Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Risker (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 31 May 2013 (→‎Important announcement: Election delayed by one week: fix header). It may differ significantly from the current version.

To discuss individual races in the 2013 election, see: Board of Trustees election discussion | FDC election discussion | FDC Ombudsperson election discussion

How should votes be counted?

Percentage of support question

This paragraph doesn't make sense to me. If only one person votes for a candidate and the vote is in support of the candidate, does the candidate get 100%?

The votes will be tallied and the candidates will be ranked by percentage of support, defined as the number of votes cast in support of the candidate divided by the total number of votes cast for the candidate ("neutral" preferences are not counted). The candidates with the highest percentage of support will be recommended to the Board of Trustees for appointment.

Leli Forte (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Leli Forte, thank you for your comment. You raise a good point. Would you like to suggest a minimum number of support votes that would be required before a recommendation to the Board of Trustees? For example, "Only candidates who have received a minimum of ___ support votes are eligible to be recommended to the Board of Trustees." What number would you suggest there? Risker (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Risker. My comment was really about the text not about the system. When trying to translate the text I couldn't make sense of it. I don't know anything about the tally sytem. Presumably it has been used before and it works. What is needed is a clear explanation of the system. Thanks and regards. Leli Forte (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's probably too late now to include in the text overleaf, but an example could be:

"For example, if a candidate receives 541 supports, 369 opposes, and 402 neutrals, their percentage of support will be 541 divided by (541 + 369); that is, 541/910, which is 56.45%. The 402 neutrals will be irrelevant to the tally". Tony (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey. So on this topic, I am curious why the election committee decided to do it this way? It seems to me like Leli Forte raises a very good question. The ratio measurement, as defined, would favor those who (for instance) get a lot of neutral votes and only a few support votes but zero or very low opposes, thus resulting in a high support precentage, even though they may have gotten far fewer support votes numerically than another candidate who also has a higher ratio of opposes. This seems it would not actually serve the aim of having the candidate with the highest support win. Should there be a cutoff of minimum support votes, or just a count of straight supports? Thanks. (And thanks to the committee for all your work!) -- phoebe | talk 04:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Quick example to illustrate off the top of my head. If I understand this correctly:
  • Candidate A gets 5 support votes, 1 oppose vote, and 1250 neutral votes. Their support % is 83% (5/6)
  • Candidate B gets 1000 support votes, 250 oppose votes, and 6 neutral votes. Their support % is 80% (1000/1250).
  • So Candidate A would win in this scenario, despite being supported by 1/200th of the voters versus Candidate B.
So I'm curious if this is actually the desired outcome, in this scenario. -- phoebe | talk 04:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Tony, how about this example: "For example, if a candidate receives 1 support, 0 opposes, and 402 neutrals, their percentage of support will be 1 divided by (1 + 0); that is, 1/1, which is 100% and we have a winner!" What Leli Forte was trying to say, I think, is that the quoted sentence makes no sense; he was not saying that it is hard to understand. I have to say that I agree. What happened to the good old count of supporters? The one who get the most support - wins. Too simplistic? Ofrahod (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree that it's a good question, and we had some early discussion about setting a minimum support floor. This *is* something that I think can safely be discussed at least for the next week or so to get a sense of community opinion - it needs to be resolved before nominations close, though. On several projects, there are minimum numbers of support and minimum ratios of support; however, the kinds of numbers we see on individual projects don't translate well to this mega-community. A few of us have talked about a minimum of 300 support votes or, alternately, support from 10% of the voters, in order to be considered for appointment to the Board; these numbers would have to be much smaller, though, for FDC/FDC ombud positions, because we can reasonably predict a much higher "neutral" vote for these positions. All thoughts are welcome on this topic. Ofrahod, one of the biggest complaints about the Schulze method (the system used for voting in past Board elections) was the fact that voters could not oppose candidates whom they felt would be very bad choices as Trustees; that is one of the reasons that we moved to the Support/Neutral/Oppose process. There have been several elections/votes/RFAs etc on various projects where there was a very high number of supports, but the support/oppose ratio was very low.
For me, the key is that we always, always have to keep in mind that the FDC positions are inherently different from the Board positions, and that we cannot expect candidates for those roles to receive the broad support that we would see for Board candidates. Risker (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
A percentage-based cutoff for each election as a stand-alone race (minimum percent of total support votes? minimum percent of voters supporting?) seems like it would avoid the FDC/Board discrepancy. -- phoebe | talk 05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Phoebe, that minimum percent of total supports (presuming you mean the S/(S+O) result) is what en.WP uses for its ArbCom elections. I find this fundamentally flawed, since it leaves open the risk that an election won't fill all of the vacant positions—and who wants that hassle? Through sheer luck, it hasn't yet happened in the en.WP ArbCom elections. Risker, every voting system has its distortions, but I believe the S/(S+O) system is really bad in this respect. Yes, people are right to point out that 1 support and 0 opposes gives 100% under this system, and again, on en.WP it's luck that someone hasn't got over the line by accident with minimal voting. I don't believe that providing the option for voters to "oppose candidates whom they felt would be very bad choices as Trustees" is a significant benefit. No real-world election provides this ternary positive–negative–neutral voting system (and neutral is a choice). It's a great shame the preferential system isn't being used; it allows voters much greater feedom to express their nuanced wishes. (Apology over my mistaken edit for -> about.) Tony (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. To be clear I don't have a problem with the idea of support/oppose/neutral voting (largely because I've sorted through all the complaints about how hard the previous system was to use). And I do think neutral can provide a social benefit in getting people to vote in an election like this where they may not have an opinion on lots of the candidates. I just have concerns about how it's planned to be counted. -- phoebe | talk 15:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree with many of the comments in this section, and have prodded my colleagues on the Election Committee to discuss this further. We should probably have some group thoughts for public discussion in a few days. Thanks very much for raising the issue. Risker (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this seems like a valid concern worth addressing. Because percentages are being counted, not numbers, a candidate with fewer votes can get a bigger percentage share of the vote. eg A candidate with 30 votes in support and 5 opposes gets 85.71% of the vote (30/35), which is slightly higher than a candidate who has 300 votes and 55 opposes and gets 84.50% of the vote (300/355).
Because this is a percentage-based system, two candidates can also hypothetically end up with the same percentage share of votes, even though one has less votes than the other. Eg a candidate with 1000 votes in support and 500 opposes will get 66.66% of the vote (1000/1500) but so will a candidate with 300 votes and 150 opposes, and so will a candidate with 30 votes and 15 opposes. If they are ranked based on percentage, how would these three hypothetical candidates be ranked? Would it be worth adding a guideline that says in case of two or more candidates getting the same percentage, the one with numerically higher support votes would win the vote? Or...? Bishdatta (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Schulze voting and strategic voting

