Ting, Risker, 1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be volunteer in the committee.
2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue Itzik On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello dear all, > > I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the > election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time. > > Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not > very many people responded. > > Greetings > Ting > > Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker: > > On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal >>>> right to everyone. >>>> >>>> Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a >>>> processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations >>>> the >>>> right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not >>>> chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying >>>> >>> the >>> >>>> first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even >>>> >>> want >>> >>>> to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their "bosses".. >>>> >>>> That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and >>> staff >>> definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I >>> leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election >> started, >> with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may >> start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to >> give the "right" people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many >> people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter >> eligibility >> this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are >> dates >> for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed >> because >> the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done). >> >> I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election >> post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't >> lost to time. >> >> Risker (Election Committee Member) >> >> >> >> [1] >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** >> elections_2013/Post_mortem<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list >> [email protected].**org <[email protected]> >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> >> > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected].**org <[email protected]> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
