Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
45 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Philippe Beaudette
Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.

The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.

Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.

For the election committee,
Philippe

________________________
Philippe Beaudette
Tulsa, OK

http://www.freerice.com - play the game, feed a hungry person.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
>
> The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
>
> Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
>
> For the election committee,
> Philippe

Now I am very confused. Why was this decision "very important"?

What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive
editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?

Yours;

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Philippe Beaudette
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing
> the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1,
> 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We
> hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while
> ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current
> issue.

Thanks Philippe & Elections committee for taking our concerns into
consideration and making this change! The new requirement sounds much
more reasonable.

I also agree with Michael's last post that mail to voters + a
sitenotice to try and increase turnout would be a good thing. :) Be
sure to tell your friends who may be off-wiki this year as well.

I note btw that the *candidate* requirements didn't change -- so any
potential candidates need to have been editing this spring. I don't
have a problem with this requirement (community representatives should
probably be active editors), but it does notably exclude "inactive"
members from running, regardless of their former status in the
community or current off-wiki participation (it'd be nice to see a
developer exemption!).

As our community grows and changes, and we try to formalize community
participation in governance in various ways, I think this question
will come up more and more. Once a community member, always a
community member? Is there something special about actively
participating now vs. having actively participated in the past? Does
editing one of the projects make you a member of the Foundation
community? (it's certainly not just posters to foundation-l!) What
*does* make for a community member? I tend to define "the community"
very broadly, but realize others may not...

best,
-- phoebe

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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Philippe Beaudette
Hi Phoebe;

We don't quite have a check-in from everyone on the committee yet, but it
appears very likely that candidate requirements are changing as well.

Philippe

--------------------------------------------------
From: "phoebe ayers" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:55 AM
To: "Philippe Beaudette" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on
this list

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Philippe Beaudette
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is
>> changing
>> the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1,
>> 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We
>> hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while
>> ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important
>> current
>> issue.
>
> Thanks Philippe & Elections committee for taking our concerns into
> consideration and making this change! The new requirement sounds much
> more reasonable.
>
> I also agree with Michael's last post that mail to voters + a
> sitenotice to try and increase turnout would be a good thing. :) Be
> sure to tell your friends who may be off-wiki this year as well.
>
> I note btw that the *candidate* requirements didn't change -- so any
> potential candidates need to have been editing this spring. I don't
> have a problem with this requirement (community representatives should
> probably be active editors), but it does notably exclude "inactive"
> members from running, regardless of their former status in the
> community or current off-wiki participation (it'd be nice to see a
> developer exemption!).
>
> As our community grows and changes, and we try to formalize community
> participation in governance in various ways, I think this question
> will come up more and more. Once a community member, always a
> community member? Is there something special about actively
> participating now vs. having actively participated in the past? Does
> editing one of the projects make you a member of the Foundation
> community? (it's certainly not just posters to foundation-l!) What
> *does* make for a community member? I tend to define "the community"
> very broadly, but realize others may not...
>
> best,
> -- phoebe


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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Katie Chan
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 07:55 -0700, phoebe ayers wrote:

> I note btw that the *candidate* requirements didn't change -- so any
> potential candidates need to have been editing this spring. I don't
> have a problem with this requirement (community representatives should
> probably be active editors), but it does notably exclude "inactive"
> members from running, regardless of their former status in the
> community or current off-wiki participation (it'd be nice to see a
> developer exemption!).

The requirement for the candidate have been updated as per for being a
voter. It was a small oversight due to the initial query being made
about the voter requirement. The committee noticed the issue as soon as
we actually made the change for the voter, and have decided to
synchronise the candidate requirement as well.

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
>
> The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
>
> Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
>
> For the election committee,
> Philippe

Now I am very confused. Why was this decision "very important"?

What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive
editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?

Yours;

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Katie Chan
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 23:24 +0300, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> Now I am very confused. Why was this decision "very important"?

The "important" in the statement was qualifying "current issue", i.e.
Voting for someone to sit on the Board for the following year being an
important issue.

> What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive
> editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?

In my opinion, I would prefer the decision to elect whoever to sit on
the Board to have come from active community members, rather than
someone who might have been inactive / left for years suddenly coming
back purely to vote for/against someone they like/hate. The decision for
such a criteria by the committee reflected such viewpoints by its
members.

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Michael Snow-3
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:

>> What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive
>> editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?
>>    
> In my opinion, I would prefer the decision to elect whoever to sit on
> the Board to have come from active community members, rather than
> someone who might have been inactive / left for years suddenly coming
> back purely to vote for/against someone they like/hate. The decision for
> such a criteria by the committee reflected such viewpoints by its
> members.
>  
There have always been opposing schools of thought on this issue. Some
people feel that allowing inactive participants to vote allows too much
uninformed voting, because they're presumably less up to speed on the
current situation. Or, it makes the process less resistant to
"sockpuppet" voting by those who aren't truly inactive. Other people
think longstanding but inactive contributors could make more
knowledgeable votes, because they're familiar with more of the history.
And, coming back to vote shows that they still care about Wikimedia,
even though they may not edit. Similar issues are involved in the
question of whether inactive administrators are allowed to retain that
status; different projects have reached different conclusions here,
which is entirely okay.

