[Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
73 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Dan Garry
Just to reiterate, the engineering work is almost done. We do plan to begin
the community engagement and announcements in 2014, but it's going to take
a while to make sure everyone's contacted and to give them time to digest
the announcement and act accordingly.

As we're almost done with the engineering work it's not really a matter of
engineering resources anymore (which is why SUL no longer features in the
engineering top 5 priorities in Q2), it's just about making sure we do the
communications right, and that takes time.

Dan

On 5 October 2014 22:19, Dan Garry <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 October 2014 22:08, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Dan. Can you share an approximate completion date?
>>
> Not at this stage, I'm afraid. I will only give a date when I can say with
> some confidence that we can meet it, and there are too many free variables
> for me to be able to say that right now.
>
> What I can say with confidence is that the SUL finalisation will not
> happen in 2014. :-)
>
>> (What is with half of the WMF staff responding to routine emails on
>> weekends? All you workaholics and overachievers...)  :)
>>
> The weekend is when we're free from all the meetings and we actually get
> to focus on our work. ;-)
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
> Wikimedia Foundation
>



--
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

James Alexander-4
In reply to this post by James Alexander-4
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> A completely un deduped (and so is double+ counting anyone who is eligible
> on multiple wikis because of activity there) number is 207911 for 2013.
>
> Caveats:
>
> This number is quick and dirty and 'reasonable' as a starting point but
> far from perfect, among other things:
>
>    - It doesn't include 100% of the staff or developers, only the staff
>    who had staff rights or asked and developers who asked because they
>    couldn't vote in other ways). This is a relatively small amount of missing
>    people.
>    - It still includes bots and blocked users, because that was checked
>    later in the process. I, again, think this is a relatively small amount
>    given number of bots + blocked users with more then 300 edits relative to
>    the total. It is possible some of the bots are very active across the board
>    though which will be helped by the de dupping.
>    - It is not de dupped meaning it double+ counts people who were active
>    on many wikis or accounts, sometimes a lot (for example there are 7 entries
>    for my personal account, 7 for my work account, and 69 for the steward
>    DerHexer given global work). Sorting through the crap that the script spat
>    out is more then I'm willing to do at 5am but I will try to do this later
>    today and get this number down. My guess is this is in the 10k range.
>
>
>

So I was wrong about the extent of the de duplication. In the end there
were about *50124* unique people marked off on the voter list (again, like
above, that does still include some bots/blocked on multiple wiki users but
they are only counted once each)  so call it 50k.

Using that number:

   - With a total of 1809 valid votes that is about a 3.6% turnout.
   - We know that another 534 people authenticated to vote but did not
   actually cast a valid vote (and so most likely left after seeing the
   ballot)[1]. That would account for an additional 1%


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem#Voter_participation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Peter Southwood
If there was an option to indicate that the user was willing to vote but did not know any of the candidates well enough to have an opinion on their suitability for the positions you might find that this is often the case.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James Alexander
Sent: 06 October 2014 08:46 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> A completely un deduped (and so is double+ counting anyone who is
> eligible on multiple wikis because of activity there) number is 207911 for 2013.
>
> Caveats:
>
> This number is quick and dirty and 'reasonable' as a starting point
> but far from perfect, among other things:
>
>    - It doesn't include 100% of the staff or developers, only the staff
>    who had staff rights or asked and developers who asked because they
>    couldn't vote in other ways). This is a relatively small amount of missing
>    people.
>    - It still includes bots and blocked users, because that was checked
>    later in the process. I, again, think this is a relatively small amount
>    given number of bots + blocked users with more then 300 edits relative to
>    the total. It is possible some of the bots are very active across the board
>    though which will be helped by the de dupping.
>    - It is not de dupped meaning it double+ counts people who were active
>    on many wikis or accounts, sometimes a lot (for example there are 7 entries
>    for my personal account, 7 for my work account, and 69 for the steward
>    DerHexer given global work). Sorting through the crap that the script spat
>    out is more then I'm willing to do at 5am but I will try to do this later
>    today and get this number down. My guess is this is in the 10k range.
>
>
>

So I was wrong about the extent of the de duplication. In the end there were about *50124* unique people marked off on the voter list (again, like above, that does still include some bots/blocked on multiple wiki users but they are only counted once each)  so call it 50k.

