Board election endorsements

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Board election endorsements

Robert Leverington
The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been
confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for
endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is
closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the
confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that
simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are
unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there
identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of
vacation which he is entitled to).

This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy.
Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I
propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections
are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it
fair for all candidates. I outline it here:

* Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
* Endorsements and chance to ask questions
* Vote

None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap
between them as an amnesty.

Thank you for taking time to read this letter.

--
Robert
http://roberthl.wikitest.co.uk/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Erik Moeller-4
I agree that removing and prohibiting endorsements before a candidate
has been confirmed is unnecessary; if the candidate is not confirmed
for some reason, those endorsements could simply have been ignored. At
the very least, the endorsement period needs to be extended by a few
days.

On 6/18/07, Robert Leverington <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been
> confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for
> endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is
> closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the
> confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that
> simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are
> unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there
> identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of
> vacation which he is entitled to).
>
> This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy.
> Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I
> propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections
> are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it
> fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
>
> * Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
> * Endorsements and chance to ask questions
> * Vote
>
> None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap
> between them as an amnesty.
>
> Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
>
> --
> Robert
> http://roberthl.wikitest.co.uk/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Robert Leverington
> * Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
> * Endorsements and chance to ask questions
> * Vote

I would prefer to swap the first two. Candidates should get the
endorsements themselves before submitting their candidacy - I believe
that's the way it works in the real world where there are similar
systems. That way, the people endorsing are going to actually know the
candidate and will be able to make a meaningful statement of support
rather than endorsements just being a first stage of voting which it
is now. I would also suggest only allowing people to endorse one
candidate (although the fact that there are 3 seats means it does make
a certain amount of sense to allow 3 endorsements, so it's not a major
issue).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Philippe Beaudette
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
Several more candidates have just been confirmed and are open for endorsement.

Philippe
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Erik Moeller
  To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
  Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board election endorsements


  I agree that removing and prohibiting endorsements before a candidate
  has been confirmed is unnecessary; if the candidate is not confirmed
  for some reason, those endorsements could simply have been ignored. At
  the very least, the endorsement period needs to be extended by a few
  days.

  On 6/18/07, Robert Leverington <[hidden email]> wrote:
  > The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been
  > confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for
  > endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is
  > closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the
  > confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that
  > simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are
  > unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there
  > identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of
  > vacation which he is entitled to).
  >
  > This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy.
  > Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I
  > propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections
  > are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it
  > fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
  >
  > * Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
  > * Endorsements and chance to ask questions
  > * Vote
  >
  > None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap
  > between them as an amnesty.
  >
  > Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
  >
  > --
  > Robert
  > http://roberthl.wikitest.co.uk/
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > foundation-l mailing list
  > [hidden email]
  > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
  >


  --
  Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
  Erik

  DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
  the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

  _______________________________________________
  foundation-l mailing list
  [hidden email]
  http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Robert Leverington
hmmmm ?
Well, this is not disastrous. Surely, this can be flexible. Either get
24-48 hours more, or put the endorsement on the talk page until they are
confirmed, or endorsement could be open but candidate labelled non
confirmed.

I'll tell you... I think that whatever the little mistakes, the current
situation looks good; Is that due to the endorsement ? I dunno, but this
year, we only have "serious" (real) candidates. I also think there is a
very active questionning of the candidates, and this is fabulous. A
unique opportunity to see where the current board is not very good :-)

All in all, I find the situation rather positive. Do not worry about
bureaucracy. I do not think any candidate will be left aside because of
a short deadline for endorsement.

Ant

Robert Leverington wrote:

> The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been
> confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for
> endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is
> closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the
> confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that
> simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are
> unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there
> identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of
> vacation which he is entitled to).
>
> This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy.
> Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I
> propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections
> are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it
> fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
>
> * Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
> * Endorsements and chance to ask questions
> * Vote
>
> None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap
> between them as an amnesty.
>
> Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Philippe Beaudette
Endorsements are now open for all candidates.  Any endorsements for candidates who do not confirm are, of course, contingent upon confirmation.

Philippe
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Florence Devouard
  To: [hidden email]
  Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 6:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board election endorsements


  hmmmm ?
  Well, this is not disastrous. Surely, this can be flexible. Either get
  24-48 hours more, or put the endorsement on the talk page until they are
  confirmed, or endorsement could be open but candidate labelled non
  confirmed.

  I'll tell you... I think that whatever the little mistakes, the current
  situation looks good; Is that due to the endorsement ? I dunno, but this
  year, we only have "serious" (real) candidates. I also think there is a
  very active questionning of the candidates, and this is fabulous. A
  unique opportunity to see where the current board is not very good :-)

  All in all, I find the situation rather positive. Do not worry about
  bureaucracy. I do not think any candidate will be left aside because of
  a short deadline for endorsement.