I gather the election committee has considered such issues, though
people are welcome to raise them again to ensure the committee has made
an informed judgment here. If this remains in place, I might mention
that inactive contributors could still have the ability to participate
in selecting the board through, dare I say it - chapters, where their
membership would not lapse on account of failure to edit. Indeed, one
reason to integrate chapters into the process is to provide more
alternatives for people to maintain their connection to the community.

--Michael Snow


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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette
2008/4/29 Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]>:
> Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
>
>  The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
>
>  Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.

Dear ElecCom,

Thankyou for listening to concerns raised, and your prompt response on
this point.

Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Philippe Beaudette
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-3


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael Snow" <[hidden email]>

> Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
>>Jussi wrote:
>>> What is the vital interest in "ensuring" that long time inactive
>>> editors don't vote? What is the threat scenario there?
>>>
>> In my opinion, I would prefer the decision to elect whoever to sit on
>> the Board to have come from active community members, rather than
>> someone who might have been inactive / left for years suddenly coming
>> back purely to vote for/against someone they like/hate. The decision for
>> such a criteria by the committee reflected such viewpoints by its
>> members.
>>
> There have always been opposing schools of thought on this issue. Some
> people feel that allowing inactive participants to vote allows too much
> uninformed voting, because they're presumably less up to speed on the
> current situation. Or, it makes the process less resistant to
> "sockpuppet" voting by those who aren't truly inactive. Other people
> think longstanding but inactive contributors could make more
> knowledgeable votes, because they're familiar with more of the history.
> And, coming back to vote shows that they still care about Wikimedia,
> even though they may not edit. Similar issues are involved in the
> question of whether inactive administrators are allowed to retain that
> status; different projects have reached different conclusions here,
> which is entirely okay.
>
> I gather the election committee has considered such issues, though
> people are welcome to raise them again to ensure the committee has made
> an informed judgment here. If this remains in place, I might mention
> that inactive contributors could still have the ability to participate
> in selecting the board through, dare I say it - chapters, where their
> membership would not lapse on account of failure to edit. Indeed, one
> reason to integrate chapters into the process is to provide more
> alternatives for people to maintain their connection to the community.
>
> --Michael Snow
>

I believe that Michael's email clearly describes the thought process that
the election committee went through.  Indeed, we talked those issues over,
in almost exactly those terms.  I can also speak for the previous year's
election committee (and I think safely infer for the year before that) when
I say that suffrage requirements are usually one of the very first (and most
tumultuous) conversations that an election committee has.  BOLD, UNDERLINE,
ITALICIZE, and FLASHING TEXT: We take very seriously the question of who may
vote.  It is not a decision entered into lightly, and I have an immense
amount of respect for the work that my colleagues this year (and last year)
and previous election committees put into it.  No one has entered the
discussion without a great deal of pre-formed thought and the rules as they
stand now are the product of a great deal of negotiation and concession on
the part of all parties involved.

This year's rules don't represent 100% of what ANY single member of the
committee wanted.  I daresay they don't represent what any member of the
COMMUNITY wants 100%.  Rather, they are - we believe - an appropriate
distillation of the "ideals" of all into a situation that is workable for
all.

We're always open to feedback, but as of now we think that we have a set of
rules that appropriately address the feelings of the committee and the
community at large although there will always be situations that are
contentious.  No set of rules is perfect for everyone; we believe these
rules are the best compilation to reflect the feelings of the millions of
people in the community at this time.

Philippe


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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Delphine Ménard
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
>
>  The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
>
>  Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.

Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across
different projects?
Do internal wikis count?

I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
vote.


Delphine
--
~notafish
http://blog.notanendive.org

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to this address will probably get lost.

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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Alison M. Wheeler
On Wed, April 30, 2008 16:39, Delphine Ménard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>"at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008".
> I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
> one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
> vote.

Given that, unusually where suffrage is being determined, the closing date
for the required level of activity is still over a month away (rather than
in the past), and that no differentiation is made between minor wikignome
edits and major copyedit rewrites, then I would expect *anyone* who wanted
to ensure their ability to vote would be able to do so by finding 50
spelling and / or grammar mistakes. ie, imho, not a difficult hurdle to
leap by any stretch of the imagination.

Alison Wheeler


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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Michael Bimmler
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Alison Wheeler
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, April 30, 2008 16:39, Delphine Ménard wrote:
>  > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette
>  > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  >>"at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008".
>  > I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
>  > one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
>  > vote.
>
>  Given that, unusually where suffrage is being determined, the closing date
>  for the required level of activity is still over a month away (rather than
>  in the past), and that no differentiation is made between minor wikignome
>  edits and major copyedit rewrites, then I would expect *anyone* who wanted
>  to ensure their ability to vote would be able to do so by finding 50
>  spelling and / or grammar mistakes. ie, imho, not a difficult hurdle to
>  leap by any stretch of the imagination.
>

I had a short moment of 'panic' when the original election notice was
posted and I saw that I had only about 35 edits on the English
Wikipedia since March 1 (I'm hardly active on the German Wikipedia
anyway...)

