Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Elections/Feedback

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This is a feedback page (post mortem) to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections. Input is very much appreciated. Please post your feedback directly to this page. Sign with four tildes as usual.

The rough deadline for posting feedback was on 15 November. After, please contact user:Abbad (WMF).

Collected feedback[edit]

Some of the feedback points that were previously raised on Meta and Telegram (links provided where available):

I'll already consider all of the detailed feedback provided in the links above. For further elaboration on any of these topics, preferably use this page so I don't miss it--Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Grouping of candidates in future, in case there are too many candidates

In case, the number of candidates are high, they can be grouped language wise. Example Group A - [English, French, German and other European languages]; Group B - [Spanish, Portuguese and similar languages]; Group C - [Japanese, Chinese, Korean and other east Asian languages]; Group D - [SAARC languages - Hindi, Bengali, Urdu and others]; Group E - [Turkish, Arabic and other west Asian languages]; Group F - [Russian, Polish and other north Asian and north European languages]. The group will be for quick and easy search only. The voter can choose as many candidates from as many groups as s/he desires.... Anupamdutta73 (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tension between "selecting for diverse backgrounds + skills" and a blinded all-at-once selection process where electors/selectors choose all candiates at once, knowing nothing about others already selected. This could have been split into two stages for all selection processes, or some processes could have resolved before others. –SJ talk  18:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclarities related to elections that were not explained: "Could the candidates do a campaign or not for example?". This might have generated a feeling of unfairness between candidates, especially those who restrained themselves from campaigning, and others who did campaign in local channels for example. -- Anass Sedrati (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • less "enthusiasm" and "engagement" in communicating about the elections from the organizing team compared to the "bigger motivation" shown when communicating about BoT elections (much less updates Vs more clarifications, meetings and information about the BoT elections, etc.). For me it felt almost that these elections were given "less importance" and priority, hoping that they "could finish asap", while it should actually almost have been the opposite. -- Anass Sedrati (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Nosebagbear[edit]

  • Several facets occur to me as needing review, I will likely add more when I get a chance:
  1. Nomination expansion period. This is not really an error of the MCDC election (MCDCE) - ensuring we could get unsuccessful BOT candidates was planned, and fair to ensure. But poor foresight by the (prior) Board, specifically asking for STV on unacceptably short notice would ultimately cause 80% of the MCDCE's problems. We never planned on getting 70 candidates. Had that been viewed as a viable or desirable goal, no doubt different mechanisms would have been selected.
  2. Both use of STV and Lack of discussion about election mechanism to be used (STV vs SNO). The use of STV wasn't publicly listed as to be used in the election mechanism (it didn't exist as an option at the outset). But it also wasn't a case of it being raised as an option once the BOT announced its creation. Instead it was chosen by the WMF without prior notice just before we kicked off the election. It should have been raised as a discussion point. The only form of STV we have does not play nicely with more than a handful of candidates. Until a method to allow tied-votes exists, then it shouldn't be used, because it requires randomly ranking neutrals in order to register a true oppose and the userinterface is unacceptably complicated.
  3. In-progress changes/poor communication - there were multiple mid-election changes. These are inherently bad because they reduce trust that the system can be relied upon. Multiple voters complained that they would have voted differently had they been aware of how certain functionality would be operating. Telegram communication is inherently poor for this - you have to actually have the platform to assess the weight of discussion, let alone rebut dubious arguments, and its nature makes transparency a real problem. When changes were being mooted, then every person who had voted prior to that point should have been massmessaged, as the ones most affected by any potential change.
  4. Securepoll/vote-wiki - Abbad, Kaarel, Quim et al this is both not your fault and I'm abundantly aware that I'm preaching to the choir. But in the next year we will gain a U4C and likely another half dozen arbcoms as a result of UCOC changes, most not in English. There are standard major complaints about the MVP STV we have at the moment. The Global Council will be following after, probably wanting a custom solution, and maybe the Hubs as well. Currently en-wiki has a majority opposition to an RfA alternate process because of SecurePoll weaknesses. We need simultaneous solutions: short-term, a duplicate of SP/Votewiki to handle more elections, but simultaneously major technical time devoted to a better platform.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nosebagbear (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2021


