Board of Trustees stressed 
> 
>  the importance of increasing diversity on the Board. Dozens of volunteers 
> supported by a team of multilingual facilitators promoted the election in up 
> to 61 languages. They hosted many conversations about the Board election in 
> more than 50 languages and encouraged community members to participate in all 
> areas of the election.
> 
> Statistics
> The 2021 Board of Trustees election broke new ground in several areas. The 
> Movement Strategy and Governance team will publish a report with the most 
> remarkable metrics soon. In the meantime, some statistics 
>  
> can be found on Meta-Wiki. Here you have some highlights.
> 
> Participation increased by 1,753 voters over 2017. Overall turnout was 
> 10.13%, 1.1 percentage points more than in 2017.
> The highest participation among wikis with at least 5 eligible voters was 
> seen on the Hausa and Igbo Wikipedias. Both wikis had a participation of 75% 
> (6 of 8 eligible voters). Other high participation numbers were seen on the 
> Telugu, Nepalese, and Punjabi Wikipedias.
> The largest increase in participation among wikis with at least 50 eligible 
> voters was the Catalan Wikipedia, on which 36.3% of eligible voters voted (28 
> percentage points higher than in 2017).
> There were 214 wikis represented in the election. This is determined by the 
> wiki on which the account was originally created.
> A total of 74 wikis that did not participate in 2017 produced voters in this 
> election.
> A total of 226 wikis had at least one eligible voter but produced no voters. 
> The largest electorate in this group was Cantonese Wikipedia, with 25 
> eligible voters.
> 
> In the upcoming days, an anonymized list of votes will be released that will 
> allow deeper inspection and publication of more metrics.
> 
> 2022 election
> The next Board of 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[ktc]

Hi,

"(Is it still an option for
the Board to do this and appoint Eliane, Mike, Pascale and Ivan and then
skip next year's planned election?)"

Unfortunately, that's not how STV works. Given a different number of seats to 
be filled would had produced a different quota, which would have resulted in 
different surplus reallocation that may have produced different result. If this 
election had 8 seats, instead of 14 rounds of elimination before Rosie & 
Victoria meeting the quota, Dariusz would have met quota in the first round. 
The system is not meant for appointing last eliminated if subsequent vacancy 
opens up.

Regards,

Katie
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TIWB4MCSIKXBCRFSSWVASYNFO3CKWHL4/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Samuel Klein]

Congratulations to Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz and Lorenzo!

This system offers a helpful way of seeing whether there is a natural break
in the election results.
In this case there was a growing gap between 5th and 6th place results as
the process resolved.

Looking at the gap between (1 + 4), (4 + 5), and (5 + 6) as the # of
remaining candidates dropped:

# left   | 1st-4th | 4th-5th | 5th-6th |
19   |  185 |27 |  141 |
 9|  131 |25 |  223 |
 6|   97  |50 |  313 |
 5|  146 |19 |–   |



On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 3:40 PM Chris Keating 
wrote:

> I too am disappointed (but not surprised) that STV had almost no effect at
>> all on the outcome of this election
>>
>
> This may be true, but if it's true, it was only true very narrowly. The
> margin between the 4th and 5th placed candidates was 12.27 votes in a
> situation where 1,188 were needed to win.
>
> Had that gone very marginally differently, we'd all be talking about how
> amazing it was that a black African woman had been elected to the Board for
> the first time in history.
>
> We can observe a few other things about how it worked out:
> - by and large votes did not seem to transfer between Global South
> candidates - when one Global south candidate was knocked out their votes
> did not usually go to other Global South candidates
> - most votes ending up counting; of 6,800 or so initially there were 6,000
> counted in the final round, that is a fairly low dropout rate
> - also, if all 8 Board seats had been elected at the same time rather than
> in 2 batches in 2 years, we'd have 2 Global South candidates in the final 8
> and probably be pretty pleased with the results. (Is it still an option for
> the Board to do this and appoint Eliane, Mike, Pascale and Ivan and then
> skip next year's planned election?)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3GWCGYPKVJMGNJ6UXWQ5553RGYDPRBYN/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OQQUJD2FAFOS3HD6STVYYVV2TE6MK5WC/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Chris Keating]

>
> I too am disappointed (but not surprised) that STV had almost no effect at
> all on the outcome of this election
>

This may be true, but if it's true, it was only true very narrowly. The
margin between the 4th and 5th placed candidates was 12.27 votes in a
situation where 1,188 were needed to win.

