Andrew Turvey | 1 Oct 14:25
Picon
Favicon

Election results

Can I echo everything that Michey Conn said - it was everything
I wanted to say and expressed better than I could manage! Thanks to
those who voted for me and I hope everyone who's been involved
so far can continue to play a full part in the discussions in the
months ahead.

Regards,

Andrew

Mickey Conn said:

I'm delighted to have been elected and to be part of a board which I
believe can make Wikimedia UK 2.0 a reality - more than that, a big
success - and will work to ensure that this happens to schedule and in
a way which encourages wide participation.

Thank you to everyone who voted, who has expressed an interest in the
project, or who stood for the board. I hope that everyone will remain
involved and will participate in the elections scheduled to be held
once the organisation is up and running.

I'd also like to thank the election committee for their prompt and
diligent administration of the election.

If anyone would like to ask me any questions or put their views to me,
at any point, please e-mail me at this address, or contact me through
my Wikipedia talk page.

Finally, I intend to stick by the pledges I made when standing for
election. Please feel free to hold me to account if you believe I am
doing otherwise!

Mickey Conn

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Andrew Turvey | 1 Oct 14:30
Picon
Favicon

Detailed results

joseph seddon wrote:
On behalf of British community and the election committee, I would like to thank all those who participated
in this election. The committee apologises for the delay in getting these results out. Internet access and real
life resulted in time not being readily available this weekend and hence the lateness. In total, 27 members of the
British community voted in the election, therefore, to reach the 50% requirement, 14 votes in favour of a candidate
were required.

5 candidates will head the initial board for Wikimedia UK and be responsible for its set up. Due to only 5 candidates
reaching the required 50% vote the board the board will consist of those people. The board members are as follows:

KTC
AndrewRT
CFP
Warofdreams
Mike Peel.

I would like to wish the best of luck to all those who will be responsible, whether board members or not, for making
Wikimedia UK a fully functional and successful chapter . In time, feedback will be passed onto the board before the
next elections to hopefully improve this process.

User:Seddon <at> en:wiki


Election committee
========

Many thanks for your efforts with running this election.

I would be interested to see more details of the election results (although I'd understand if you felt it wasn't appropriate to release this), particularly:

The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains)
The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they voted)

Regards,

Andrew

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Andrew Whitworth | 1 Oct 14:40
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Detailed results

2008/10/1 Andrew Turvey <raturvey <at> yahoo.co.uk>:
> The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains)
> The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they voted)

I would be inclined not to release this information for a few reasons:
1) We don't want this degrading into some numerical popularity contest.
2) Some of the margins were very close, and we don't  need people
second-guessing the way that they cast their votes because of this.
3) A list of people who did vote could be used to disenfranchise
people who did not vote.

Unless there is a big issue with it, I think it's better to just keep
all this information private.

--Andrew whitworth

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Ross Gardler | 1 Oct 16:23
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Detailed results

Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> 2008/10/1 Andrew Turvey <raturvey <at> yahoo.co.uk>:
>> The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains)
>> The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they voted)
> 
> I would be inclined not to release this information for a few reasons:
> 1) We don't want this degrading into some numerical popularity contest.
> 2) Some of the margins were very close, and we don't  need people
> second-guessing the way that they cast their votes because of this.
> 3) A list of people who did vote could be used to disenfranchise
> people who did not vote.
> 
> Unless there is a big issue with it, I think it's better to just keep
> all this information private.

+1.

This is not a popularity contest This is simple majority voting. The 
intricate details are not important.

Having said that, if any candidate (successful or otherwise) would like 
to ask me privately what criteria I used for deciding how to vote I 
would be happy to share that (but not who I voted for - again, I feel 
that is irrelevant).

Ross

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

the wub | 1 Oct 16:11
Gravatar

Re: Results of Wikimedia UK board election

Ditto what everyone else said, congrats to those elected and thanks to
the election committee and all who stood.

I know I haven't been involved much in the chapter discussions so far,
but I've been out of the country and only recently got back (the
election committee might have noticed my vote coming in at the last
minute!). I hope to be able to help out more now though. Having failed
to write the previous Signpost article I promised (although Ral315 did
a very good one instead), I've pulled my finger out and written up one
on the election - it's currently languishing at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_wub/post if anyone wants to
check it for factual errors.

the wub

P.S. Happy belated birthday KTC!

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Thomas Dalton | 1 Oct 17:39
Picon

Re: Detailed results

2008/10/1 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 <at> gmail.com>:
> 2008/10/1 Andrew Turvey <raturvey <at> yahoo.co.uk>:
>> The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains)
>> The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they voted)
>
> I would be inclined not to release this information for a few reasons:
> 1) We don't want this degrading into some numerical popularity contest.

But that's what an election is. It's a way of working out,
numerically, who is the most popular choice for a position.

> 2) Some of the margins were very close, and we don't  need people
> second-guessing the way that they cast their votes because of this.

I think the electorate are smart enough to know that "what if"'s won't
get them anywhere.