Using that number:

   - With a total of 1809 valid votes that is about a 3.6% turnout.
   - We know that another 534 people authenticated to vote but did not
   actually cast a valid vote (and so most likely left after seeing the
   ballot)[1]. That would account for an additional 1%


[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem#Voter_participation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4037/8334 - Release Date: 10/06/14


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Lodewijk
In reply to this post by James Alexander-4
Do you know which users were among these 534? Would it be possible to
randomly approach 20-30 of them and ask why they didn't vote? It would be
helpful to learn, I guess. This is, assuming such a mini-survey was not
attempted yet.

Best,
Lodewijk

2014-10-06 8:46 GMT+02:00 James Alexander <[hidden email]>:

> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > A completely un deduped (and so is double+ counting anyone who is
> eligible
> > on multiple wikis because of activity there) number is 207911 for 2013.
> >
> > Caveats:
> >
> > This number is quick and dirty and 'reasonable' as a starting point but
> > far from perfect, among other things:
> >
> >    - It doesn't include 100% of the staff or developers, only the staff
> >    who had staff rights or asked and developers who asked because they
> >    couldn't vote in other ways). This is a relatively small amount of
> missing
> >    people.
> >    - It still includes bots and blocked users, because that was checked
> >    later in the process. I, again, think this is a relatively small
> amount
> >    given number of bots + blocked users with more then 300 edits
> relative to
> >    the total. It is possible some of the bots are very active across the
> board
> >    though which will be helped by the de dupping.
> >    - It is not de dupped meaning it double+ counts people who were active
> >    on many wikis or accounts, sometimes a lot (for example there are 7
> entries
> >    for my personal account, 7 for my work account, and 69 for the steward
> >    DerHexer given global work). Sorting through the crap that the script
> spat
> >    out is more then I'm willing to do at 5am but I will try to do this
> later
> >    today and get this number down. My guess is this is in the 10k range.
> >
> >
> >
>
> So I was wrong about the extent of the de duplication. In the end there
> were about *50124* unique people marked off on the voter list (again, like
> above, that does still include some bots/blocked on multiple wiki users but
> they are only counted once each)  so call it 50k.
>
> Using that number:
>
>    - With a total of 1809 valid votes that is about a 3.6% turnout.
>    - We know that another 534 people authenticated to vote but did not
>    actually cast a valid vote (and so most likely left after seeing the
>    ballot)[1]. That would account for an additional 1%
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem#Voter_participation
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

rupert THURNER-2
I d really love to have a simple voting right without exceptions, simple to
explain. This than could be adopted as well by chapters and thematic orgs
to distinguish between active and other members. I.e. have a number of
billable contributions to Wikipedia or commons or be a registered
developer. To make it an incentive more to contribute.

Rupert
On Oct 6, 2014 1:55 PM, "Lodewijk" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Do you know which users were among these 534? Would it be possible to
> randomly approach 20-30 of them and ask why they didn't vote? It would be
> helpful to learn, I guess. This is, assuming such a mini-survey was not
> attempted yet.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2014-10-06 8:46 GMT+02:00 James Alexander <[hidden email]>:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, James Alexander <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > A completely un deduped (and so is double+ counting anyone who is
> > eligible
> > > on multiple wikis because of activity there) number is 207911 for 2013.
> > >
> > > Caveats:
> > >
> > > This number is quick and dirty and 'reasonable' as a starting point but
> > > far from perfect, among other things:
> > >
> > >    - It doesn't include 100% of the staff or developers, only the staff
> > >    who had staff rights or asked and developers who asked because they
> > >    couldn't vote in other ways). This is a relatively small amount of
> > missing
> > >    people.
> > >    - It still includes bots and blocked users, because that was checked
> > >    later in the process. I, again, think this is a relatively small
> > amount
> > >    given number of bots + blocked users with more then 300 edits
> > relative to
> > >    the total. It is possible some of the bots are very active across
> the
> > board
> > >    though which will be helped by the de dupping.
> > >    - It is not de dupped meaning it double+ counts people who were
> active
> > >    on many wikis or accounts, sometimes a lot (for example there are 7
> > entries
> > >    for my personal account, 7 for my work account, and 69 for the
> steward
> > >    DerHexer given global work). Sorting through the crap that the
> script
> > spat
> > >    out is more then I'm willing to do at 5am but I will try to do this
> > later
> > >    today and get this number down. My guess is this is in the 10k
> range.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So I was wrong about the extent of the de duplication. In the end there
> > were about *50124* unique people marked off on the voter list (again,
> like
> > above, that does still include some bots/blocked on multiple wiki users
> but
> > they are only counted once each)  so call it 50k.
> >
> > Using that number:
> >
> >    - With a total of 1809 valid votes that is about a 3.6% turnout.
> >    - We know that another 534 people authenticated to vote but did not
> >    actually cast a valid vote (and so most likely left after seeing the
> >    ballot)[1]. That would account for an additional 1%
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem#Voter_participation
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Risker
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 October 2014 20:51, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/2014 08:24 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>> > I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more
>> > than a year, and many dont look likely to reach the 300 threshold,
>> > even with wikitech and foundation wikis included.
>>
>> An interesting question, I think, is /whether/ anyone from the
>> Foundation ever voted that would not otherwise have had sufferage from
>> the edits requirement?
>>
>>
> Pretty sure they have, Marc.  It's difficult to tell for certain, because
> some of the applicable wikis where people might be posting are not included
> in the SUL grouping (for example, FDC wiki or other non-public wikis,
> Foundation wiki, etc).