Had that gone very marginally differently, we'd all be talking about how
amazing it was that a black African woman had been elected to the Board for
the first time in history.

We can observe a few other things about how it worked out:
- by and large votes did not seem to transfer between Global South
candidates - when one Global south candidate was knocked out their votes
did not usually go to other Global South candidates
- most votes ending up counting; of 6,800 or so initially there were 6,000
counted in the final round, that is a fairly low dropout rate
- also, if all 8 Board seats had been elected at the same time rather than
in 2 batches in 2 years, we'd have 2 Global South candidates in the final 8
and probably be pretty pleased with the results. (Is it still an option for
the Board to do this and appoint Eliane, Mike, Pascale and Ivan and then
skip next year's planned election?)

Thanks,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, 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/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/3GWCGYPKVJMGNJ6UXWQ5553RGYDPRBYN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Risker]

Thank you to the team who did so much work to make this election happen.  I
think it was really important to trial the STV system with a large
community participation to see whether it would yield a more diverse
outcome.

I too am disappointed (but not surprised) that STV had almost no effect at
all on the outcome of this election: only one of the top 5 candidates was a
non-European/non-North American from the very beginning, no non-Westerners
were selected, and the ranking of candidates was largely unchanged
throughout all of the steps - the top 5 candidates were always the top 5
candidates.

I will look forward to more details of the voting populace.

Risker/Anne

On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 14:17, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> Hello,
> Thanks for the announcement. I was expecting/hopeful to see a little more
> diverse result (continent/region etc,)
> Anyway, thanks to the organising team for your work.
> My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia
> Foundation. Congratulations!!
>
> ইতি,
> টিটো দত্ত
> (মাতৃভাষা থাক জীবন জুড়ে)
>
>
> মঙ্গল, ৭ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০২১ তারিখে ১১:৪১ PM টায় তারিখে Jackie Koerner <
> jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org> লিখেছেন:
>
>> *Translations can be found on
>> Meta: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results
>> *
>> Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The
>> Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation
>> Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record
>> 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following
>> four candidates received the most support:
>>
>>
>>
>>1.
>>
>>Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>>2.
>>
>>Victoria Doronina
>>3.
>>
>>Dariusz Jemielniak
>>4.
>>
>>Lorenzo Losa
>>
>>
>> Waiting for the Board’s appointment
>>
>> While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, they
>> are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to pass a
>> successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the
>> Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the country of residence of
>> the candidates. The Board has set a tentative date to appoint new trustees
>> at the end of this month. The Board also has approved
>> 
>> a short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to allow a smooth
>> transition.
>>
>> Thanks to all the candidates
>> Thanks to all candidates for their participation. They achieved a record
>> in the number of candidates and regional diversity, with more than half of
>> the 19 candidates from regions outside North America and Western Europe.
>> This election used Single Transferable Voting
>> 
>> for the first time. This system does not indicate a number of votes or
>> percentage of support. Rather, it shows in which round each candidate was
>> eliminated. You can review the full results on Meta-Wiki
>> ,
>> which document the order in which the candidates were mathematically
>> eliminated.
>>
>> Thanks to all the election volunteers
>>
>> The Board of Trustees stressed
>> 
>> the importance of increasing diversity on the Board. Dozens of volunteers
>> supported by a team of multilingual facilitators promoted the election in
>> up to 61 languages. They hosted many conversations about the Board election
>> in more than 50 languages and encouraged community members to participate
>> in all areas of the election.
>>
>> Statistics
>>
>> The 2021 Board of Trustees election broke new ground in several areas.
>> The Movement Strategy and Governance team will publish a report with the
>> most remarkable metrics soon. In the meantime, some statistics
>> 
>> can be found on Meta-Wiki. Here you have some highlights.
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>Participation increased by 1,753 voters over 2017. Overall turnout
>>was 10.13%, 1.1 percentage points more than in 2017.
>>-
>>
>>The highest participation among wikis with at least 5 eligible voters
>>was seen on the Hausa and Igbo Wikipedias. Both wikis had a participation
>>of 75% (6 of 8 eligible voters). Other high participation numbers were 
>> seen
>>on the Telugu, Nepalese, and Punjabi Wikipedias.
>>-
>>
>>The largest increase in participation among wikis with at least 50
>>eligible voters was the Catalan Wi

