Mailing List Archive

2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Hello, fellow Wikimedians.

On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your
input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election
(2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election
began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit
counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive
members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the
community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits
within 6 months.

This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more
than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server
administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members. This
still does not account for all community members though, and we would like
your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and
how to quantify other types of contributions).

In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and
others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up:

* Advisory Board members
* Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain
number of commits (what number is "sufficient"?)

* Donors
** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the
limit?)
* University students in the Ambassadors program
* Researchers with access to the research user right

So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are
the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all
right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be
eligible to vote?

Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board
elections/2011]]<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011>or
to the board elections list,
board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your
thoughts on the matter!

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Jon Harald Søby
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
Allowing votes based on donations is likely to send the wrong message,
however noble it might be.

It really is too problematic - if the level is high then it allows "buying
votes" where lower level donors could not; if it is low then paid-for voting
swamps the informed users who may know the candidates and makes it more
"political". If donations are to be a criterion then I would suggest it
must be met at least the last 2 years, not just one year - regular donors
may be seen differently to "once off" donors. But this one is a can of worms
and more trouble than it's worth - best not.

What I would be interested in is some representative way to involve our
other big category of the community - readers. Speculatively one could
allow up to 50 or 100 reader votes, invite non-logged-in readers to apply by
submitting their email address, select 50 - 100 by random poll
proportionately by country (after checking for obvious duplicates) and allow
them to vote. Again may be more trouble than it's worth, but it is
important to consider if readers may have a say in what matters at the
election. After all they are whom the project and all of our efforts are
aimed at supporting.

FT2


2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby@gmail.com>

> Hello, fellow Wikimedians.
>
> On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your
> input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election
> (2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election
> began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit
> counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive
> members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the
> community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits
> within 6 months.
>
> This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more
> than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server
> administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members.
> This
> still does not account for all community members though, and we would like
> your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and
> how to quantify other types of contributions).
>
> In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and
> others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up:
>
> * Advisory Board members
> * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain
> number of commits (what number is "sufficient"?)
>
> * Donors
> ** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the
> limit?)
> * University students in the Ambassadors program
> * Researchers with access to the research user right
>
> So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are
> the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all
> right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be
> eligible to vote?
>
> Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board
> elections/2011]]<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011
> >or
> to the board elections list,
> board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your
> thoughts on the matter!
>
> On behalf of the Election Committee,
> Jon Harald Søby
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people,
we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already
entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to
vote are expected to really make use of it.

The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a
small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could
be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and
meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the
home projects of the candidates without too much real interest in the
elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I
anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your
mail.

The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections
more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to
take part in them.


Harel Cain
Hebrew Wikipedia / Wikimedia Israel




2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby@gmail.com>

> Hello, fellow Wikimedians.
>
> On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your
> input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election
> (2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election
> began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit
> counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive
> members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the
> community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits
> within 6 months.
>
> This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more
> than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server
> administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members.
> This
> still does not account for all community members though, and we would like
> your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and
> how to quantify other types of contributions).
>
> In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and
> others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up:
>
> * Advisory Board members
> * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain
> number of commits (what number is "sufficient"?)
>
> * Donors
> ** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the
> limit?)
> * University students in the Ambassadors program
> * Researchers with access to the research user right
>
> So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are
> the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all
> right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be
> eligible to vote?
>
> Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board
> elections/2011]]<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011
> >or
> to the board elections list,
> board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your
> thoughts on the matter!
>
> On behalf of the Election Committee,
> Jon Harald Søby
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
Relevance is a good point. I've always been a bit dubious about purely
platform based voting, where you get "N" candidates and each says what they
hope to do. It is common experience that once emplaced it's often difficult
to deliver on promises.

Wikimedia is built on radical grass-roots openness. Perhaps consider whether
a different way might be better. Try this as a completely different
approach, where the community suggests its priorities *prior to the election
*.


1. This is done via a 2 week staging area where anyone can suggest a
possible priority, duplicates can be dealt with, and proposed priorities
getting more than 25 supports and 50% form a pool of “community priorities”
2. The resulting community priorities are listed
3. All candidates can comment briefly on each.