Statement by User:Dušan Kreheľ[edit]

The status of vote[edit]

  • Improve the level
    • Is the secret ballot or not?
      • Candidates
        • Who is a organizer and who no.
        • Who, what, when and where can:
          • to join as candidate,
          • to vote.
        • Who can edit the candidate list (removed)? The report about that?
        • Can he resign? Can he be replaced? Is he appointed by anyone?
        • Can I register another user?
        • Who can edit of candidate statements (everybody if the open source license)
    • The control committee
      • Who he in this committee?
      • What does this committee does?
      • How is a report?
      • How is a contact – complaints, violation report?
      • Is impartial?

Notice: If a compass, then a compass required for candidates?

Comment: @Dušan Kreheľ: While I'm recording this as feedback regarding the need for an elections committee, I'd like to be clear there was no committee supervising this election. Consequently, all the tasks of such a committee were handled by the Wikimedia Foundation Team, as appeared in the official communications
I also did not understand many of your points about "candidates" (e.g. what does "sign in the vote" indicate?) --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Information's[edit]

  • The actual information's at one place:
  • Clear.
  • Introduction to the issue

Brief statement[edit]

  • suitable for the translation of the most important, if no other time can be translated
  • easy for orientation and overview

Simulation / verification of elections[edit]

  • Does anyone else use the same code in another product? Not.
  • Is simulation easy? Not. You will need to completely simulate the election (Wikimedia software)

or you need to create a new application that is based on the same code.

  • Algoiths are not available as easy devel libraries.

Translations[edit]

Translation variants (each text has more parts):

  • variant a)
    • brief statement
    • extension announcement
  • variant b)
    • introductory (a la perex)
    • brief statement - version in outline style, notes, word points
    • extended version with long translations

Post-written announcement[edit]

  • go through typography
  • the announcements are on the weather and not on wikipedia, so watch out for the lines (no lines are written with project prefixes - there is documentation about that)
  • fix a bug that if the parameter starts with a reflector, it will display a reflector and not an asterisk

And that inform the candidates. The candidates, with their statements, represent the movement and as future members of the committee.

MCDC[edit]

Candidates[edit]

Election violation of candidates
User Nick Type of violation Comment
Michał Buczyński
(member committee)
Aegis Maelstrom source Registration at invalid time.
Érica Azzellini
(member committee)
EricaAzzellini "Replacing Chico Venancio's candidacy, as approved by WMF" (EricaAzzellini) (source)
  • Registration at invalid time.
  • Replacing is not allowed in the rules.
  • The WMF is unknown element in the rules.
Chico Venancio chicocvenancio record Removed is not allow in the rules.
Bonheur Bonheur Bushiri "Removing incomplete candidate statements" KVaidla (WMF)
report / source
Versus "Candidates are expected to fill in the nomination template in its entirety." (From rules.)
Expected ≠ Must be.
Hussein Issa Husseyn Issa
Raphael Conrade RafaelConrade7777
Mohiuddin Shah AndLikeThings
carson loveless cloveless79
Rakeem Rakeem Abdiel
Nathaniel Tollo Tolloyaw
Pratik Roy Pratik89Roy
Zineb Lamiri A. B. Labzineb
Flemeros Flemeros

The rulers: Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Set Up Process (revision:22016572) and Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Candidates (revision: 22017125)