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

[Tito Dutta]

Hello,
Thanks for the announcement. I was expecting/hopeful to see a little more
diverse result (continent/region etc,)
Anyway, thanks to the organising team for your work.
My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia
Foundation. Congratulations!!

ইতি,
টিটো দত্ত
(মাতৃভাষা থাক জীবন জুড়ে)


মঙ্গল, ৭ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০২১ তারিখে ১১:৪১ PM টায় তারিখে Jackie Koerner <
jkoerner-...@wikimedia.org> লিখেছেন:

> *Translations can be found on
> Meta: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/2021-09-07/2021_Election_Results
> *
> Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The
> Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation
> Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record
> 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following
> four candidates received the most support:
>
>
>
>1.
>
>Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>2.
>
>Victoria Doronina
>3.
>
>Dariusz Jemielniak
>4.
>
>Lorenzo Losa
>
>
> Waiting for the Board’s appointment
>
> While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, they
> are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to pass a
> successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the
> Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the country of residence of
> the candidates. The Board has set a tentative date to appoint new trustees
> at the end of this month. The Board also has approved
> 
> a short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to allow a smooth
> transition.
>
> Thanks to all the candidates
> Thanks to all candidates for their participation. They achieved a record
> in the number of candidates and regional diversity, with more than half of
> the 19 candidates from regions outside North America and Western Europe.
> This election used Single Transferable Voting
> 
> for the first time. This system does not indicate a number of votes or
> percentage of support. Rather, it shows in which round each candidate was
> eliminated. You can review the full results on Meta-Wiki
> ,
> which document the order in which the candidates were mathematically
> eliminated.
>
> Thanks to all the election volunteers
>
> The Board of Trustees stressed
> 
> the importance of increasing diversity on the Board. Dozens of volunteers
> supported by a team of multilingual facilitators promoted the election in
> up to 61 languages. They hosted many conversations about the Board election
> in more than 50 languages and encouraged community members to participate
> in all areas of the election.
>
> Statistics
>
> The 2021 Board of Trustees election broke new ground in several areas. The
> Movement Strategy and Governance team will publish a report with the most
> remarkable metrics soon. In the meantime, some statistics
> 
> can be found on Meta-Wiki. Here you have some highlights.
>
>
>-
>
>Participation increased by 1,753 voters over 2017. Overall turnout was
>10.13%, 1.1 percentage points more than in 2017.
>-
>
>The highest participation among wikis with at least 5 eligible voters
>was seen on the Hausa and Igbo Wikipedias. Both wikis had a participation
>of 75% (6 of 8 eligible voters). Other high participation numbers were seen
>on the Telugu, Nepalese, and Punjabi Wikipedias.
>-
>
>The largest increase in participation among wikis with at least 50
>eligible voters was the Catalan Wikipedia, on which 36.3% of eligible
>voters voted (28 percentage points higher than in 2017).
>-
>
>There were 214 wikis represented in the election. This is determined
>by the wiki on which the account was originally created.
>-
>
>A total of 74 wikis that did not participate in 2017 produced voters
>in this election.
>-
>
>A total of 226 wikis had at least one eligible voter but produced no
>voters. The largest electorate in this group was Cantonese Wikipedia, with
>25 eligible voters.
>
>
> In the upcoming days, an anonymized list of votes will be released that
> will allow deeper inspection and publication of more metrics.
>
> 2022 election
> The next Board of Trustees election is planned to take place in 2022.
> Interested community members can watch the Wikimedia Foundation elec