On Jun 7, 2015 9:31 PM, "Milos Rancic" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Pine W wrote:
> > # We use S/N/O for many other kinds of votes, including FDC, steward,
> > Arbitration Committee, and featured content votes. I have not heard
> > disagreement with it until now, which suggests that
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On the other side, I would note
> that being a member of en.wp's ArbCom is highly stressful position and
> I don't think that there are many of long-term ArbCom members (in
> comparison to, let's say, WMF Board). I am sure that one of the most
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Pine W wrote:
> # We use S/N/O for many other kinds of votes, including FDC, steward,
> Arbitration Committee, and featured content votes. I have not heard
> disagreement with it until now, which suggests that generally there is
> consensus for this system.
> ...
>
Regarding contents / geographic vs. cultural areas: I think either would
make sense. One way of looking at cultural areas would be the ways that the
affiliates spontaneously organized ourselves at WMCON, possibly with a few
additions.
Regarding differing population sizes: yes, but there will be im
I agree that negative votes have possibly too much weight in the current
system. But there is one other problem with what we have: people from some
cultures may be much more reluctant to cast tactical negative votes. If
this is so, because of cultural differences we privilege cultures more flex
abo
I think this is dancing around the perceived problem. You can either have
open, democratic, and fair elections with a result that represents the will
of the electorate, or you can have a group of people who are diverse in
terms of nationality, gender, ethnicity, etcetera. Not both. And I don't
t
On 6 June 2015 at 19:58, Pine W wrote:
> I'm happy with S/N/O and with the election winners, but concerned about the
> diversity of the Board. I wonder if rethinking the entire board structure
> is in order, for example we could have:
>
> 1. One seat per continent, elected by the whole voting com
[For the record I'm running the vote dumps now that should allow some of
that analysis to be done by those interested. No exact promises on timing
because while I'll send it out today it will take some time to approve for
anonymization etc.]
James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Well, the funny thing with current system is that if people had voted in
> most rational way - i.e. to maximize the impact of their votes - the
> results would have been negative for all candidates - as this year none of
> them got more than
Well, the funny thing with current system is that if people had voted in
most rational way - i.e. to maximize the impact of their votes - the
results would have been negative for all candidates - as this year none of
them got more than 50% of positive votes. But in fact if all people would
vote in
Milos Rancic skrev den 2015-06-06 21:00:
I think also that it's valid idea that EC chooses voting system
according to the needs of particular point of time. For example, this
time it was about giving opportunity to the new candidates. Next time
it could be more balanced. If you notice that Boar
On 6 June 2015 at 14:58, Pine W wrote:
> I'm happy with S/N/O and with the election winners, but concerned about the
> diversity of the Board. I wonder if rethinking the entire board structure
> is in order, for example we could have:
>
> 1. One seat per continent, elected by the whole voting com
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Pine W wrote:
> I'm happy with S/N/O and with the election winners, but concerned about the
> diversity of the Board. I wonder if rethinking the entire board structure
> is in order, for example we could have:
>
> 1. One seat per continent, elected by the whole voti
I basically agree with the whole of Risker's post but want to expand in
this bit:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Risker wrote:
> There are not very many systems, though,
> that are specifically designed to give multiple winners when one of the
> conditions is that they *not* be running on a s
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Anders Wennersten
wrote:
> The result could also be interpreted as a thundering success for the voting
> method being used.
Just to be clear: I think you (Election committee) did very good job.
Inside of the stable circumstances, like they are now, It's very
useful
I'm happy with S/N/O and with the election winners, but concerned about the
diversity of the Board. I wonder if rethinking the entire board structure
is in order, for example we could have:
1. One seat per continent, elected by the whole voting community
2. Two affiliate seats chosen by all affili
On 06.06.2015 20:30, Risker wrote:
I find it interesting that nobody seems all that worried about the FDC
election (where 5 of 11 candidates got seats) or the FDC Ombud election
(where both candidates came forward in the last 24 hours before nominations
closed). These two elections suggest some
The Schulze method that was being used is the one that is specifically
intended to give only one winner; probably most people don't know that
Schulze also created a separate system that was intended to give multiple
winners. It is a very confusing system and many people unintentionally
gave suppo
The result could also be interpreted as a thundering success for the
voting method being used.
We have now the last year and two seen major improvement in
professionalism in WMF (thanks Lila) and the chapters and their boards
(thanks local ECs and boards, FDC members, Katy and Winnifred). But
I still think it was a big mistake (of the electcom? I don't remember, but
/someone/ pushed it through without discussions) in the 2013 election to
abolish the Schulze method.
Am 06.06.2015 19:16 schrieb "Milos Rancic" :
> Moving this discussion into a separate thread, to leave the main one
> for
Negative votes exist for a reason.
Or, let's make voters choose between "support" and "support"?
Il 06/06/2015 19:15, Milos Rancic ha scritto:
Moving this discussion into a separate thread, to leave the main one
for best wishes and similar :)
Before I start talking about the voting system itsel
Moving this discussion into a separate thread, to leave the main one
for best wishes and similar :)
Before I start talking about the voting system itself, I have to say
that, from my personal perspective, I wouldn't imagine better outcome:
a Polish steward (my favorite Wikimedian group :) ), a Cro
22 matches
Mail list logo