This provides a far more focused election, where candidates can actually
know and focus on what the community cares about. Matters that the
community cares about will have received a specific comment from each
candidate. The community can compare candidates' views on specific issues
of wide interest, and vote based on the candidates' specific views on these.

FT2

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Harel Cain <harel.cain@gmail.com> wrote:

> (snip)
> The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections
> more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to
> take part in them.
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Harel Cain <harel.cain@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a
> small proportion of all the people eligible to vote,

I didn't vote last time. I ultimately didn't consider it worth my
while researching the candidates and refreshing myself on issues that
I'd missed given the steadily declining relevance of the
community-elected board members on the operation of the Foundation.

(This is not a comment on the members themselves - all of whom have
been and continue to be excellent - but on the Board's composition,
and the increasing dominance of the executive).

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Harel Cain <harel.cain@gmail.com> wrote:
> Before we start extending the right to vote to ever wider groups of people,
> we should ask ourselves how much this right is exercised by those already
> entitled to it, and how many of those proposed to be granted the right to
> vote are expected to really make use of it.
>
> The last elections saw a participation of a few thousand of voters, just a
> small proportion of all the people eligible to vote, and I guess these could
> be split roughly into those who really are into foundation-level and
> meta-level issues and those who were (legitimately) recruited from among the
> home projects of the candidates without  too much real interest in the
> elections. Whoever didn't fall into these two categories rarely voted, and I
> anticipate the same will hold true for the new groups you proposed in your
> mail.
>
> The real question we should ask ourselves is how to make these elections
> more relevant and important for those groups of people already entitled to
> take part in them.

I don't think the point here is to increase voter turnout,
though—rather, it's to prevent people who do quite a lot of off-wiki
work to support Wikimedia, people who probably have more interest than
most in the composition of the Board, from being unfairly
disenfranchised as they (okay, we) have been in past elections.

Incidentally, if the requirements are lowered as proposed, I can vote
for the first time in three years! (Assuming I can vote from meta,
that is.)

Austin

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:11, FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Allowing votes based on donations is likely to send the wrong message,
> however noble it might be.
>
> It really is too problematic - if the level is high then it allows "buying
> votes" where lower level donors could not; if it is low then paid-for voting
> swamps the informed users who may know the candidates and makes it more
> "political". If donations are to be a criterion then I would suggest it
> must be met at least the last 2 years, not just one year - regular donors
> may be seen differently to "once off" donors. But this one is a can of worms
> and more trouble than it's worth - best not.

Yes, if it would be, let's say, $1000 and indiscriminately for the whole world.

But, let's say $100 based on US nominal GDP PPP (let's say, according
to CIA Factbook, as it is giving the widest range of countries) and
adjusted for other countries' nominal GDP PPP would be, actually, a
positive sign. That would mean that inhabitant of Qatar would have to
give ~$350 to vote, while inhabitant of Burundi ~$0.5. That would,
actually, raise a level of awareness that Wikimedia projects are
working thanks to everybody's donations, while it would say that there
is no need to be rich to give valued contribution.

That's, BTW, the rule for present elections and based on previous
donations. If the next Election committee realizes that there is
significant abuse of that principle, it could change rules for the
next elections.

> What I would be interested in is some representative way to involve our
> other big category of the community - readers.  Speculatively one could
> allow up to 50 or 100 reader votes, invite non-logged-in readers to apply by
> submitting their email address, select 50 - 100 by random poll
> proportionately by country (after checking for obvious duplicates) and allow
> them to vote.  Again may be more trouble than it's worth, but it is
> important to consider if readers may have a say in what matters at the
> election. After all they are whom the project and all of our efforts are
> aimed at supporting.

That would be interesting! I would give that right not to 50-100
random users, but to 10,000. It is not likely that more than ~10%
would use that right and readers are important to us.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Austin Hair <adhair@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think the point here is to increase voter turnout,
> though—rather, it's to prevent people who do quite a lot of off-wiki
> work to support Wikimedia, people who probably have more interest than
> most in the composition of the Board, from being unfairly
> disenfranchised as they (okay, we) have been in past elections.