    • Risker, the other issue with this option to oppose-vote, not just support-vote, is that some people learn to use it strategically to position their favoured candidates better in relation to all others. This is what I will do: no wasted neutrals. Any candidate I don't vote for gets an oppose. It's the obvious thing to do. But unless voters generally know to do this, it builds an arbitrariness into the system. Tony (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • You're quite correct, Tony. Some people figured out how to vote strategically using the Schulze system as well; there are ways to do it in almost every system. We had very little time as a committee, and no developer time, to consider, script and test voting methods that haven't already been written for SecurePoll. This is something that should be examined further and should definitely be brought up in the post mortem review. Risker (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • Risker ... OK. SecurePoll really does need some developer work, anyway. Perhaps the engineering division could find time in the next six months ... or perhaps after these elections there could be an RfC from voters about the system from a technical perspective. The spin-off could be a much more flexible voting system for use throughout the movement. Tony (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
        • "Some people figured out how to vote strategically using the Schulze system as well" No, I'm pretty sure that's false. My understanding is that it's completely impossible to vote strategically using Schulze except in cases where there's a Condorcet cycle (which I suspect happens very rarely) that the voter is somehow able to predict in advance (how this could happen I can not imagine) with such a high level of certainty that they vote tactically even though, were they to be wrong about their guess, they would be putting an even less desired candidate into the position than were they to vote honestly. Contrast this with the Support/Neutral/Oppose (though really I should say the Support/Oppose system, as Neutral is never the right option, and the only effect its existence will have will be lowering the influence of those who aren't aware of this), where the vote's influence is pretty much dependent on where the voter places the Support/Oppose border. Voters who place it in the wrong place tend to lose all influence. --Yair rand (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
          • The mathematical premise of Schulze and other similar systems starts with the premise that all candidates have an equal chance of winning. That is not realistic; anyone who has ever voted in a "real" election knows that only a few candidates really have the potential to win. Strategic voting using a system like Schulze involves manipulation of one's ranking (or not ranking) of various candidates. Condorcet voting systems are based on mathematics without incorporating the reality of human behaviour. It is even easier to do when the software is designed to produce a single winner and then is used to produce multiple winners. Risker (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
            • "The mathematical premise of Schulze and other similar systems starts with the premise that all candidates have an equal chance of winning." No, I don't think that's correct. "Strategic voting using a system like Schulze involves manipulation of one's ranking (or not ranking) of various candidates." As opposed to what? Could you please give any example that contradicts what I said above, where a strategic vote changes the outcome to that of what the voter wants, without advanced prediction of a Condorcet cycle and betting the possibility of a worse outcome on the accuracy of the prediction? --Yair rand (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
                • Yair, what's the most effective way of getting a candidate down-ranked? It's not ranking them as 10th in a field of 10, it is not ranking them at all. In other words, the "neutral" position of not ranking a candidate actively downranks candidates. Very few voters ever want to rank all candidates. The Schulze system artificially downranks candidates for which the voter has no opinion (i.e. does not rank the candidate), while artificially upranking candidates for which a voter has a strongly negative opinion (i.e., ranks the candidate as 100th place - or any other rank).