It should be 'quite easy' to confirm wrt staff by looking for '(WMF)'
and 'office.wikimedia.org' in the raw data, and filtering out any
developers with merged changesets.

https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290?limit=2000

This is not easy for volunteers because some of the staff usernames
are not SUL accounts, dont have links to personal accounts, and
userpages dont include names, so sorry for any mistakes made in the
following.

MRay (WMF) - no SUL account, or account by that name on meta or
wmfwiki - 'ray' doesnt appear on wmf:Staff

GGrossmeier_(WMF) - no SUL account, but an account by that name does
exist on wmfiwki, and belongs to dev Greg Grossmeier, but didnt have
merged gerrit patches for that period AFAICS.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/owner:%22Greg+Grossmeier+%253Cgreg%2540wikimedia.org%253E%22,n,z

Ldavis (WMF) - SUL account, easily meets community voting criteria

LVilla (WMF) - SUL account with a link to personal account
'user:LuisVilla', which from a quick count (I didnt use the
eligibility checker tool) to have met either criteria of the 200 total
edits or 20 recent edits.

Jorm (WMF) - didnt check; quite certain they were eligible one way or another.

Sbouterse (WMF), now Siko (WMF), and Seeeko - SUL accounts, achieved
the community voting criteria with both staff and personal account.
woot!

JMathewson (WMF) - SUL account, easily meets community voting criteria

KLove (WMF) - SUL account, may have amassed 200 edits across all
projects with a few months of employment (I didnt use the eligibility
checker tool to confirm this).  borderline case; but had she known
that she needed a few more edits to be eligible, my guess is she would
have done the necessary edits with ease in order to qualify.

Gyoung - not a SUL account, but does have SUL accounts GYoung_(WMF)
and GayleKaren, but between them doesnt appear to have met the
criteria for the 2013 election, but will easily meet the criteria for
the 2015 election.

Lcarr - not a SUL account, but lots of merged patches.
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/owner:%22Lcarr+%253Cgeekgirl%2540gmail.com%253E%22,n,0024c1af0000f0b9

The other exception is for WMF board members; the easiest way to check
those is by username.

While scanning the list I saw a few chapter people who voted from
[country].wikimedia.org , so it would also be worth checking those to
see if they were also eligible on content wikis.  If chapterwikis are
included in the eligibility counts, then foundationwiki and wikitech
(and other WMF public wikis) should also be counted.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Risker
John, please explain what your point is here.  I mean really, picking on
individual people who voted in the election?  That's crossing the line,
especially as they met the voting eligibility criteria for the election
involved, which happened 16 months ago.  I expect better from you.

If you would like to propose different voting eligibility criteria for
future elections, including the one that will take place some time around
June 2015, please do so - perhaps consider offering to chair the election
committee for next year.  But insinuating that some people didn't deserve
to vote, or shouldn't have been allowed to vote using a staff account, when
that was in the eligibility criteria for many previous elections (not just
the 2013 one) is just rude.  As best I can tell, there were no concerns
expressed in the lead-up the 2013 election about WMF staff having franchise.