I would think there would be some developers contributing code to
MediaWiki who are not also editors. Given the quasi-independence of
MediaWiki development from everything else under the Wikimedia
umbrella, would there still be enough connection to the Foundation's
operations to render it desirable that they be enfranchised? (I would
think so.)

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> But, let's say $100 based on US nominal GDP PPP (let's say, according
> to CIA Factbook, as it is giving the widest range of countries) and
> adjusted for other countries' nominal GDP PPP would be, actually, a
> positive sign. That would mean that inhabitant of Qatar would have to
> give ~$350 to vote, while inhabitant of Burundi ~$0.5. That would,
> actually, raise a level of awareness that Wikimedia projects are
> working thanks to everybody's donations, while it would say that there
> is no need to be rich to give valued contribution.
>

Even so, it means that within a given country one can "buy votes", and
distribution can be very lop-sided. Still sends the wrong message.


> I would give that right not to 50-100
> random users, but to 10,000. It is not likely that more than ~10%
> would use that right and readers are important to us.
>

Because most readers would not vote (you reckon 10%, could be right), I
suggested a different way of handling it. Instead of giving 10,000 readers
at random a right to vote and expecting 10% to exercise it (=1000), I'd
solicit all readers interested, and offer the desired number the right from
within those who express interest. This means we know fairly closely how
much "say" readers have in voting terms and aren't wrong-fotted by under or
over response.

An alternative would be that we decide the fixed percentage of the total
vote given to readers (1/4? 1/3?), then however many readers vote, scale it
as the agreed proportion of the cast votes.

FT2
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy ...
 
Marcos (aka Marctaltor)

--- El dom, 20/3/11, FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> escribió:


De: FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com>
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Fecha: domingo, 20 de marzo, 2011 12:11


Allowing votes based on donations is likely to send the wrong message,
however noble it might be.

It really is too problematic - if the level is high then it allows "buying
votes" where lower level donors could not; if it is low then paid-for voting
swamps the informed users who may know the candidates and makes it more
"political".  If donations are to be a criterion then I would suggest it
must be met at least the last 2 years, not just one year - regular donors
may be seen differently to "once off" donors. But this one is a can of worms
and more trouble than it's worth - best not.

What I would be interested in is some representative way to involve our
other big category of the community - readers.  Speculatively one could
allow up to 50 or 100 reader votes, invite non-logged-in readers to apply by
submitting their email address, select 50 - 100 by random poll
proportionately by country (after checking for obvious duplicates) and allow
them to vote.  Again may be more trouble than it's worth, but it is
important to consider if readers may have a say in what matters at the
election. After all they are whom the project and all of our efforts are
aimed at supporting.

FT2


2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby@gmail.com>

> Hello, fellow Wikimedians.
>
> On behalf of the 2011 Board Election Committee I would like to ask your
> input on the criteria for voters in the election. In the last election
> (2009), contributors needed to have at least 600 edits before the election
> began and 50 recent edits (within 6 months). However, we feel that the edit
> counts should be lowered, to allow newer contributors and mostly-inactive
> members to vote, as we feel that they are also valued members of the
> community. So our current proposal is a total of 300 edits, and 20 edits
> within 6 months.
>
> This only goes for the editing community; however, the community is more
> than just editors. Previously, suffrage has been extended to (a) server
> administrators, (b) paid staff and (c) current or former board members.
> This
> still does not account for all community members though, and we would like
> your input on what other community members should be eligible to vote (and
> how to quantify other types of contributions).
>
> In discussion amongst the community, the committee, board members and
> others, the following categories of potential voters were brought up:
>
> * Advisory Board members
> * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain
> number of commits (what number is "sufficient"?)
>
> * Donors
> ** Donors above a certain $ amount (in that case, what amount should be the
> limit?)
> * University students in the Ambassadors program
> * Researchers with access to the research user right
>
> So, to round up, we would very much like your input on these matters; are
> the edit count requirements fair, do the additional categories seem all
> right, and finally, are there any other user categories that should be
> eligible to vote?
>
> Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board
> elections/2011]]<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011
> >or
> to the board elections list,
> board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your
> thoughts on the matter!
>
> On behalf of the Election Committee,
> Jon Harald Søby
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
Lowering the edit counts sounds good, it does however also have a
downside, in that it makes it easier to vote using sockpuppets or
meatpuppets.

I agree with voices speaking out against giving voting rights based on
donations; I do also think giving people voting rights based only on
being 'readers' basically means giving it out to random people.

There's two groups I would be first thinking of when extending the
voting populace. The first is those with commit rights on the
Mediawiki code (I'd feel a single commit in the last year would be
enough - in general having been granted commit right shows already
that one is active as a Mediawiki community member). The second would
be participants of Wikimania or other Wikimedia or chapter events
(using a specific but extensive list).

--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
2011/3/20 marcos <tal_tor9@yahoo.es>:
> I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy ...
>

Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting
rights, we usually call them "members". :-)

I understand well that those who already have voting rights are
reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election
committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that
similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very
beginning?

Kind regards
Ziko


--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
Given our readership is random and a significant proportion of the global
population, that seems quite appropriate.

Not all readers will care but there will be enough who do and it's
appropriate to give them a voice.

(Also noteaworthy: we may also engage readers whom we otherwise don't reach
as a byproduct. Not a big point but a "plus")

FT2


On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do also think giving people voting rights based only on
> being 'readers' basically means giving it out to random people.
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
In the sense of members as "participants", the world and our readers are
ultimately our "members".

If one considers "members" to be "those who tangibly contribute" then I
would say Wikimedia is not a "members club". Its work is not done "by
members for benefit of members". It exists on a voluntary basis for the
world as a whole, ie non-members (by that definition), and that is where our
focus should always ultimately end up.

FT2



On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>wrote:

> 2011/3/20 marcos <tal_tor9@yahoo.es>:
> > I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea,
> for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable
> entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy
> ...
> >
>
> Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting
> rights, we usually call them "members". :-)
>
> I understand well that those who already have voting rights are
> reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election
> committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that
> similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very
> beginning?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> The Netherlands
> http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lowering the edit counts sounds good, it does however also have a
> downside, in that it makes it easier to vote using sockpuppets or
> meatpuppets.
>
> I agree with voices speaking out against giving voting rights based on
> donations; I do also think giving people voting rights based only on
> being 'readers' basically means giving it out to random people.
>
> There's two groups I would be first thinking of when extending the
> voting populace. The first is those with commit rights on the
> Mediawiki code (I'd feel a single commit in the last year would be
> enough - in general having been granted commit right shows already
> that one is active as a Mediawiki community member). The second would
> be participants of Wikimania or other Wikimedia or chapter events
> (using a specific but extensive list).
>
> --
> André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I don't think it's a good idea to include donors especially donors above or
below a certain point, to essentially buy the right to vote. As for
developers, campus ambassadors - most of them are already community members,
its their decision to vote or not. They are already composed of community
members, their inclusion hasn't really been an issue in my opinion.

The discussion about including readers into the voting pool has also been
going on Meta [1]. I believe the 'reader' group is far too wide and random
to be successfully considered a separate entity in the elections. Its also
getting too close to the election to come up with policies and
infrastructure to implement suffrage for random readers.

I would point to the recently concluded Steward election as an example of
who to include in the voting process. I would hope that the selection is
limited to the community, at almost a 100,000, it's far larger than the
voting pool of any other similar organization.


Theo
User:Theo10011


[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011#Participation
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
I think  Wikimedia is not a club , and there's no fee for collaborating in its development. There is a difference, it seems to me, between a "fee" and  a "donation". I believe that FT 2 has explain it better than I. ;-)
 
Marcos (aka Marctaltor)

--- El dom, 20/3/11, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com> escribió:


De: Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Fecha: domingo, 20 de marzo, 2011 14:28


2011/3/20 marcos <tal_tor9@yahoo.es>:
> I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy ...
>

Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting
rights, we usually call them "members". :-)

I understand well that those who already have voting rights are
reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election
committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that
similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very
beginning?

Kind regards
Ziko


--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
Not so quick - I am paying fees, for Wikimedia Nederland and Wikimedia
Deutschland. Would you say that they are not Wikimedia?`:-)
Kind regards
Ziko


2011/3/20 marcos <tal_tor9@yahoo.es>:
> I think  Wikimedia is not a club , and there's no fee for collaborating in its development. There is a difference, it seems to me, between a "fee" and  a "donation". I believe that FT 2 has explain it better than I. ;-)
>
> Marcos (aka Marctaltor)
>
> --- El dom, 20/3/11, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com> escribió:
>
>
> De: Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2011 Board Elections: Input needed
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Fecha: domingo, 20 de marzo, 2011 14:28
>
>
> 2011/3/20 marcos <tal_tor9@yahoo.es>:
>> I agree with FT2. Give right to vote to the donors looks like a bad idea, for several reasons, especially because it is not good for a charitable entity that its donors have the possibility of deciding its future policy ...
>>
>
> Hm, it is actually very common that those who pay a fee have voting
> rights, we usually call them "members". :-)
>
> I understand well that those who already have voting rights are
> reluctant to extend them to other people. The ideas of the election
> committee deserve more consideration. If donors can vote isn't that
> similar to a membership the Foundation had planned in its very
> beginning?
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
> --
> Ziko van Dijk
> The Netherlands
> http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
That's a different possible category. Should people who do not have capacity
to vote as editors, but are paid-up members of a chapter, be able to vote in
that capacity? (Alternatively, are chapter members' voting rights and
involvement limited to the chapter if they haven't taken part in any wider
activity?)

I don't have a problem with it, provided their membership is long enough (6+
months?) before the election.

There are probably good arguments both ways. A lot depends on personal
philosophy: whether you see the foundation and chapters, as effectively
different arms of the same thing or as distinct. For example, if they are
"different arms of the same thing" then there would be commonsense reasons
to share donor lists (as John Vandenberg raises) as there is no reason why 2
parts of the same project would withold information from each other. If they
are distinct then paying membership to one may not lead to voting franchise
for the board of the other. There's considerable philosophy here that
spreads far beyond the election, it may be better to discuss it before it's
a problem in any way while it's fresh and malleable, but the board election
isn't really the context to do so.

FT2



On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Not so quick - I am paying fees, for Wikimedia Nederland and Wikimedia
> Deutschland. Would you say that they are not Wikimedia?`:-)
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
Hello FT2, as members of a chapter, people already can decide about
the consistence of the WMF board - at least, indirectly. I mean the
general principle that someone pays and can vote, it's not so strange.
But I concede that we would then have to ask ourselves how much money
is equivalent to what number of edits...
Ziko


2011/3/20 FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com>:
> That's a different possible category. Should people who do not have capacity
> to vote as editors, but are paid-up members of a chapter, be able to vote in
> that capacity? (Alternatively, are chapter members' voting rights and
> involvement limited to the chapter if they haven't taken part in any wider
> activity?)
>
> I don't have a problem with it, provided their membership is long enough (6+
> months?) before the election.
>
> There are probably good arguments both ways.  A lot depends on personal
> philosophy: whether you see the foundation and chapters, as effectively
> different arms of the same thing or as distinct. For example, if they are
> "different arms of the same thing" then there would be commonsense reasons
> to share donor lists (as John Vandenberg raises) as there is no reason why 2
> parts of the same project would withold information from each other. If they
> are distinct then paying membership to one may not lead to voting franchise
> for the board of the other. There's considerable philosophy here that
> spreads far beyond the election, it may be better to discuss it before it's
> a problem in any way while it's fresh and malleable, but the board election
> isn't really the context to do so.
>
> FT2
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> Not so quick - I am paying fees, for Wikimedia Nederland and Wikimedia
>> Deutschland. Would you say that they are not Wikimedia?`:-)
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Ziko van Dijk
The Netherlands
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby@gmail.com>:
> Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board
> elections/2011]]<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011>or
> to the board elections list,
> board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your
> thoughts on the matter!

So, Jon posted this just four hours ago, specifically pointing to a
page on meta, and there are now more than 20 on-list replies.

I've seen a lot of great ideas, but for the benefit of those who
aren't subscribed to this list, perhaps we can try to keep the
discussion there?

Austin

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Austin Hair <adhair@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby@gmail.com>:
>> Input can be posted here, on [[m:Talk:Board
>> elections/2011]]<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2011>or
>> to the board elections list,
>> board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org. We're looking forward to hearing your
>> thoughts on the matter!
>
> So, Jon posted this just four hours ago, specifically pointing to a
> page on meta, and there are now more than 20 on-list replies.
>
> I've seen a lot of great ideas, but for the benefit of those who
> aren't subscribed to this list, perhaps we can try to keep the
> discussion there?

(And yes, I know Jon said you could reply here—this is just a personal
request, because I'm already seeing crosstalk.)

Austin

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby <jhsoby@gmail.com>:
> * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain
> number of commits (what number is "sufficient"?)

Some things to keep in mind:

* Anyone can create an account to edit. Getting commit access by
itself requires as much effort as a fairly large number of typical
edits.
* There are very few developers. git shortlog -sn | wc -l says there
were 278 separate accounts who made commits anywhere in Wikimedia's
SVN repository, *ever*. Some of those are duplicates, too, so the
actual figure is probably slightly lower.
* Almost all developers who would be interested in voting will have
made at least twenty edits to some project in the last six months.
I'd consider myself almost totally inactive as an editor -- I mostly
just fix the occasional error in articles I'm reading -- but I've made
more than that many edits to enwiki in the last six months.

So if you just allowed everyone with commit access to vote, you'd
probably wind up with like five extra people voting. Given that most
developers do work that requires a lot more skill than most editing,
it seems fair to me (although maybe I'm biased :) ). Alternatively,
if you allow only people who have made at least one commit in the last
six months, it's about 100 people total.

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would think there would be some developers contributing code to
> MediaWiki who are not also editors. Given the quasi-independence of
> MediaWiki development from everything else under the Wikimedia
> umbrella, would there still be enough connection to the Foundation's
> operations to render it desirable that they be enfranchised? (I would
> think so.)

I don't know why you think MediaWiki is quasi-independent from other
Wikimedia endeavors. MediaWiki is a registered trademark of
Wikimedia, mediawiki.org is a Wikimedia site, the code is hosted by
Wikimedia, Wikimedia is the biggest and most important user, and
Wikimedia employees make the final determination on things like commit
access and code review. It's certainly as much a Wikimedia project as
is, say, Wikiversity.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
2011/3/21 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com>:
>
> I don't know why you think MediaWiki is quasi-independent from other
> Wikimedia endeavors.

Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is
somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia
installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I
know how many of them there are.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is
> somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia
> installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I
> know how many of them there are.

I don't see how that makes them any more separate from other projects
than, say, Wikibooks is separate from Wikipedia. Yes, there are
probably participants who aren't interested in any other Wikimedia
project, but that's true for all of Wikimedia's projects (well, maybe
not Commons). MediaWiki itself is a Wikimedia project, at least
according to this official-looking list:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects

So contributions to MediaWiki are contributions to a Wikimedia
project, even if the contributions aren't useful to other Wikimedia
projects (e.g., extensions that Wikimedia has no interest in).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: 2011 Board Elections: Input needed [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
How about the 622 people registered as MediaWiki localisers. They make the
experience of the different language versions as good as it is.
Thanks,
GerardM

http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Category:MediaWiki_translators

On 20 March 2011 17:32, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2011/3/21 Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com>:
> >
> > I don't know why you think MediaWiki is quasi-independent from other
> > Wikimedia endeavors.
>
> Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is
> somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia
> installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I
> know how many of them there are.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2  View All