                  No one voter is going to skew any voting system, and large dedicated blocs of voters can skew any system, too, Condorcet cycles or no. Risker (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

                  • Where are you getting this from? I don't think it's correct. Not ranking a candidate is not the "neutral" position. Quoting an old SignPost article, "Voters can give candidates any ranking from "1" to "99" (or leave the field blank), with "1" being the most preferred candidate, higher numbers corresponding to candidates who are less preferred, and a blank space being the least preferred." Leaving a space blank means it's least preferred, and it's identical to ranking it 10th in a field of ten, assuming that no others were left blank or ranked ten. There should be no ambiguity about this. If there is confusion, then I suppose leaving something blank should not be an option. It doesn't add anything anyways. The system does not "artificially downrank candidates" at all; if X is given a greater number than Y, or left blank, it means Y is preferred over X, and it's added to the count of how many individual voters prefer Y over X. ("When a voter doesn't rank all candidates, then this is interpreted as if this voter ... strictly prefers all ranked to all unranked candidates", from Schulze's explanation of the 2009 elections.)
                  • At least, that's my understanding of the system. Where are you getting yours from? --Yair rand (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
                  • (And I'd appreciate it if you could give any example of where reasonable tactical voting could make any difference to the results, without the tactical votes being a really stupid move. --Yair rand (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC))Reply
                    • I'm getting my understanding from the reality of voting. Link to the "old" Signpost article please? The key point is that it is normal human behaviour not to rank a candidate if one has not formulated an opinion about that candidate, but the Schulze system penalizes candidates for not having a big enough following (positive) or opposition(negative) for people to care enough about them to rank them. It is counterintuitive (a blank vote should be considered neutral, not active opposition) and is diametrically opposed to the normal voting and vote-like situations within the Wikimedia community (where absence of a vote does not penalize the candidate). As to the comparative "stupidity" of any tactical voting, I hold no opinion. I shall point out that when voting systems were discussed amongst the Election Committee, nobody supported continued use of the Schulze system. Risker (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Central notice

Can we have a link please to the place to translate the central notice "Self-nominations are now being accepted for the Board of Trustees and the Funds Dissemination Committee." I clicked on the translate link on the central notice and came to this page, which as far as I can see doesn't have the central notice on it. I haven't got the time to find it by searching. Lloffiwr (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! The translate link on the Central Notice should take you to Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/Translation#Central Notice Banners, which has the link for translating the Central Notice and links for other pages that need to be translated. If you clicked on the "Click here to read more and volunteer." link, then that would have taken you to this page, but there's one just underneath it for helping with translations - does it show up for you? Thehelpfulone 13:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
The text of the translate link appears, but unfortunately the link doesn't work. Lloffiwr (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Multiple candidacies are not permitted."