The regions of candidates
Region To vote Voted Count of all average [%] Sume Count
to know
Count to know
of all average [%]
Central and Eastern Europe & Central Asia 6,5 1 53% 1 1 44%
East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific 9,5 1 53% 1 1 44%
Latin America & Caribbean 7 2,5 133% 0,5+1+1 3 133%
Middle East and North Africa 4 1,5 80% 0,5+1 2 89%
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation 10 2 107% 1+1 2 89%
Sub-Saharan Africa 16,5 0,5 27% 0,5 1 44%
United States and Canada 8 2,5 133% 1+0,5+1 3 133%
Western & Northern Europe 10,5 4 213% 1+0,5+1+0,5+1 5 222%
Count of all 15 1,875
per region
18 2,25
per region

Source: Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Candidates/Table & Result of Candidates of Drafting Committee Movement Charter by Dušan Kreheľ 1.0.1, number 20212410173927

For-LGBT+ Candidates (source)
All candidates For-candidates All in committee In committee
Candidates 72 2–3 15 2–3
Candidates [%] 2.8%–4.2% 13.3%–20%
For-Religion Candidates (source)
All candidates For-candidates All in committee In committee
Candidates 72 0 15 0
World population 5.8 billion 0% 0%

5.8 billion religion people in the world, but zero candidates or people in the committee, or the candidates are as religion incognito.

The quality of candidate for matrix[edit]

It's hard to select the candidates in affiliate process? Why we doesn't use a mathematics?

We voted 7 candidates. We found next 6 candidates in affiliate process. The count of all combinations (minimal one candidate for one quality): 125761/5014234.

The one form of candidate list
#1 Michael Baker 125761
#2 Gnangarra 70915
#3 Galahad 63985
#4 Valentin Nasibu 17575
#5 – #12 Abdul-Rasheed Yussif 14650
#5 – #12 Daria Cybulska 14650
#5 – #12 ellif d.a 14650
#5 – #12 Georges Fodouop 14650
#5 – #12 Ian Ramjohn 14650
#5 – #12 KAHOU 14650
#5 – #12 Sadik Shahadu 14650
#5 – #12 V M 14650
#13 – #22 Abel L Mbula 13921
#13 – #22 Adel Nehaoua 13921
#13 – #22 Aliyu 13921
#13 – #22 Anupam Dutta 13921
#13 – #22 Chris Keating 13921
#13 – #22 Jaseem Ali 13921
#13 – #22 Ndahiro Derrick 13921
#13 – #22 Rafael Laynes Hancco 13921
#13 – #22 Sofia Matias 13921
#13 – #22 Zhong Juechen 13921
#23 – #42 Ad Huikeshoven 10996
#23 – #42 Adi Purnama 10996
#23 – #42 Alek Tarkowski 10996
#23 – #42 Alvonte 10996
#23 – #42 Dennis Raylin Chen 10996
#23 – #42 Dušan Kreheľ 10996
#23 – #42 Galder Gonzalez 10996
#23 – #42 Gergő Tisza 10996
#23 – #42 Gilbert Ndihokubwayo 10996
#23 – #42 Christophe Henner 10996
#23 – #42 Jamie Li-Yun Lin 10996
#23 – #42 Josh Lim 10996
#23 – #42 Manavpreet Kaur 10996
#23 – #42 Nethi Sai Kiran 10996
#23 – #42 Oleksandr Havryk 10996
#23 – #42 Pepe Flores 10996
#23 – #42 Reda Kerbouche 10996
#23 – #42 Tito Dutta 10996
#23 – #42 Yair Rand 10996
#23 – #42 Yao Kouamé Didier 10996

If it used the mathematics, so for mathematics is better none count limit for answer with "yes".

The quality of candidate for matrix[edit]

Options for setting the strengths of individual elements in the committee.
Quality (More.) Min. Max.
Communication skills 1 5
Cultural and linguistic awareness 2 6
Global or local policy work 1 5
Governance of organisations 2 6
Inclusion and diversity awareness 1 5
Knowledge of Wikimedia 3 7
Participatory and consensus processes 2 6
Policy writing skills 2 6
Previous phases of Movement Strategy 3 7
Resource allocation 1 5
Revenue generation 1 1
Safe and collaborative spaces 1 2
Strategic and structural thinking skills 4 9
Team collaboration 2 7
Writing and editing skills 1 5