Risker/Anne



On 6 October 2014 22:26, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 5 October 2014 20:51, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/05/2014 08:24 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> >> > I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more
> >> > than a year, and many dont look likely to reach the 300 threshold,
> >> > even with wikitech and foundation wikis included.
> >>
> >> An interesting question, I think, is /whether/ anyone from the
> >> Foundation ever voted that would not otherwise have had sufferage from
> >> the edits requirement?
> >>
> >>
> > Pretty sure they have, Marc.  It's difficult to tell for certain, because
> > some of the applicable wikis where people might be posting are not
> included
> > in the SUL grouping (for example, FDC wiki or other non-public wikis,
> > Foundation wiki, etc).
>
> It should be 'quite easy' to confirm wrt staff by looking for '(WMF)'
> and 'office.wikimedia.org' in the raw data, and filtering out any
> developers with merged changesets.
>
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290?limit=2000
>
> This is not easy for volunteers because some of the staff usernames
> are not SUL accounts, dont have links to personal accounts, and
> userpages dont include names, so sorry for any mistakes made in the
> following.
>
> MRay (WMF) - no SUL account, or account by that name on meta or
> wmfwiki - 'ray' doesnt appear on wmf:Staff
>
> GGrossmeier_(WMF) - no SUL account, but an account by that name does
> exist on wmfiwki, and belongs to dev Greg Grossmeier, but didnt have
> merged gerrit patches for that period AFAICS.
>
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/owner:%22Greg+Grossmeier+%253Cgreg%2540wikimedia.org%253E%22,n,z
>
> Ldavis (WMF) - SUL account, easily meets community voting criteria
>
> LVilla (WMF) - SUL account with a link to personal account
> 'user:LuisVilla', which from a quick count (I didnt use the
> eligibility checker tool) to have met either criteria of the 200 total
> edits or 20 recent edits.
>
> Jorm (WMF) - didnt check; quite certain they were eligible one way or
> another.
>
> Sbouterse (WMF), now Siko (WMF), and Seeeko - SUL accounts, achieved
> the community voting criteria with both staff and personal account.
> woot!
>
> JMathewson (WMF) - SUL account, easily meets community voting criteria
>
> KLove (WMF) - SUL account, may have amassed 200 edits across all
> projects with a few months of employment (I didnt use the eligibility
> checker tool to confirm this).  borderline case; but had she known
> that she needed a few more edits to be eligible, my guess is she would
> have done the necessary edits with ease in order to qualify.
>
> Gyoung - not a SUL account, but does have SUL accounts GYoung_(WMF)
> and GayleKaren, but between them doesnt appear to have met the
> criteria for the 2013 election, but will easily meet the criteria for
> the 2015 election.
>
> Lcarr - not a SUL account, but lots of merged patches.
>
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/q/owner:%22Lcarr+%253Cgeekgirl%2540gmail.com%253E%22,n,0024c1af0000f0b9
>
> The other exception is for WMF board members; the easiest way to check
> those is by username.
>
> While scanning the list I saw a few chapter people who voted from
> [country].wikimedia.org , so it would also be worth checking those to
> see if they were also eligible on content wikis.  If chapterwikis are
> included in the eligibility counts, then foundationwiki and wikitech
> (and other WMF public wikis) should also be counted.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Marc-Andre
On 10/06/2014 11:29 PM, Risker wrote:
> John, please explain what your point is here.  I mean really, picking on
> individual people who voted in the election?

Risked, I don't think Jay had a point beyond answering the question "Are
there many staffers who vote that wouldn't otherwise have been eligible
with a community account" by simply looking at the data.

My take from his survey is "Not very many" so it seems eminently
reasonable to simplify the criteria.

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by Risker
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> John, please explain what your point is here.  I mean really, picking on
> individual people who voted in the election? That's crossing the line,
> especially as they met the voting eligibility criteria for the election
> involved, which happened 16 months ago.  I expect better from you.

My data is exhaustive, picking on _all_ voters (that I could find) who
were eligible via the WMF staff criteria or used their WMF staff
account to vote, so we can see the utility that criteria had last
time.