I know this is the first time we've ever done this, so no one really knows the answer to this question! I'm curious if allowing multiple candidacies would be useful; I can easily see someone being interested in and qualified for both the Board & FDC, or in both FDC roles (many of our previous board candidates have expressed interest in program evaluation, which is a skill also needed for the FDC, for instance). There would have to be some kind of rollover mechanism if someone happened to win a seat for both, but otherwise I'm not sure I see the downside of allowing people to stand for either (other than potentially some poorly-thought-through candidacies). Thoughts? -- phoebe | talk 21:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're right, it's the first time we're doing this; from my own perspective as a member of the Election Committee, I hope it is the *only* time we do this. Unfortunately, given the relatively short time that we had to pull everything together, and the deadlines we were given for having all candidacies filled, the only way we could do this was a single election, unless we ran two elections immediately after each other, which is unfair to the community. (Yes, several of us identified that this was a problem almost immediately after our appointment.) This is one of the ways in which we simplified what is already a very complex process. We posted these criteria almost two weeks ago and had no comment on this issue until today; after candidacies open is probably too late to change things now. From my own perspective, I'm not sure it is reasonable for people to stand for multiple positions in a single election process, particularly when past history tells us that there are a lot of candidates for each of these positions. There are many roles that individuals can play in the community, even absent being appointed or elected to any of these positions. Speaking personally, I'll be recommending that the FDC election be held six months on either side of the board election the next time around, so that individuals who are unsuccessful in one can run in the other; however, that was not possible this year. In fact, it might be a thought for the board to reconsider holding FDC elections in the same year as the board elections. Risker (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
That seems reasonable, though I think there was some thought that having all the elections at once would provide a streamlined election process (so we don't have to do do this over and over)? I guess time will tell. Anyway, despite my interest in the process, I hadn't gotten around to checking to see what was up with the election until just recently, so just noticed this bit -- sorry for the late comment. -- phoebe | talk 03:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I suspect too that somewhere along the line some folks thought it would be easier to manage a single election with (based on experience to date) up to 70 candidates across three position types. Maybe for people who are paid to manage elections - even getting to this point has been a huge time investment, and it could not have been done without fairly extensive staff support which is neither allocated for in the budget, nor addressed in anyone's job descriptions. (To this point, I'd estimate between 75-125 staff hours, and by the end of the election it will be well over 300 staff hours, from several departments.) I suspect that there was the expectation that we would just simply use what had been done before, forgetting that every message had to be rewritten to accommodate the new positions, that the structure of pages needed to be redesigned, that two of the three candidate pages had to be developed from scratch, that the new positions have mandatory questions that had to be developed and then built into the candidacy forms, and so on. I have no idea how the Board is going to be able to do all that due diligence, either; it's going to be awfully difficult to reasonably predict successful candidates for the two first-time elections. Well, we'll see how this all works out. I think the team has done a pretty good job of creating a workable election that will give a result that can be respected by the community as a whole. Mind you, we've not yet tested the ballots... Risker (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
It does seem a pity. Some candidates for trusteeship might well have exactly the skill-base the FDC needs too. It's very simple to exclude them if they win a seat on the Board. Tony (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps. On the other hand, is it fair to the voters, or to the FDC positions? Multiple candidacy means that voters would have to read up to three separate presentations for a single candidate; and I don't think it benefits the FDC for it to be treated as a consolation prize for those who don't succeed at the Board of Trustees level. Risker (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/ja

Why is there not "Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/ja" in "other languages"?--Bletilla (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

A link should exist if you click on the word "Japanese", which links you to Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/ja. Thehelpfulone 16:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Questions

Hello over there!,
just a question: until which date we can publish public questions to the candidates at the question page? I'd suppose until June 18, but actually, as it's not written,.. Thanks & cheers, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think 23:59 UTC 15 June would be better as that's the deadline for voting. Thehelpfulone 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Early thanks to Risker and other organisers

I've been griping above. So I just want to point out that at the same time I realise how challenging and labour-intensive this task has been and will continue to be for the organisers—especially a double-barrelled election for positions on two bodies. Well done Risker and her colleagues. Thank you. Tony (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

+1 -- phoebe | talk 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Minimal support level for successful candidacies

In view of the comments above, the Election Committee has discussed establishing minimal support levels in order for candidacies to be successful. For this election, the minimal support level will be as follows:

  • For Board of Trustees candidates
    • Minimum support of 10% of all eligible votes (i.e., if there are 3000 people who vote on BoT candidates, only candidates with 300 or more supports will be ranked, the rest will not be eligible for a seat)
  • For FDC and FDC Ombud candidates
    • Minimum of 30 support votes from eligible voters

For the Election Committee, Risker (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Questions to specific candidates

Where can one ask a question to a single candidate? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

+1, I'd also like to know if this is possible. Can someone from the committee weigh in on this? Theo10011 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
You need the committee to weigh in? In order to edit the wiki? I don't understand the issue. What's wrong with you two? :-) Also, there's surely years of precedent here. Can't you just look at how it was handled previously? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's usually not allowed from what I remember, but the committee can always make an exception and set a new trend - that's why I brought it up. Also, ihu. Theo10011 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm going to get other Election Committee members to weigh in here as well, but MZMcBride's suggestion of looking at prior elections is a good one, and we'd probably follow precedent on that. Risker (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

character limits & spaces

There is a discussion going on about character limits here; this is applicable to all three elections. -- phoebe | talk 16:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Election Committee decisions following close of candidacy period

The Election Committee has reviewed and made some decisions relating to candidacies after the close of the candidacy period. These decisions are posted here for transparency.