Translate[edit]

(Un)actual translate[edit]


The change and then the added mark to translate on page Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Candidates
Interval Count
0 – 1 hour 21
1 – 3 hours 13
3 – 6 hours 14
6 – 12 hours 7
12 – 24 hours 22
1 – 2 days 20
2 – 3 days 1
3 – 4 days 1
4 – 5 days 5
5 – 6 days 5
6 – 7 days 20
7 – 8 days 0
16 – 17 days 2

The interval is between 2021-09-15 12:02 UTC and 2021-11-01 12:14 UTC.

The change and then the added mark to translate on page Template:Movement Charter/Header
Interval Count
1 – 3 hours 2
12 – 24 hours 1
1 – 2 days 3
6 – 7 days 4
19 – 20 days 1
21 – 22 days 5

The interval is between 2021-09-15 15:20 UTC and 2021-11-01 10:44 UTC.

User pageview of pages[edit]

Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Candidates[edit]
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2021-10-12
2021-10-25
The translates[edit]
The user pageviews of translates pages (October 2021)
Wiki/Day 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sum
ar 24 1 6 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 2 3 0 1 43
bn 0 1 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 11
ca 9 4 1 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 22
dag 5 3 4 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 20
de 12 14 3 1 0 1 3 10 1 2 8 11 1 4 71
es 3 8 0 2 6 2 9 7 4 2 0 2 2 1 48
fr 20 9 8 2 1 0 2 4 3 3 3 7 22 11 95
ha 4 4 0 0 5 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 18
hi 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 5
hif 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
ht 4 3 1 0 1 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 19
hu 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
id 5 1 0 0 0 6 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 24
ig 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 9
it 61 41 15 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 2 0 131
ja 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 14
ki 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
ko 11 2 4 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 25
ml 13 11 1 5 2 2 2 2 4 0 1 1 0 2 46
my 4 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 10
nl 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 9
pt 0 1 6 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 15
pt-br 21 23 2 3 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 0 63
ru 5 6 1 7 8 0 0 1 6 11 9 0 6 9 69
rw 1 0 0 0 3 0 26 3 4 2 1 9 3 0 52
sk 4 9 19 6 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 2 0 1 50
sw 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7
tr 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 17
vi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
yo 26 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 35
zh 26 14 1 2 8 3 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 2 64

The notice: The more user pageview count is maybe of translate users on first days.

The question: Need we a translate for all languages?

The vote[edit]
Time[edit]
  • Officialy
    • 2021-10-12 10:00:00 UTC – 2021-10-25 11:59:59 UTC
  • Reality
    • First: 2021-10-12 00:00:00 UTC – 2021-10-25 ~ 9 hours UTC
    • Second: 2021-10-13 10:00:00 UTC – 2021-10-25 11:59:59 UTC

UTC/AoE

  • I like the AoE, but if AoE so AoE and not UTC.
  • Official write AoE and as comment then the time in UTC.
quality[edit]
  • None vote committee.
  • WMF created, under control, and resould.
  • Who control? How control? -> The one black box.
  • Someone/WMF modifies the votes, who verifies.
  • Why it was so?
Result[edit]

Processing of results

  • The original record should be original and not change.
  • Modified entry does not delete items, just mark why yes / no.
Vote and people.[edit]

I had a message (in skwiki and cswiki): "We have a vote. I'm watching MC, i can answer on ur question, to explain. The meet is XY." Reality

  • Only one persone had a two question.

My extra drafts[edit]

DC Ring 0 and DC Ring 1[edit]

  • U r not in DC, so You can join "DC Ring 1"
  • DC Ring 1
    • Inform in locales wiki.
    • Answer on the DC questions in 48 hours.
    • The personal access for the people/communities.

New vote project[edit]

  • under control Global council
  • the mix of all tools
  • the easy share data between tools
  • wiki pages - no only read-write
  • one place for
    • for registration
    • for vote
    • for post-vote analyses
  • Voting can be a model for others.

