Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2011/Results/nl
|Verkiezing van de Board of Trustees 2011|
De Verkiezingscommissie van de verkiezing voor de Wikimedia Board of Trustees van 2011 maakt hierbij de resultaten van deze verkiezing bekend. De winnaars zijn Ting Chen (Wing), Samuel Klein (Sj) and Kat Walsh (mindspillage). Deze resultaten zullen worden bevestigd door de Board of Trustees bij hun volgende vergadering. De termijn van deze posities loopt af midden 2013.
In totaal zijn er 3495 geldige stemmen gegeven; de gedetailleerde resultaten ziet u hieronder. Zie ook de Board elections/2011/complete dump of the ballots.
- Ting Chen (Wing)
- Samuel Klein (Sj)
- Kat Walsh (mindspillage)
- Milos Rancic (Millosh)
- Lodewijk Gelauff (Effeietsanders)
- Claudi Balaguer (Capsot)
- Harel Cain (Harel)
- Jane S. Richardson (Dcrjsr)
- Patricio Lorente (Patricio.lorente)
- Joan Gomà (Gomà)
- James Forrester (Jdforrester)
- Ferdinando Scala (Ferdinando Scala)
- Gerard Meijssen (GerardM)
- Marc-André Pelletier (Coren)
- Esteban Zárate (Ezarate)
- William H. DuBay (Bdubay)
- Urs Wäfler (Urs.Waefler)
- Tom Morton (ErrantX)
- Mischa Vetere (mvart4u)
The committee certifies that we believe this election was fairly executed and there is no cause to doubt the results.
In pairwise results, the top five pairs are:
- Ting Chen vs Sam Klein: 1010/977
- Sam Klein vs Kat Walsh: 969/874
- Kat Walsh versus Milos Rancic: 1022/887
- Milos Rancic to Lodewijk Gelauff: 943/838
- Lodewijk Gelauff to Claudi Balaguer: 920/888
There were a total of 3495 votes case, and 71 votes stricken. Of the number of votes cast a few are duplicates (when people vote more than once from the same account it is counted as a new vote, but not counted in the tally), so the real number of votes (including struck votes) is closer to 3368 (plus/minus a couple of votes that are both duplicate and struck).
In overall the preparations for the election went well and on schedule. There was good time for translations in the first round (everything except candidate statements), and translations-wise I believe we benefited from keeping as much as possible identical to the 2009 elections, so the load was smaller on the translators in this round. For the candidate statements we have got feedback from translators that there should have been more time (one-two weeks), which should be taken into account next time.
We would have benefited greatly from involving the techinical side of the election sooner, things on that side were a bit last-minute (this is not Andrew's fault, he did the best he could all things considered). Maybe having a developer as a full-fledged member of the committee, as was the case in 2007 with Tim, would be the best solution.
Some of the errors made this year are reiterations of things that have happened before, and for this reason I would recommend making the Election Committee a permanent or rotating (e.g. half of the members are on it for two elections at a time, to have continuance in the member base) body.
Finally, Philippe's help in the election has been invaluable, and we would like to thank him very much for the effort he has put on.
Jon Harald Søby