On 02/10/12 23:03, Andrew Turvey wrote:
after all a constitution is not something that we should tinker with
lightly, hence the requirement for it to pass with a 75% change.
75% of those present and voting (and those voting by proxy?)?
Gordo
___
This could run and run! How about a guillotine motion?
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Is that when the candidates put their head under a sharp pointy obejct and
we see who has the thickest neck?
On 2 October 2012 14:32, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
This could run and run! How about a guillotine motion?
Gordo
__**_
- Original Message -
From: Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com
This could run and run! How about a guillotine motion?
Seems a little drastic to chop the heads off the losing candidates ;-0
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikime...@alisonwheeler.com
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Well, certainly at some point the Board will call an EGM and so I strongly
suggest anyone with alternative systems to be discussed mention them soon.
As it stands we'll be choosing between Approval, STV and Schulze.
On 2 October 2012 14:32, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
This could
If we pencil in 9-10 Feb for the EGM then we have until, say, the end of
November to discuss and agree on the proposal. I do think we need to have a
reasoned argument set out in favour of the change before we call the EGM
itself - after all a constitution is not something that we should tinker
I missed a bit...
On 1 October 2012 18:31, Alison M. Wheeler wikime...@alisonwheeler.comwrote:
I have seen almost entire committees wiped out in this way despite - once
you looked at the lower-preference votes - them retaining wide support.
The two-year term mitigates aginst this.
- Original Message -
From: Doug Weller dougwel...@gmail.com
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, 30 September, 2012 6:35:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process
Thank you for this. From my viewpoint your explanation
Thanks for this WSC, this is a great start. However, I'm not sure it
describes what's broken with the current system - what factions do we
actually have that are under-represented in the board due to the current
system?
I wonder whether this model actually reflects how people tend to vote in
WMUK
Just because it hasn't caused any problems yet doesn't mean it isn't broken.
My main objection to approval voting is that it makes tactical voting
almost compulsory. In reality, approval isn't a yes/no thing. It's a
spectrum and in approval voting you are forced to arbitrarily draw a line
On a different note...
Regarding the switch from approval voting to STV (or whatever) what I think
is missing the most is a clear statement setting out the reasons for the
change (i.e. what's broken and how would this change fix it).
I've also suggested a tweak to the EGM motion on the page
On the first point, granted. I'll attempt to come up with a clearer description.
I don't think that an instruction from the members to the Board to make a
particular purchase sets a precedent that all Board purchases must be
authorised by the membership. Would appreciate Office input on this
Re Andrew's request for a clear statement setting out the reasons for the
change.
The difference between STV and a majoritarian system is that if you have a
community where factions have emerged then STV ensures that all significant
factions can see someone elected who they approve of. By
Thank you for this. From my viewpoint your explanation (with which I
agree) is a strong arugment for STV.
Doug
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:04 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Re Andrew's request for a clear statement setting out the reasons for the
change.
The
On 17 September 2012 23:40, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers to
the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box churns
out a result. I'd be much happier with a system that can if necessary be
+2
On 18 September 2012 08:43, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2012 23:40, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I have never trusted electoral systems that rely on computers to
the point that the votes go in, a button is pushed, and a black box
churns
On 17/09/12 21:48, Chris Keating wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
mailto:lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the
no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on
On 18 September 2012 03:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.comwrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for
STV.
On 18 September 2012 09:43, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 September 2012 08:50, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
+2
On 18 September 2012 08:43, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2012 23:40, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2012 23:57, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
James,
Should some Directors appointed under these Rules be required, under
Article 16.2, to retire at the next Annual General Meeting, those Directors
shall be those who received the fewest first preferences. In the event
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are
you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on
board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the
board is concerned)?
Best,
Lodewijk
2012/9/16 Chris Keating
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: are
you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the issue on
board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far as the
Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start
making some progress on this.
On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Chris, if I may at least ask for a very
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is
that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current
system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if
anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for
STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting_System
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_STV_Election_Rules
Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received.
On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote:
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is
that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the
current system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for
STV; if anyone has other systems they'd like
On 17 September 2012 23:29, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote:
Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is
that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the
current system. I intend to draft a motion with
I have a preference for the Schulze method as well, since it is generally
superior to many other methods, even if somewhat opaque in its mechanism.
Examining the comparisons at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#Comparison_table
should give an indication of its strengths.
The only
James,
Should some Directors appointed under these Rules be required, under
Article 16.2, to retire at the next Annual General Meeting, those Directors
shall be those who received the fewest first preferences. In the event of a
tie, a teller shall draw lots prior to announcing the result. The
On 17/09/2012 23:50, rexx wrote:
The only problem is likely to be finding a good implementation in
software. There is a refinement of Schulze described at the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_STV which has a python
implementation at
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.comwrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for
STV.
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonStatto/Proposed_EGM_Motion_on_Voting_System
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Annual_Conference_2012_AGM_Minutes#Discussion_over_the_voting_process
It says there that there was going to be an EGM before September 2012 to
decide on how future board election would be held. Is there any word on
that?
___
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Annual_Conference_2012_AGM_Minutes#Discussion_over_the_voting_process
It says there that there was going to be an EGM before September 2012 to
decide on how future board election would be held. Is there any word on
that?
I think the short answer is no.
Chris
34 matches
Mail list logo