Poll[edit]

  • What did you decide?
  • Where did you get the information about the candidates when you made your decision?
  • Are you satisfied with the result?

Epilogue[edit]

DCMC doesn't was 100% fair and under the "status" of vote. The catastrophe. Maybe no, if in the committee are the normal people. It can't be extreme, as MC's also have to approve the community. The differences need to be explained.

Angry? I hope it's training on Vote of Global Council with 120–160 participants.

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC) to Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Fuzheado[edit]

Preface[edit]

The goal of creating a body of individuals that hopes to be representative of the movement across its expansive set of languages, cultures, geographies, and competencies, while also accounting for the multitude of possible stakeholders of our free knowledge mission, is unprecedented in the history of the Wikimedia movement.

By trying to create this cornerstone Movement Charter we are in unfamiliar territory. This is not unlike the uncharted territory Wikipedia first set out to explore in 2001 when we created the first user-contributed and user-led encyclopedia with "no firm rules" and warnings from Meatballwiki (VotingIsEvil) about the perils of voting for the "fairest, most effective way to make decisions in a group." Instead of being held captive to strict processes, our community projects have thrived because they focus on useful and fair consensus outcomes. It is in this context that the below feedback is given.

Abstract[edit]

My greatest concern is that people will look at the final list of 15 members and, not knowing about the involved back story, think that our processes are working well to produce a diverse committee. It was only through many conversations, intensive lobbying, iterating and conscientious course-correcting (and perhaps some element of chance with the pre-mature publication of the outcome of the election) that we were able to get a non-terrible outcome. This outcome was the direct result of specifically pushing back against, acting contrary to, and modifying the process. What led to this, and what lessons can we learn from this?

Issues[edit]

  • Process definition - We needed more people involved with the process definition, but I'm afraid it was dragged on for such a long time there was a steep falloff in eyeballs that were looking at the discussion and decisions. In the end, it seemed we limped over the finish line without enough scrutiny about the logic of a "parallel" process of affiliate selectors could operate effectively to help with the problem of fair representation across the movement.
  • Election commission - The elections were completely run by Wikimedia Foundation Movement Strategy staff, who did as good of a job as could be expected under the circumstances. However, it is unclear why we abandoned best practices from previous movement-wide elections where we have always had an election committee made up of community members. This would have been a great resource when we were discussing the process adjustment for affiliate selectors.
  • Call for participation and size of the candidate pool - I'm not confident we did a good job of describing the scope of the MCDC responsibilities so that folks could calibrate whether their experience, background and capabilities matched up. In retrospect, we need to find a way where we do not just deal with a flat list of 70 candidates, as this is way too much to digest and interpret by the electorate.
  • Tools and knowledge for the electorate - Related to the above, it should not depend on two random community members to create the crucial tools to interpret the candidates. The master table I created using the exact same data from the individual candidate statements should have been done as a standard voter information guide. One of the candidates did a fine job of creating a tool to navigate the compass questions in a way that gave better insight than the basic compass tool. We need these types of efforts to be a high priority and standard practices. The creation of an election committee may have helped identify and produce these types of resources sooner.
References:
  • Selector process for affiliates and WMF - This was the cause of the most pain in the election process for a number of reasons, that we need to learn from: The Wikimedia Foundation's appointment of the two seats before the voting started was out of process and determined in what appeared to be a non-transparent way. This seems to have been at the request of some affiliates in the Global South, but we should get a full accounting for why this happened. Selecting the two WMF-chosen seats before the election affected the voting dynamic for the other candidates, and eliminated those two seats from being able to be used after the election to balance out skills or representation.
The time given for regions to determine selectors was too short, and less than two weeks for North America, for example. This was made more acute in that "North America" as an informal constituency has never had to make a collective decision before of this type. Therefore, it is under dubious authority that "North America" decided on a selector, but we made one in good faith and were very fortunate to have such a capable representative as LiAnna Davis to participate on our behalf.
  • Fair sector representation - This is a much bigger issue to tackle across the entire movement, but this election was another major data point in showing the complete dominance of North American and European entities in these types of selection processes. It requires immediate attention and consideration of serious remedies. There's the famous saying - if it happens once, it is chance; twice it is a coincidence; three times it is a pattern. This is the fourth election (see references below) where ESEAP, South Asia, South America, and Africa are completely missing from the election outcomes, if we examine the last three board elections (popular and ASBS) and this MCDC election. We need to seriously think about "fair sector representation" especially when we turn an eye towards forming a long-term Global Council.
At the October SWAN meeting, Board member Shani Evanstein noted that previous discussions around this topic failed to gain support. However, I noted that conversations with the word "Quota" in it, are doomed as a non-starter for a large portion of folks where that term is too laden with bad intent. Instead, best practices for fair sector representation with regards to geographical, language, cultural or stakeholder group from our own and other domains should be actively explored.
It should not be by the benevolence of appointments that our representative bodies are made... representative.


