Hello Itzik
yes, you are right.
But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you
know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and
unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is
also a volunteer driven committee. It is a tremendous effort. They have
weekly meeting since February, and they did a lot of things. It is
unfair to stand out now and say you are doing a bad job.
Greetings
Ting
Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri:
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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