It was in response to Marc asking a question, which I roughly
answered.  Itzik's initial email said that WMF now has a voting power
of 12%, if the 2015 WMF election has the same turnout as last time.
IIRC, the WMF voting power for the 2013 election was around 9%.  That
is enough voting power to control who is on the board.  Even only
counting the WMF staff who actually voted in 2013, IIRC they had a
realised voting power which was able to determine which of three
candidates was in slot #2 and #3.  I am not suggesting that they voted
as a bloc, and do I believe they are the largest potential bloc of
voters.

As Marc suggests many of those people are also community members who
would be eligible due to the community edit count based criteria.  I
have quantified it to ~5 votes in the 2013 election which used the WMF
staff eligibility criteria, which is 0.27% of the 1809 total votes.

> If you would like to propose different voting eligibility criteria for
> future elections, including the one that will take place some time around
> June 2015, please do so

I already did that: 50 edits for each year of employment, and be
inclusive of all public wikis.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-October/074835.html

> - perhaps consider offering to chair the election
> committee for next year.

IMO the election must be run by a third party, as happened prior to
2013, by SPI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_in_the_Public_Interest
Adequate staff support from WMF is also needed.

> But insinuating that some people didn't deserve
> to vote, or shouldn't have been allowed to vote using a staff account, when
> that was in the eligibility criteria for many previous elections (not just
> the 2013 one) is just rude.  As best I can tell, there were no concerns
> expressed in the lead-up the 2013 election about WMF staff having franchise.

If I am insinuating anything by providing data with a bit of
commentary, it is the opposite.
Any concerns about a WMF 'staff eligible' criteria voting bloc in 2013
are not well founded, but the list of who voted from a staff account
last time strongly suggests very few people would be affected by
removing that criteria.  Removing the WMF staff criteria does adjust
the *potential* voting bloc (213 votes) down to a more palatable
number, being only those that are active within the community, which I
think is a good thing to do.

However as I have said in earlier emails, I would prefer that we
refine the criteria such that more of the WMF and affiliate staff &
boards who are active within the community can vote in 2015.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Risker
On 7 October 2014 00:57, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> IMO the election must be run by a third party, as happened prior to
> 2013, by SPI.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_in_the_Public_Interest
> Adequate staff support from WMF is also needed.
>
>

The elections have never, even once, been run by a third party.  For two
board elections, the voting was hosted off-site, although vote verification
was still carrried out by internal volunteers (the election committee); on
the last board election, to avoid the problems that arose with off-site
hosting, the election key (which acts as a kill-switch for the election)
was held by a third party.  All the rest of the activities were done
on-site by volunteers with some help from staff.  All of the organization
except for the hosting of votes has always been done internally.

In my own post-mortem after the last election, I too suggested that the
elections be hosted off-site; however, my reasoning was that it would be
difficult to justify the expense of redeveloping SecurePoll sufficiently to
make it straightforward enough to use given that it's only used once or
twice a year. However, work has been happening on SecurePoll pretty much
since the last election, so there's no benefit to hosting elsewhere,
especially given the difficulties that were encountered in the past.

External election hosting is a fairly big ticket item if it is being done
well (and it would probably involve non-free software and as much if not
more work on the part of WMF staff), although I do understand that there
are certain advantages to going outside or more precisely not hosting on
our own servers.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
Hey,

After reading all the emails so far, I more and more thinking that the
correct way will be to remove the specific WMF criteria - allowing every
community member to participate in the election by voting using his
*personal* (not staff/dev account), what give the same equal power to staff
from the WMF and chapters, such as every personal volunteer in the
Wikimedia community have.

I hope next year election committee will take it in consideration.




*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 7 October 2014 00:57, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > IMO the election must be run by a third party, as happened prior to
> > 2013, by SPI.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_in_the_Public_Interest
> > Adequate staff support from WMF is also needed.
> >
> >
>
> The elections have never, even once, been run by a third party.  For two
> board elections, the voting was hosted off-site, although vote verification
> was still carrried out by internal volunteers (the election committee); on
> the last board election, to avoid the problems that arose with off-site
> hosting, the election key (which acts as a kill-switch for the election)
> was held by a third party.  All the rest of the activities were done
> on-site by volunteers with some help from staff.  All of the organization
> except for the hosting of votes has always been done internally.
>
> In my own post-mortem after the last election, I too suggested that the
> elections be hosted off-site; however, my reasoning was that it would be
> difficult to justify the expense of redeveloping SecurePoll sufficiently to
> make it straightforward enough to use given that it's only used once or
> twice a year. However, work has been happening on SecurePoll pretty much
> since the last election, so there's no benefit to hosting elsewhere,
> especially given the difficulties that were encountered in the past.
>
> External election hosting is a fairly big ticket item if it is being done
> well (and it would probably involve non-free software and as much if not
> more work on the part of WMF staff), although I do understand that there
> are certain advantages to going outside or more precisely not hosting on
> our own servers.
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Itzik - Wikimedia Israel, 07/10/2014 09:50:
> I hope next year election committee will take it in consideration.