It took me less than half an hour of Recent Changes patrolling
(without any of the magic tools such as VandalProof that make the
usual patrollers' life easier) to get more than enough edits and I can
only recommend it...kind of take you back to the basics ;-)

Michael

--
Michael Bimmler
[hidden email]

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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Alison M. Wheeler
> On Wed, April 30, 2008 16:39, Delphine M?nard wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>"at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008".
>> I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
>> one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
>> vote.
>
> Given that, unusually where suffrage is being determined, the closing date
> for the required level of activity is still over a month away (rather than
> in the past), and that no differentiation is made between minor wikignome
> edits and major copyedit rewrites, then I would expect *anyone* who wanted
> to ensure their ability to vote would be able to do so by finding 50
> spelling and / or grammar mistakes. ie, imho, not a difficult hurdle to
> leap by any stretch of the imagination.
>
> Alison Wheeler
>
>

Or wikification of Incubator articles on any active project would also do
the job. And this is the work which is badly needed anyway.

Cheers
Yaroslav


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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Nathan Awrich
Practically speaking its true that qualifying for the edit requirement is
pretty easy... But having to do so means that whatever your current
activities are they are insufficient to make you a voting 'member of the
community.'

Requiring developers or folks whose contributions don't translate well into
simple edit requirements to jump through hoops to be considered "one of us"
is not good even if the hoops are placed nice and low.

Nathan

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> > On Wed, April 30, 2008 16:39, Delphine M?nard wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>"at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008".
> >> I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
> >> one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
> >> vote.
> >
> > Given that, unusually where suffrage is being determined, the closing
> date
> > for the required level of activity is still over a month away (rather
> than
> > in the past), and that no differentiation is made between minor
> wikignome
> > edits and major copyedit rewrites, then I would expect *anyone* who
> wanted
> > to ensure their ability to vote would be able to do so by finding 50
> > spelling and / or grammar mistakes. ie, imho, not a difficult hurdle to
> > leap by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > Alison Wheeler
> >
> >
>
> Or wikification of Incubator articles on any active project would also do
> the job. And this is the work which is badly needed anyway.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrageissues raised on this list

Philippe Beaudette
In reply to this post by Delphine Ménard
From: "Delphine Ménard" <[hidden email]>

>
> Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across
> different projects?
> Do internal wikis count?
>
> I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
> one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
> vote.
>
>
> Delphine


Hi Delphine:

Edits can not be combined from several wikis, they must be on a single wiki.

The following exceptions exist; these people may vote regardless:
    * Wikimedia server administrators with shell access;
    * paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the
office before 01 March 2008;
    * current or former members of the Board of Trustees.

Philippe

 


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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrageissues raised on this list

Dan Rosenthal
I assume that independent contractors do not count as paid staff of  
the Wikimedia Foundation, correct?

-Dan
On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:38 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:

> From: "Delphine Ménard" <[hidden email]>
>>
>> Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across
>> different projects?
>> Do internal wikis count?
>>
>> I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on  
>> any
>> one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
>> vote.
>>
>>
>> Delphine
>
>
> Hi Delphine:
>
> Edits can not be combined from several wikis, they must be on a  
> single wiki.
>
> The following exceptions exist; these people may vote regardless:
>    * Wikimedia server administrators with shell access;
>    * paid staff of the Wikimedia Foundation who started working at the
> office before 01 March 2008;
>    * current or former members of the Board of Trustees.
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Casey Brown-3
In reply to this post by Delphine Ménard
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Philippe Beaudette
>  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  > Based on concerns raised on this list, the elections committee is changing the requirement from "at least 50 edits between April 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008" to "at least 50 edits between January 1, 2008 and June 1, 2008". We hope this will avoid disenfranchising active community members, while ensuring that longtime-inactive users cannot vote on this important current issue.
>  >
>  >  The relevant election pages will be updated within the next several hours.
>  >
>  >  Thank you for your considered feedback and input into this very important decision.
>
>  Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across
>  different projects?
>  Do internal wikis count?
>
>  I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
>  one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
>  vote.
>

(unofficial comment) In previous years, the election committee/medium
has allowed voting from external wikis.  I would be surprised if they
didn't this year.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Casey Brown-3
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Casey Brown <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  (unofficial comment) In previous years, the election committee/medium
>  has allowed voting from external wikis.  I would be surprised if they
>  didn't this year.
>

erm, make that internal.

--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

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

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

Majorly
In reply to this post by Delphine Ménard
On 30/04/2008, Delphine Ménard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across
> different projects?
> Do internal wikis count?
>
> I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
> one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
> vote.
>
>
> Delphine
>

Delphine - it's seriously not difficult to get 50 edits. I myself have made
over 1000 in one hour just on recent changes patrol. 50 edits is tiny, and
considering all the tools available, it really shouldn't be very difficult
to get 50 edits.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123