For reference, results from last three board elections:
  • Final notes on hacking the process - Even before voting started, and well before October 10, 2021 deadline (as stipulated in that process) I had already given feedback to the WMF Movement Strategy team that the "parallel" operation of the affiliate selectors was a flaw, in that it made no sense for the 13 seats to be selected purely by elections, with no room for evaluating the needs of the committee.
A number of folks also expressed this desire for the affiliate selectors to first receive the election results in order to use their power to help fill in gaps of skills or representation. This was also raised in the Telegram groups dedicated to Movement Strategy and as regional affiliate representatives and on wiki. Taking this into account, the nine affiliate selectors did not act immediately in the "parallel" process. This issue was raised on the meta talk page for elections, noting the "tardy selectors." An extensive exchange resulted, debating the merits of sticking to the process as stated, or modifying it on the fly.
The problem is that without the modification, we were in jeopardy of not having a very diverse committee. Modifying and hacking the process was quite painful, with those who felt that it would undermine the "integrity of the process" having a very valid point.
But on the other hand, if you see the car speeding towards the edge of a cliff, do you stay the course, or do you grab the steering wheel and change course? We would not all be here if we didn't believe in the wiki way, and the wiki way is that we favor sensible outcomes over strict processes. That has always been our way, and we should continue with that ethos.
In the end, an updated process was proposed and executed, and the selection of the six additional seats were done by the committee of nine selectors after having knowledge of the initial elections results.

Final thoughts[edit]

We have a lot to tackle before a long term Movement Charter and Global Council are established. The sooner we tackle these issues and improve the process, the better. Thanks. - Fuzheado (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this very valuable summary, @Fuzheado:! I hope we can use this a future reference in case anyone should claim that this process actually worked. Braveheart (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live feedback meeting[edit]

Hello everyone. This is to announce that we'll be hosting a live meeting to collect feedback about the Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection and election process on the next Saturday 13 November, at 4 PM UTC (check your time zone). I'll share the details for joining the meeting here in a few days --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Update: The link will be posted about 24 hours before the meeting to avoid spamming/bombing. Meanwhile, you can send an email to strategy2030(_AT_)wikimedia.org if you wish to receive an in-advance invite with the link --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Here is the Zoom link to tomorrow's meeting at 4 PM UTC (passcode: 820532). Feel free to prepare your feedback before the meeting! --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Sharing the etherpad notes for those interested. Many thanks, again, to all of those who participated and provided a lively discussion. I'll compile the results of the meeting with the rest of the comments here into a final summary in about 1-2 weeks. Meanwhile, please provide your feedback here by Monday, 15 November, so that I can include it --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Please[edit]

I guess that STV is Single Transferable Vote. What does SNO stand for? Thank you. B25es (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it refers to the traditional "Support/Neutral/Oppose" system used by (among others) requests for adminship in many, if not all, Wikimedia projects. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]