  Ant

  Robert Leverington wrote:
  > The fact that candidates cannot be endorsed until they have been
  > confirmed is entirely wrong. As it is there is already little time for
  > endorsements (especially for the later candidates) as endorsement is
  > closed AT THE SAME TIME AS candidate presentations close and the
  > confirmation is just making less and less time. It is also unfair that
  > simply because a member of staff is not in the office candidates are
  > unable to receive endorsements even though they have submitted there
  > identity confirmation (although I do not resent Cary taking a day of
  > vacation which he is entitled to).
  >
  > This years elections have been full of unnecessary bureaucracy.
  > Especially in the attitude of the election committee. Therefore I
  > propose that next year (or this year in fact as the current elections
  > are a complete shambles) that there is a clear time line to make it
  > fair for all candidates. I outline it here:
  >
  > * Candidate presentations and chance to ask questions
  > * Endorsements and chance to ask questions
  > * Vote
  >
  > None of these should overlap and if possible there should be a gap
  > between them as an amnesty.
  >
  > Thank you for taking time to read this letter.
  >


  _______________________________________________
  foundation-l mailing list
  [hidden email]
  http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Walter Vermeir-2
In reply to this post by Robert Leverington

I would also like to comment that like it is now with the endorsements
the look a lot like a vote. A candidate needs to get 12 users to support
there candidacy.

Currently the record is 65.

When a candidate has his 12 users for support, or a few more if there
where a dispute about some votes, then the endorsement could be closed
and that candidate labeled as confirmed for the actual vote. Like it
now you have two votes: a public one and a private one.

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
English - Español - Deutsch - Indonesia


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Erik Moeller-4
That's true. This is especially misleading because the candidates
start at different times and therefore are always going to collect
different numbers of endorsements. It's turning into a very odd kind
of popularity contest.

Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next time?

On 6/19/07, Walter Vermeir <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I would also like to comment that like it is now with the endorsements
> the look a lot like a vote. A candidate needs to get 12 users to support
> there candidacy.
>
> Currently the record is 65.
>
> When a candidate has his 12 users for support, or a few more if there
> where a dispute about some votes, then the endorsement could be closed
> and that candidate labeled as confirmed for the actual vote. Like it
> now you have two votes: a public one and a private one.
>
> --
> Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
> Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
> English - Español - Deutsch - Indonesia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Thomas Dalton
> Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next time?

I would cap them at twelve. Don't cap them automatically, but rather
have one of the people on the election committee close the
endorsements for each candidate once they've verified that all the
endorsers are eligible and haven't endorsed too many candidates.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

oscar van dillen
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-4
On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next time?
>
>
"next time" meaning *next elections* in 2008 of course: i do not suppose you
propose to now suddenly start erasing people's endorsements?

best wishes,
oscar

--
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the
Wikimedia Foundation nor of its Board of Trustees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Azdiyy
of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed to be secret for any reason?

azdiyy

On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next time?
> >
> >
> "next time" meaning *next elections* in 2008 of course: i do not suppose you
> propose to now suddenly start erasing people's endorsements?
>
> best wishes,
> oscar
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Effe iets anders
Ideally I would like to see six candidates in the "finals" when there
are three seats to be elected. At the moment, there are already 5
candidates with >30, and Yann will get to the 30 soon too. Maybe it
wouldn't be that weird to state that the required number can be raised
next time?

In my opinion, a good and serious candidate (as in: would make a good
chance in the elections, because that is what we are selecting on),
shouldn't have much trouble in getting 15-20 endorsements in 24 hours
(if (s)he tries a bit). In a week such a candidate should be able to
get 50 endorsements imho.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have the candidate collecting the
endorsements on beforehand next time, he could send them privately to
the committee, they would be validated, and could be put online "en
block". That way you work around several problems like "vote-like",
having them to be confirmed on beforehand etc. One disadvantage is the
confirmation of the endorsers though, maybe someone can come up with a
good way of validating these endorsements? I.e. should they be made on
a saperate page, with signature, should they consist of emails,
whatever? Should the endorsers confirm their endorsement? I admit it
makes it a littlemore fuzzy, please come with better procedures :)

Lodewijk

2007/6/20, Azdiyy <[hidden email]>:

> of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed to be secret for any reason?
>
> azdiyy
>
> On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next time?
> > >
> > >
> > "next time" meaning *next elections* in 2008 of course: i do not suppose you
> > propose to now suddenly start erasing people's endorsements?
> >
> > best wishes,
> > oscar
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Getting endorsements for candidates prior to launching a bit is a valid
strategy. However, for this to work the current practice of removing
endorsements before a candidacy has been approved has to end. I do think
that getting endorsements prior to asking for approval for the candidacy is
good. It does however not mean that having the endorsements prior to asking
for approval for a candidacy need to coincide.