> 3) A list of people who did vote could be used to disenfranchise
> people who did not vote.

That's fair enough. I don't think there is anything to be gained by
knowing who voted.

I think having detailed results published would be good for various reasons:

1) It satisfies my (possibly morbid!) curiosity. ;) (And it's not
entirely idle curiosity - it would help me decide whether or not to
stand again at the AGM.)
2) It allows the board to make an informed decision in the event that
someone resigns before the AGM (I think it's unlikely to happen, but
like can be unpredictable). Obviously, only the board needs the
information for that, but I think it would be a very bad thing for the
board to know the details and the rest of us not.
3) If the results were close, as you say, then that will encourage
greater turnout at the AGM. People are less inclined to vote if they
don't think their vote will make a difference.
4) It may help the board work out the best way to handle future
elections - something they need to work out now, while they're writing
the articles, since those set down the procedures for general
meetings. (I think there is a problem with that part of the model
articles - they expect only as many candidates to stand as there are
seats and the membership just gets to say yes or no to each, which
isn't how we will want to run things - so the board will need to
consider changing them and information could only help.)

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Tom Holden | 1 Oct 18:15
Picon

Re: Detailed results

I'm happy for results to be made public, though I can't say I care massively
either way. I cannot think of any elections I've ever witnessed in which
vote counts are not available.

But perhaps people who stood should have the right for the number of people
yes or noing them kept private if they want it so. Does anyone who stood
have any strong feelings?

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: wikimediauk-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Dalton
Sent: 01 October 2008 16:40
To: wikimediauk-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Detailed results

2008/10/1 Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 <at> gmail.com>:
> 2008/10/1 Andrew Turvey <raturvey <at> yahoo.co.uk>:
>> The results for each of the eight candidates (Yeses, Nos, Abstains)
>> The full list of those who voted (although not, of course, how they
voted)
>
> I would be inclined not to release this information for a few reasons:
> 1) We don't want this degrading into some numerical popularity contest.

But that's what an election is. It's a way of working out,
numerically, who is the most popular choice for a position.

> 2) Some of the margins were very close, and we don't  need people
> second-guessing the way that they cast their votes because of this.

I think the electorate are smart enough to know that "what if"'s won't
get them anywhere.

> 3) A list of people who did vote could be used to disenfranchise
> people who did not vote.

That's fair enough. I don't think there is anything to be gained by
knowing who voted.

I think having detailed results published would be good for various reasons:

1) It satisfies my (possibly morbid!) curiosity. ;) (And it's not
entirely idle curiosity - it would help me decide whether or not to
stand again at the AGM.)
2) It allows the board to make an informed decision in the event that
someone resigns before the AGM (I think it's unlikely to happen, but
like can be unpredictable). Obviously, only the board needs the
information for that, but I think it would be a very bad thing for the
board to know the details and the rest of us not.
3) If the results were close, as you say, then that will encourage
greater turnout at the AGM. People are less inclined to vote if they
don't think their vote will make a difference.
4) It may help the board work out the best way to handle future
elections - something they need to work out now, while they're writing
the articles, since those set down the procedures for general
meetings. (I think there is a problem with that part of the model
articles - they expect only as many candidates to stand as there are
seats and the membership just gets to say yes or no to each, which
isn't how we will want to run things - so the board will need to
consider changing them and information could only help.)

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Thomas Dalton | 1 Oct 18:18
Picon

Re: Detailed results

> But perhaps people who stood should have the right for the number of people
> yes or noing them kept private if they want it so. Does anyone who stood
> have any strong feelings?

If anyone speaks up with strong feelings their views should certainly
be listen to, but since it wasn't discussed in advance and the norm is
to publish vote counts I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Andrew Whitworth | 1 Oct 19:29
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Detailed results

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I think having detailed results published would be good for various reasons:

My role in all this has basically been as an impartial vote counter,
and that role is over now. Geni and Joseph both have vote counts, and
if the community really does want to see them (and I agree with
several of your points about why people would want to know) then they
can release them. I'm glad that I could help you guys, but I don't
want to overstep my bounds!

From here on out I will basically be acting only as a chapcom member
and will be willing to answer any questions or provide any guidance
that pertains to that. Questions like these should be left to
potential stake-holding members of Wikimedia UK, and to the
newly-formed board to decide, not to outsiders like myself.

If I can be of assistance in any other ways, let me know.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

Michael Peel | 1 Oct 21:20

First meeting of the board tomorrow evening

All,

The first meeting of the WMUKv2 board will take place tomorrow  
(Thursday) evening at 8PM (British time) on IRC, probably on the  
#wikimedia-uk-board channel (if otherwise, then details will be  
emailed to this list).

Everyone is invited to listen, but speaking will probably be  
restricted to board members only or people that the board invites to  
speak, so that the meeting can go quickly and smoothly. Discussion  
about the meeting will probably take place simultaneously in  
#wikimedia-uk , which at least one board member will be watching. A  
log of the meeting will be made available afterwards.

Mike Peel

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l <at> wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l


Gmane