Why hope? Just create the rules page on Meta with the amended criteria
which just found consensus. They can then be worked on from there.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Ricordisamoa
In reply to this post by Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
Yes, that would be desirable.
However, I don't mind if WMF employees use their staff account to vote,
provided that it meets eligibility criteria because of edits or patches.

Il 07/10/2014 09:50, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel ha scritto:

> Hey,
>
> After reading all the emails so far, I more and more thinking that the
> correct way will be to remove the specific WMF criteria - allowing every
> community member to participate in the election by voting using his
> *personal* (not staff/dev account), what give the same equal power to staff
> from the WMF and chapters, such as every personal volunteer in the
> Wikimedia community have.
>
> I hope next year election committee will take it in consideration.
>
>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-54-5878078 |http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
In reply to this post by Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
A year ago I started this topic and been asked to reopen him before the
next elections. I'll be happy if the election committee will take this
issue in consideration.



*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Don't worry, we indeed have a lot of time till the next elections, but as
> this issue had been raised during the last elections - and we decided that
> we can't change the rules few weeks before the elections, now I want to
> raise the discussion enough time before.
>
> According to the current rules  [1], in order to influence and vote in the
> elections, you need to be active editor, developer or WMF staff/contractor.
>
> Last year this issue concern some of us. The foundation is not small
> organizations as it been before, and by comparison, the number of people
> participating in the elections every year is not high.
>
> For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes. By comparison,
> the number of WMF staff this days is 218, what makes there voting power 12%
> of the total voters last year. This consider to be a great amount of power
> when we are talking about elections (In the last election you would have
> around 650 votes in order to be elected...)
>
> Wikimedia thematic organizations staff and contractors for example don't
> have the same privilege to vote only because they are employees of the
> movement, only if they are editors as well. The question - what make the
> WMF staff different, and if this is not a little bit problematic that the
> staff have such power to decide on their direct board, but in general - the
> board of the whole movement.
>
> Do we need to give the same privilege also to all the staff in our
> movement?
> Should we limited the elections to staff (both WMF and chapters) that are
> active editors or developers as additional to their work in the movement?
>
> I'll be happy to hear yours input.
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Vote_Questions
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results
>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Nathan Awrich
I think this is definitely worthy of discussion and I agree that either all
employees of WMF affiliates should be permitted to vote or employee status
should be removed as an element of eligibility. Hopefully the board and its
electioneers will weigh in with their opinions.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Gregory Varnum-2
Greetings,

Thank you for bringing up this important topic. I wanted to share some info
on where things stand right now with this year's elections.

1. The committee did discuss the issue of affiliate staff having a vote. It
appears that a number of affiliates (not all) allow their staff to
participate in affiliate elections, including the process for selecting
their affiliates vote in the WMF board vote. I recognize that the future of
the affiliate elections for the board is a topic for discussion right now,
but we were asked to operate under the current structure, and not a
possible future one. With that in mind, we felt the best approach was to
respect the two elections as being separate. The WMF staff is not a
component in affiliate elections, and so it seemed appropriate to keep the
elections where staff have input separate for now.

2. It would appear that a majority of staff already qualify to vote either
as editors or developers - so to some extent - this is an issue impacting a
small group of voters. Please do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying that
makes the group less important, but I am more pointing out that affiliate
staff actively engaged in WMF projects will not be stopped from voting
simply because they are affiliate staff.

3. I do not, personally, see any of the eligible groups as "exceptions" -
as that implies to me they are not considered fundamental parts of the
community - which just isn't true for developers, staff, or former WMF
leaders. Removing staff eligibility did not get support. Speaking just for
myself, I absolutely believe that allowing WMF staff to have input on who
their bosses will be is both fair and within the Wikimedia spirit. Which is
why I would absolutely encourage affiliate staff to have say in affiliate
boards, but that is not our decision to make.