Late candidate submissions

Three candidates (Liam Witty and John Vandenberg for Board of Trustees, Aegis Maelstrom for FDC) posted their candidacies within a few minutes after the established deadline for candidacies. After much consideration, the Election Committee has decided to assume good faith in these self-nominations, and will accept them.

Incumbency exemptions for FDC and FDC ombud candidates

In view of the longtime exemptions for Board of Trustee incumbents to meet edit count requirements for future candidacies, the Election Committee has decided to extend the same exemption to FDC and FDC ombud candidates. It is noted that this is the first election for these two positions, and the criteria for them was largely drawn from those developed for appointed candidates in 2012, when incumbency was not a consideration. The effect of this decision is that Lusitana's candidacy as FDC ombud will proceed; Lusitana did not meet the requirement for 20 edits between 15 December 2012 and 15 April 2013, but was active in her role as the incumbent ombud during that period.

Identification to the WMF

Several candidates for Board of Trustees and FDC had not identified to the WMF at the close of the candidacy period. On careful review of the prerequisites for candidacy, it was noted that the Election Committee had given unclear direction on this point, by both advising candidates to identify by the end of the candidacy period, and by stating that instructions for doing so would come from the Election Committee. The Committee, however, did not send those instructions to candidates but instead posted them within the instructions to candidates on-wiki. All candidates who had not already identified to the WMF were thus offered a 48-hour grace period (to 23:59 UTC on 19 May) to complete the identification process. As of this writing, all but two candidates have completed the identification process.

These points will also be posted on the post mortem page to assist future election committees in identifying opportunities for improvement. For the Election Committee, Risker (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Too many questions

The process seems to be going well, but I see someone schiste posted 5 questions for the candidates. I think this is over the line and unfair to everyone else to monopolize the limited time candidates have. Someone should take a look. Theo10011 (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bulleted list in /Voter e-mail

I think this should better use a definition list (with wiki lines starting by ";" and ":" i.e. HTML elements dl/dt/dd) so that each of the 3 items will form a single list.

But if you prefer bullets (to avoid dt elements to be shown in bold characters), make sure that the description below each bullet is indented and logically starts by "*:", or use a "br" element between the bullet title and its description.

See Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/Voter e-mail. For now the bullets make non sense, please use correct semantic structures. verdy_p (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure. It doesn't really matter for the sake of translation, since the formatting is outside of the translation items, so it can be changed without affecting the translations – how it looks on the wiki page doesn't really correlate to how it will look in the e-mail. But I'll change it to ;s and :s for now. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Links for voting are not all that clear

I'm writing the Signpost election special part 2. We'd love to give a plain, simple link for people to vote; but I'm a bit confused by the "How to vote" section overleaf. Any ideas? Some examples for English WP, German WP, English Wikivoyage, Commons, would be great. Tony (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

No one's at home in the election committee. Could you tell me whether en.WP account users will see a banner with a direct link to SecurePoll, and if so, whether it will be there for the entire two-week voting period? We publish soon. And do I understand correctly from the thread above that every user will be emailed with voter information? And is everything set to go in technical terms, or is there still work to do? Tony (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Tony - not ignoring you, I just wasn't online through the night my time, and didn't wake up early enough to respond before going to work. There are going to be two separate links for users to vote at: one for Board candidates and the other for FDC/FDC Ombud candidates. The polls have not yet been uploaded so I can't provide you with the links yet. They will also be included in all of the central notices as well. We're working on this today so that we can start the election on time. Risker (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, still got 6–12 hours before publication, I think. So we'll let people know at the start that these links will be provided on banners, I'm presuming (will they be on all WMF sites?). Thanks Risker. Tony (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, they should be. Thanks for keeping the elections front and centre, Tony. Risker (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Important announcement: Election delayed by one week

The Election Committee regrets to advise that it is necessary to delay the start of voting in the WMF Elections 2013 for one week. This delay is being implemented for three reasons:

  • We have been unable to verify that the list of eligible voters is complete and that all voters meet the published criteria
  • We have been unable to verify that the SecurePoll setups for the election are properly functioning
  • The voter interfaces have not been translated and are not currently available in any language other than English, thus disadvantaging Wikimedians who do not read English.

The following changes are now made to the Election timeline:

  • 8-22 June 2013: elections
  • 23-25 June 2013: vote-checking
  • 25-28 June: publication of results.

For the Election Committee, Risker (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply