Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
Hi Itzik,

If I understand you correctly, you are asking about whether WMF and
thematic organization bylaws should allow employees to vote in trustee
elections for their own orgs.

I can see how this could create interesting conflict-of-interest problems.

However, in all non-autocratic republics that I know about, government
employees can vote as any other citizens can. I'm also of the view that WMF
operates like a university, and a modest amount of staff involvement in
selecting their supervisors in that environment is ok.

Pine
On Oct 5, 2014 12:41 AM, "Itzik - Wikimedia Israel" <itzik@wikimedia.org.il>
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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
Pine,

As far as I know, government employees in most of the countries can vote
only if they are citizens. So yes, of course we are not taking there
democratic voice. As I didn't said a staff member can't vote because he is
a staff member. Just saying that it is not enough to be a staff member in
order to get the vote privilege.

Itzik



*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 10:04 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Itzik,
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are asking about whether WMF and
> thematic organization bylaws should allow employees to vote in trustee
> elections for their own orgs.
>
> I can see how this could create interesting conflict-of-interest problems.
>
> However, in all non-autocratic republics that I know about, government
> employees can vote as any other citizens can. I'm also of the view that WMF
> operates like a university, and a modest amount of staff involvement in
> selecting their supervisors in that environment is ok.
>
> Pine
> On Oct 5, 2014 12:41 AM, "Itzik - Wikimedia Israel" <
> itzik@wikimedia.org.il>
> 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
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
The title should be "WMF Board of Trustee elections".

Itzik - Wikimedia Israel, 05/10/2014 09:40:
> For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes.

And this is the issue we should be talking about: the ~99.5 % abstention
rate.*

> 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...)

Did you check how many actually voted?

>
> 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.

This unequality must indeed be rectified. It's not hard to do so.
1) Just remove the WMF staffers exception: after it was introduced,
requirements have been greatly reduced and most staffers have at least
one merged patch or 300 edits. There could be some minor
"discrimination" for some administrative staff.
2) Extend it to any Wikimedia affiliates. This could cause some minor
inequality in what different affiliates consider "staff". Mostly, there
would be some administrative overhead; but it's trivial to fix with
standard electoral methods: publish the electors list beforehand and let
interested voters report errors.
I wouldn't spend too much time discussing this topic, flipping a coin to
pick either option is fine. :-)

Nemo

(*) No official numbers exist... but I already opened one thread on
transparency this week.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
Is there a way in which people who volunteer, but not through editing or
coding, can vote? For example, Wikimania volunteers from this year, or
those who volunteer time with financial or administrative matters rather
than through adding content?
On 5 Oct 2014 11:44, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:

> The title should be "WMF Board of Trustee elections".
>
> Itzik - Wikimedia Israel, 05/10/2014 09:40:
>
>> For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes.
>>
>
> And this is the issue we should be talking about: the ~99.5 % abstention
> rate.*
>
> 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...)
>>
>
> Did you check how many actually voted?
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This unequality must indeed be rectified. It's not hard to do so.
> 1) Just remove the WMF staffers exception: after it was introduced,
> requirements have been greatly reduced and most staffers have at least one
> merged patch or 300 edits. There could be some minor "discrimination" for
> some administrative staff.
> 2) Extend it to any Wikimedia affiliates. This could cause some minor
> inequality in what different affiliates consider "staff". Mostly, there
> would be some administrative overhead; but it's trivial to fix with
> standard electoral methods: publish the electors list beforehand and let
> interested voters report errors.
> I wouldn't spend too much time discussing this topic, flipping a coin to
> pick either option is fine. :-)
>
> Nemo
>
> (*) No official numbers exist... but I already opened one thread on
> transparency this week.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> (*) No official numbers exist... but I already opened one thread on
> transparency this week.
>
>
Just to clarify so that I know what you're looking and can try and
prioritize it. You are looking for the total number of eligible voters so
that we can determine the actual turn out percentage? It could be a bit of
a pain because of the lack of SUL and the fact that people can be eligible
on multiple wikis but if I assume that 'same name = duplicate' then it
shouldn't take too much manual jiggering after the scripts run. I will try
to do that this afternoon (Sunday).

I always intended to release more stats after the last election (and I know
you've asked before), sadly issues came up in the pipeline and other work
over came it priority wise so at the moment it would have to be in my
personal time I do still want too or to find someone else who is able too
:(.


James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
I think the issue is that the employee vote is now a significant proportion
of the electorate. When this was originally set up, nobody complained too
loudly about giving WMF staff the vote simply because their numbers were
small and they were too small a constituency to sway the result on their
own. The number of voters choosing to exercise their suffrage is
decreasing, while the number of staff are increasing. While this
illustrates a problem all on its own, it also means that WMF staff who may
not be participants on the projects may now have enough pull to decide a
closely fought election.

I know it's too late to change the rules for this year, but I'd really
recommend getting rid of the complex criteria for the next election, and
dialing it back to a simple "X number of edits, or Y number of patches"
rule. Not only would this be simpler to administer and easier to
understand, but I would imagine most of the WMF staff who care enough to
actually vote would probably qualify through those criteria anyway. A few
"worthy" folk might miss out on the chance to lodge a ballot, but then
that's going to be the case in any situation other than complete and
universal suffrage.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin

On 5 October 2014 18:04, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Itzik,
>
> If I understand you correctly, you are asking about whether WMF and
> thematic organization bylaws should allow employees to vote in trustee
> elections for their own orgs.
>
> I can see how this could create interesting conflict-of-interest problems.
>
> However, in all non-autocratic republics that I know about, government
> employees can vote as any other citizens can. I'm also of the view that WMF
> operates like a university, and a modest amount of staff involvement in
> selecting their supervisors in that environment is ok.
>
> Pine
> On Oct 5, 2014 12:41 AM, "Itzik - Wikimedia Israel" <
> itzik@wikimedia.org.il>
> 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
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
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.


James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:36 AM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> (*) No official numbers exist... but I already opened one thread on
>> transparency this week.
>>
>>
> Just to clarify so that I know what you're looking and can try and
> prioritize it. You are looking for the total number of eligible voters so
> that we can determine the actual turn out percentage? It could be a bit of
> a pain because of the lack of SUL and the fact that people can be eligible
> on multiple wikis but if I assume that 'same name = duplicate' then it
> shouldn't take too much manual jiggering after the scripts run. I will try
> to do that this afternoon (Sunday).
>
> I always intended to release more stats after the last election (and I
> know you've asked before), sadly issues came up in the pipeline and other
> work over came it priority wise so at the moment it would have to be in my
> personal time I do still want too or to find someone else who is able too
> :(.
>
>
> James Alexander
> Legal and Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
<itzik@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
> Pine,
>
> As far as I know, government employees in most of the countries can vote
> only if they are citizens. So yes, of course we are not taking there
> democratic voice. As I didn't said a staff member can't vote because he is
> a staff member. Just saying that it is not enough to be a staff member in
> order to get the vote privilege.

IMO the minimum thresholds should be set at levels such that any staff
member who has employed for a reasonable period of time is likely to
be eligible, if they are engaging with the community on public
projects, which is how a person becomes part of 'the community', and
would be a suitable voter for community seats on the board.

e.g. Danny Horn joined in April 2014, and now has 284 edits globally,
albeit spread across seven projects.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/DannyH_(WMF)

Danny will no doubt hit the 300 global edit mark by the cutoff date
which would be ~March 2014., roughly one year after he started. I
suspect he may also meet any sensible criteria established for merged
patches, but havent checked that.

If we include the wikitech and foundation wikis in the edit counts,
many more staff and contractors will likely reach the thresholds we
set.

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. Maybe they are
editing on a private wiki? Maybe those private wiki edits can be
imported to meta??

We could include different criteria geared more towards including
staff, based around edits per year. e.g. 50 contributions per year
during employment at an approved movement entity, sounds to me like a
reasonable expectation of most roles at WIkimedia organisations. That
would be inclusive of staff like Anna Lantz, whose role includes
documentation of our movement, using our public wiki projects.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:ALantz_(WMF)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/ALantz_(WMF)

(sorry Danny and Anna for using you as examples)

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
wrote:

> I think the issue is that the employee vote is now a significant proportion
> of the electorate. When this was originally set up, nobody complained too
> loudly about giving WMF staff the vote simply because their numbers were
> small and they were too small a constituency to sway the result on their
> own. The number of voters choosing to exercise their suffrage is
> decreasing, while the number of staff are increasing. While this
> illustrates a problem all on its own, it also means that WMF staff who may
> not be participants on the projects may now have enough pull to decide a
> closely fought election.
>
> I know it's too late to change the rules for this year, but I'd really
> recommend getting rid of the complex criteria for the next election, and
> dialing it back to a simple "X number of edits, or Y number of patches"
> rule. Not only would this be simpler to administer and easier to
> understand, but I would imagine most of the WMF staff who care enough to
> actually vote would probably qualify through those criteria anyway. A few
> "worthy" folk might miss out on the chance to lodge a ballot, but then
> that's going to be the case in any situation other than complete and
> universal suffrage.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin


First off, setting aside the question about what I (personally) think
should be the requirements I would say that it is in no way too late to
change the rules. The election is not until mid year next year (I think we
usually do it in June?) The election committee hasn't even been sat yet and
they will be the ones to decide that in the end (that is not to say that we
shouldn't have the discussion now too if people want, just that the
decision makers aren't even decided yet).

I don't have exact numbers, but I do remember that there are already very
few people who wanted to vote, were only eligible as staff, and couldn't.
Most of them were developers and so would be eligible via patches anyway
(and most of THEM were eligible by edit count as well), among the non
developers people like myself and Philippe refrained from voting because we
were working with the election committee and felt that most appropriate. I
don't believe there was an overwhelming vote of staff members in proportion
to the total.


Voter turn out is something I really want to see better though, it's
something that I know we've discussed in the office and I'm sure that the
election committee will have as a top priority. The biggest things I see
right now is finishing SUL unification which will allow us to have '1
click' voting (and not sending people to meta first to learn about the
election/candidates then to their undefined 'home wiki' to see if they can
vote) completely anecdotally that seems to have consistently scared a lot
of voters off and confused even some of our more experienced users (it also
seems to be a bigger complaint each year) SUL will allow us to just have
everyone click a start voting button on Meta and not have to go back to
their home wiki. I also seriously wonder about the joint FDC/Board ballot
giving people too much to look at, we know for example that over 500 people
'saw' the ballot but never submitted their vote.

I also really think notifications could be incredibly helpful to get the
word out, but so far that does not seem very likely to be available by then.


James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
How are we doing on SUL finalization anyway? If I remember correctly the
lead on this is Dan so I'm pinging him.

Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On 05.10.2014 14:24, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
> <itzik@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
>> Pine,
>>

> IMO the minimum thresholds should be set at levels such that any staff
> member who has employed for a reasonable period of time is likely to
> be eligible, if they are engaging with the community on public
> projects, which is how a person becomes part of 'the community', and
> would be a suitable voter for community seats on the board.
>
> e.g. Danny Horn joined in April 2014, and now has 284 edits globally,
> albeit spread across seven projects.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/DannyH_(WMF)
>

I think most of the staff (not sure specifically about Danny) have
"normal" (not WMF) accounts which are eligible to vote, and they should
not be voting from two accounts anyway.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On 5 October 2014 13:35, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:

> On 05.10.2014 14:24, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
>> <itzik@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
>>
>>> Pine,
>>>
>>>
> IMO the minimum thresholds should be set at levels such that any staff
>> member who has employed for a reasonable period of time is likely to
>> be eligible, if they are engaging with the community on public
>> projects, which is how a person becomes part of 'the community', and
>> would be a suitable voter for community seats on the board.
>>
>> e.g. Danny Horn joined in April 2014, and now has 284 edits globally,
>> albeit spread across seven projects.
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/DannyH_(WMF)
>>
>>
> I think most of the staff (not sure specifically about Danny) have
> "normal" (not WMF) accounts which are eligible to vote, and they should not
> be voting from two accounts anyway.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
>

Speaking as one of the election monitors for the last election,
we specifically checked for those types of duplicate votes, and would have
de-activated the earliest vote(s) keeping only the last one. As it
happens, nobody did that; the only votes we needed to strike were test
votes.[1]

Risker/Anne

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
Yes.. But which wikis are about to be eligible? For example: Wikimedia
Polska wiki is on WMF servers within SUL framework so it is possible
to start voting from our wiki. So our secretary, who is not active ony
other WMF projects can vote because she made enough "secretarial"
edits on our wiki, as she maintains regularly severa pages... But if
our wiki would be on separate servers she could not vote... So.. what
about outreach wiki, some internal wikis etc?

If taking the idea of wiki "citzenship" seriously, there is question
of definition of this "citzenship"... Maybe in order to became
"wiki-citizen" one need enough edits in "content" WMF wikis? So no
meta, no outrech and other "internal" wikis but only Wikipedia,
Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikicites, Wikimedia Commons, Wikisources and
Wikivoayage?




2014-10-05 14:09 GMT+02:00 Craig Franklin <cfranklin@halonetwork.net>:
> I think the issue is that the employee vote is now a significant proportion
> of the electorate. When this was originally set up, nobody complained too
> loudly about giving WMF staff the vote simply because their numbers were
> small and they were too small a constituency to sway the result on their
> own. The number of voters choosing to exercise their suffrage is
> decreasing, while the number of staff are increasing. While this
> illustrates a problem all on its own, it also means that WMF staff who may
> not be participants on the projects may now have enough pull to decide a
> closely fought election.
>
> I know it's too late to change the rules for this year, but I'd really
> recommend getting rid of the complex criteria for the next election, and
> dialing it back to a simple "X number of edits, or Y number of patches"
> rule. Not only would this be simpler to administer and easier to
> understand, but I would imagine most of the WMF staff who care enough to
> actually vote would probably qualify through those criteria anyway. A few
> "worthy" folk might miss out on the chance to lodge a ballot, but then
> that's going to be the case in any situation other than complete and
> universal suffrage.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
> On 5 October 2014 18:04, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Itzik,
>>
>> If I understand you correctly, you are asking about whether WMF and
>> thematic organization bylaws should allow employees to vote in trustee
>> elections for their own orgs.
>>
>> I can see how this could create interesting conflict-of-interest problems.
>>
>> However, in all non-autocratic republics that I know about, government
>> employees can vote as any other citizens can. I'm also of the view that WMF
>> operates like a university, and a modest amount of staff involvement in
>> selecting their supervisors in that environment is ok.
>>
>> Pine
>> On Oct 5, 2014 12:41 AM, "Itzik - Wikimedia Israel" <
>> itzik@wikimedia.org.il>
>> 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
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On 05.10.2014 19:44, Risker wrote:
> On 5 October 2014 13:35, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:
>
>> On 05.10.2014 14:24, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
>>> <itzik@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pine,
>>>>
>>>>

>> I think most of the staff (not sure specifically about Danny) have
>> "normal" (not WMF) accounts which are eligible to vote, and they
>> should not
>> be voting from two accounts anyway.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>>
>>
>
> Speaking as one of the election monitors for the last election,
> we specifically checked for those types of duplicate votes, and would
> have
> de-activated the earliest vote(s) keeping only the last one. As it
> happens, nobody did that; the only votes we needed to strike were test
> votes.[1]
>
> Risker/Anne
>

Thanks Anne. By no means was my intention to suggest that anybody has
done it in the past or wants to do it in the future. My point was that
many staffers are community members in their free time, and they may be
eligible to vote as volunteers - meaning we are probably talking about
even smaller numbers of people who may need special treatment to meet
eligibility rules.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
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?

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On 5 October 2014 20:51, Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org> 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).

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On 5 October 2014 10:00, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:

> How are we doing on SUL finalization anyway? If I remember correctly the
> lead on this is Dan so I'm pinging him.
>
Hey Pine,

Progress is pretty good. As noted in Erik's presentation at Monthly Metrics
last Thursday, we're wrapping up the necessary engineering work and
starting to figure out a date that makes sense to perform the finalisation.
The engineering work is mostly feature complete (with the notable exception
of one half of one of the initiatives, which is half finished). The work
still needs rigorous testing, which I can arrange by getting everything
deployed to testwiki once we're finished developing it all.

We're not quite at where I had hoped we would be (I'd hoped the engineering
work would be totally featured complete), which was noted by Erik colouring
the SUL box yellow rather than green during Metrics. That said, the
progress we've made towards the SUL finalisation this quarter has been more
than the progress in all previous quarters combined... at least, while I've
been at the WMF. So I'm pretty pleased.

Dan

--
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
Thanks Dan. Can you share an approximate completion date?

(What is with half of the WMF staff responding to routine emails on
weekends? All you workaholics and overachievers...) :)

Pine
On Oct 5, 2014 8:55 PM, "Dan Garry" <dgarry@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On 5 October 2014 10:00, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How are we doing on SUL finalization anyway? If I remember correctly the
>> lead on this is Dan so I'm pinging him.
>>
> Hey Pine,
>
> Progress is pretty good. As noted in Erik's presentation at Monthly
> Metrics last Thursday, we're wrapping up the necessary engineering work and
> starting to figure out a date that makes sense to perform the finalisation.
> The engineering work is mostly feature complete (with the notable exception
> of one half of one of the initiatives, which is half finished). The work
> still needs rigorous testing, which I can arrange by getting everything
> deployed to testwiki once we're finished developing it all.
>
> We're not quite at where I had hoped we would be (I'd hoped the
> engineering work would be totally featured complete), which was noted by
> Erik colouring the SUL box yellow rather than green during Metrics. That
> said, the progress we've made towards the SUL finalisation this quarter has
> been more than the progress in all previous quarters combined... at least,
> while I've been at the WMF. So I'm pretty pleased.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On 5 October 2014 22:08, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> 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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
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 <dgarry@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On 5 October 2014 22:08, Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
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: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] 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 <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
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 <jalexander@wikimedia.org>:

> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, James Alexander <jalexander@wikimedia.org>
> 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
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections [ In reply to ]
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" <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org> 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 <jalexander@wikimedia.org>:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:12 AM, James Alexander <
> jalexander@wikimedia.org>
> > 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
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3  View All