4. There are, beyond just staff, others (again - a small group - but they
exist) working with affiliates who are not eligible to vote. We discussed
that if we open the window for affiliate staff, we should do the same for
other affiliate leaders. We already allow for this for WMF connected folks
by providing a vote to advisory board members, past board members, etc.
However, identifying that group for affiliates is tricky as, for example,
not all Wikimedia User Groups have identified leaders. Given the narrow
window of time we had to address this issue, the complexities, and a sense
that affiliate related qualifications are best left for the affiliate based
elections at this point - we decided not to expand the eligibility this
year.

5. All of this said, the committee only had a few days to officially
consider and discuss this topic - along with many others. Even with all the
input from this thread, that was a very fast window to address what turned
into an increasingly complicated question. The 2013 elections committee put
forward the idea of a standing elections committee to address these issues
more in-depth. I am increasingly of the opinion that a standing committee
is the best way to do so - as the 1-2 week setup elections schedule does
not allow for too many complex conversations.

I hope that helps give some insight into how things were decided for next
year, and what my personal recommendation for best next steps would be (ask
a standing committee to do a more in-depth assessment of the question).

-greg (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think this is definitely worthy of discussion and I agree that either all
> employees of WMF affiliates should be permitted to vote or employee status
> should be removed as an element of eligibility. Hopefully the board and its
> electioneers will weigh in with their opinions.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Aleksey Bilogur
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.

I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it
comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement
equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity
ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that
such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in
elections*, would immediately result in an influx of "chapter junkies" who
will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises
a freer flow of money.

The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest
possible direction to go in.


On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think this is definitely worthy of discussion and I agree that either all
> employees of WMF affiliates should be permitted to vote or employee status
> should be removed as an element of eligibility. Hopefully the board and its
> electioneers will weigh in with their opinions.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Leigh Thelmadatter
+1

> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
>
> My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
>
> I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
> already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it
> comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement
> equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity
> ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that
> such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in
> elections*, would immediately result in an influx of "chapter junkies" who
> will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises
> a freer flow of money.
>
> The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest
> possible direction to go in.
>
>

     
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Bohdan Melnychuk
I don't see why employees (no diff whether it's about WMF or affiliates) who are not also volunteers should have the vote right. It's up to Wikimedia movement to chose it's lead. The non-volunteering employees are outsiders who are just hired to do some stuff for us since we tend to be lazy. If they want to influence community's way they must become part of the community. They have a choice of who's their boss - if they don't like boss in WMF they could go look for another job. --Base

22.04.2015, 18:10, "Leigh Thelmadatter" <[hidden email]>:

> +1
>>  Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400
>>  From: [hidden email]
>>  To: [hidden email]
>>  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
>>
>>  My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
>>
>>  I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
>>  already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it
>>  comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement
>>  equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity
>>  ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that
>>  such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in
>>  elections*, would immediately result in an influx of "chapter junkies" who
>>  will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises
>>  a freer flow of money.
>>
>>  The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest
>>  possible direction to go in.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Sydney Poore
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.

Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site
contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely
focused on the mission of the movement.

I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't see why employees (no diff whether it's about WMF or affiliates)
> who are not also volunteers should have the vote right. It's up to
> Wikimedia movement to chose it's lead. The non-volunteering employees are
> outsiders who are just hired to do some stuff for us since we tend to be
> lazy. If they want to influence community's way they must become part of
> the community. They have a choice of who's their boss - if they don't like
> boss in WMF they could go look for another job. --Base
>
> 22.04.2015, 18:10, "Leigh Thelmadatter" <[hidden email]>:
> > +1
> >>  Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400
> >>  From: [hidden email]
> >>  To: [hidden email]
> >>  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
> >>
> >>  My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
> >>
> >>  I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
> >>  already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When
> it
> >>  comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the
> movement
> >>  equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity
> >>  ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect
> that
> >>  such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in
> >>  elections*, would immediately result in an influx of "chapter junkies"
> who
> >>  will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate
> promises
> >>  a freer flow of money.
> >>
> >>  The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest
> >>  possible direction to go in.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234