Requests for comment/Board Election 2006/summary

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comments/Board_Election_2006 sum up

Many people shared views. I only mentionned the first person who expressed a given idea (say, Condorcet method).

Election system[edit]

Was approval voting the best choice for this election? Why or why not? What replacements do you suggest?[edit]

  • effeietsanders: consider the possibility to express disaproval ("The idea is OK to vote on multiple people. But I think it would be good if people can also vote against someone in whom they have no trust.")
  • Nichtich: consider a two-round runoff and the Condorcet method ("Normally a two round runoff (second voting between the two strongest) is used.")
  • RandomP: be precise, go public ("What actually happens is that people randomly decide on a certain proportion of choices to approve of, either explicitly or implicitly by setting certain standards. It is absolutely unacceptable that this data, a histogram of how many choices voters approved of, is not listed in the election results.") ; using Condorcet method, allow candidates to withdraw their candidacy and transfer votes ;
  • gpvos: be aware many people vote for their champ only ("The average number of persons voted for, however, is 3.11, which to me indicates that probably many people have voted for one person only.")
  • Ral315: don't wear out people ("I seriously question the ability to run a two-round runoff, without running into Voter fatigue. My suggestion would be to offer voters three options: Approval, Disapproval, or No Vote.")

This election was organized by people from within the community. Was this okay? If not, that is, if a third party would have been better, what third party would have been better?[edit]

  • Many people urged for a third party (Anthere and Angela included).
  • Internal volunteers could still help, though.
  • Two opposite views:
    • RandomP: "The people "organizing" the election failed to make clear why the election system was chosen, which is not okay. We got a broken election system imposed on us by someone who wasn't reachable."
    • gpvos: "The elections should be held by people who we know and we can trust, i.e., wiki users and not some unknown external party chosen by the board."

Voting eligibility[edit]

Was "400 edits, 90 days prior to August 1" fair? If not, why?[edit]

  • Nichtich: As long as Wikimedia don't threaten projects self-sufficiency, Wikipedia users don't mind about the board ("Above all most Wikipedians are not active in Wikimedia issues but in Wikipedia issues. Why do all Wikipedians have to elect the board?")
  • Jc37: increase edit count ("I think it should be increased to 600 (for similar concerns above).")
  • Jollyroger: We don't mind about edit counts ("Candidates was almost unknown to everyone except people of their project (de.wiki, en.wiki and so), so why bother with number of edits?")
  • Schnee: a subjective criteria but the only one? ("edits can be anything from simple typo fixes to large amounts of new material, restructuring/rewriting and so on.")
  • DamianFinol: consider adding edit counts from each projects ("I could not vote on this election, because of the 400 edits rule, I have more than 400 edits but in several Wiki projects.")
  • more precise measures should be considered if they are technically possible

Then how about the ineligibility of blocked users?[edit]

  • Effeietsanders: "People who are blocked during the procedure, but will be able to edit again later on should in that perspective be able to vote. The policy of the voted boardmember will also apply to them."
  • Schnee: "Unless someone is permanently banned, they should still be able to vote."
  • Centrx: "someone who has been so disruptive that they have been blocked for three weeks" should not be allowed to make "decisions about the Wikimedia Board."

Information[edit]

  • Several people whish the candidate had made shorter, simplier, more similar statements.
  • Consider using a mandatory questionnaire.
  • TOR: "need for a more aggresive 'call for translations' strategy."
  • The idea of a debate did not get much support.
  • Endorsements are usefull and informative, but "Endorsements (of any kind) shouldn't appear on any "official" page."

Voting system, ad[edit]

  • Jc37: "Just general confusion about the system."
  • Jollyroger: "confusing, and information given was way too lacking."
  • Jc37 on local sitenotices: "I think that they were very useful."
  • Gray Porpoise on sitenotices: "I think that the best thing to do for the next election is to make the notices appear only to registered users."

Miscellaneous[edit]

  • RandomP: "My impression is that any of three or four candidates could have been the winner of these elections, depending on the election system used."
  • jd: "I spent more than 20 hours building an efficient template system for candidates' statements managment, which I hope-but guess-was helpful for both maintaining translations and reading all the statements (back and front office). Such a system should have been schedulded and designed on the paper before the election goes on. Board elections should be seriously gauged within Wikimedia, for it entails good technical preparation."
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Board_Election_2006/summary&oldid=2157019"