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 <gnanga...@gmail.com> 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 <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:40 PM Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> >> 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 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/YPB5C6E7OGA2BRVSD6HCMONLYQVJUTL2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