What is essential is that prior to the start of the election the candidature
has been approved and, that it comes with a sufficient  number of
endorsements. When there is a need for twelve, it does not make sense to
have more than twelve. Voting is done in secret and endorsements are only to
show that there is sufficient support. However, if getting endorsements is
seen and appreciated as a political instrument, then it should also be
considered as such.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On 6/20/07, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Ideally I would like to see six candidates in the "finals" when there
> are three seats to be elected. At the moment, there are already 5
> candidates with >30, and Yann will get to the 30 soon too. Maybe it
> wouldn't be that weird to state that the required number can be raised
> next time?
>
> In my opinion, a good and serious candidate (as in: would make a good
> chance in the elections, because that is what we are selecting on),
> shouldn't have much trouble in getting 15-20 endorsements in 24 hours
> (if (s)he tries a bit). In a week such a candidate should be able to
> get 50 endorsements imho.
>
> Maybe it would be a good idea to have the candidate collecting the
> endorsements on beforehand next time, he could send them privately to
> the committee, they would be validated, and could be put online "en
> block". That way you work around several problems like "vote-like",
> having them to be confirmed on beforehand etc. One disadvantage is the
> confirmation of the endorsers though, maybe someone can come up with a
> good way of validating these endorsements? I.e. should they be made on
> a saperate page, with signature, should they consist of emails,
> whatever? Should the endorsers confirm their endorsement? I admit it
> makes it a littlemore fuzzy, please come with better procedures :)
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2007/6/20, Azdiyy <[hidden email]>:
> > of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed to be secret for any reason?
> >
> > azdiyy
> >
> > On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next
> time?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > "next time" meaning *next elections* in 2008 of course: i do not
> suppose you
> > > propose to now suddenly start erasing people's endorsements?
> > >
> > > best wishes,
> > > oscar
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
> Ideally I would like to see six candidates in the "finals" when there
> are three seats to be elected. At the moment, there are already 5
> candidates with >30, and Yann will get to the 30 soon too. Maybe it
> wouldn't be that weird to state that the required number can be raised
> next time?

Six candidates doesn't sound like enough to allow the smaller projects
to be represented. If only candidates that can get a large number of
endorsements are allowed to stand then only candidates that are known
by a large number of people (ie. contribute to large projects) will be
able to stand. While you can vote for someone you don't know (since
you can find out about them during the election), you can't really
endorse them.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Board election endorsements

Philippe Beaudette
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
Just a quick response, without making any judgment on the rest of the proposal (indeed, it's one that deserve more thorough study):  The practice of removing endorsements before a candidacy has been removed ended days ago.  Since then, candidates have been able to be listed and endorsed from the minute they make their candidacy known.  There is a note, however, that says that endorsements are subject to the identity process being completed.

There are currently two candidates listed who are not yet confirmed.

Philippe

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: GerardM
  To: [hidden email] ; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
  Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board election endorsements


  Hoi,
  Getting endorsements for candidates prior to launching a bit is a valid
  strategy. However, for this to work the current practice of removing
  endorsements before a candidacy has been approved has to end. I do think
  that getting endorsements prior to asking for approval for the candidacy is
  good. It does however not mean that having the endorsements prior to asking
  for approval for a candidacy need to coincide.

  What is essential is that prior to the start of the election the candidature
  has been approved and, that it comes with a sufficient  number of
  endorsements. When there is a need for twelve, it does not make sense to
  have more than twelve. Voting is done in secret and endorsements are only to
  show that there is sufficient support. However, if getting endorsements is
  seen and appreciated as a political instrument, then it should also be
  considered as such.

  Thanks,
       GerardM

  On 6/20/07, effe iets anders <[hidden email]> wrote:
  >
  > Ideally I would like to see six candidates in the "finals" when there
  > are three seats to be elected. At the moment, there are already 5
  > candidates with >30, and Yann will get to the 30 soon too. Maybe it
  > wouldn't be that weird to state that the required number can be raised
  > next time?
  >
  > In my opinion, a good and serious candidate (as in: would make a good
  > chance in the elections, because that is what we are selecting on),
  > shouldn't have much trouble in getting 15-20 endorsements in 24 hours
  > (if (s)he tries a bit). In a week such a candidate should be able to
  > get 50 endorsements imho.
  >
  > Maybe it would be a good idea to have the candidate collecting the
  > endorsements on beforehand next time, he could send them privately to
  > the committee, they would be validated, and could be put online "en
  > block". That way you work around several problems like "vote-like",
  > having them to be confirmed on beforehand etc. One disadvantage is the
  > confirmation of the endorsers though, maybe someone can come up with a
  > good way of validating these endorsements? I.e. should they be made on
  > a saperate page, with signature, should they consist of emails,
  > whatever? Should the endorsers confirm their endorsement? I admit it
  > makes it a littlemore fuzzy, please come with better procedures :)
  >
  > Lodewijk
  >
  > 2007/6/20, Azdiyy <[hidden email]>:
  > > of course no no 1. is this "poll" supposed to be secret for any reason?
  > >
  > > azdiyy
  > >
  > > On 19/06/07, oscar van dillen <[hidden email]> wrote:
  > > > On 6/19/07, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > > Perhaps continue to require a minimum of 12 and cap them at 30 next
  > time?
  > > > >
  > > > >
  > > > "next time" meaning *next elections* in 2008 of course: i do not
  > suppose you
  > > > propose to now suddenly start erasing people's endorsements?
  > > >
  > > > best wishes,
  > > > oscar
  > > >
  > >
  > > _______________________________________________
  > > foundation-l mailing list
  > > [hidden email]
  > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
  > >
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > foundation-l mailing list
  > [hidden email]
  > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
  >
  _______________________________________________
  foundation-l mailing list
  [hidden email]
  http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l