Forum:Changes to the Weird Gloop elections

From Meta Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Changes to the Weird Gloop elections

Hi everyone,

Last election we had an interesting situation where the number of people running in the election was equal to the number of elected members we must have every electoral term. Most of the wiki community didn’t feel comfortable knowing that all 7 people who ran in the election would be elected without any vote. Currently, in the event of a tie the election committee may rule on it or create policies to handle ties (23.11).

Since we haven’t experienced this before and had no rules set up on what to do, a temporary solution was to “upvote/downvote” nominees, and those under 50% would not be elected. This worked out fine since no one was under 50%, but again we were unprepared in the event of someone not meeting the threshold and the board failing to have 7 elected members. There are a few scenarios we don’t have any official guidelines on:

  1. What should we do if less than 3 people (1 in the event of PT-BR) elect to represent a wiki?
  2. Should we change our voting method to consider the situation when exactly 3 people elect to represent a wiki?
  3. What should we do if we fail to elect 3 wiki-representatives in an election (e.g., from a voting method that would elect some members but not others)?

Note that 7 members (3 RS, 3 OSRS, 1 PT-BR) is a fixed number. The number can change via a resolution, but we do need a number (23.5), or we change the article to be more flexible.

Some situations & solutions[edit source]

There are a lot of ways we can tackle this. I’ll put down some ideas, but if anyone has any other ideas, please bring them up! Whatever consensus is reached, the board will vote on it.

1. Less than 3 people elect to represent a wiki[edit source]

  1. Change the number of elected members to be equal to the amount of people that ran.
  2. Delay the election by a short while and attract more people to run. By article 23.3, we must have an election within 13 months of the last. We can change this though.

2. Voting method if exactly 3 people run[edit source]

  1. None. Let everyone who runs be elected without voting.
  2. “50% threshold vote via upvote/downvote”. What we did last year.
  3. Introduce a “vote of no confidence” per wiki and keep Schulze method. If you’re not confident in one person at all (but are with the other two), you can vote for a 4th “no confidence” slot, and that one person wouldn’t be elected. The advantage of this voting method over the previous one is that it’s extensible for more than 3 people.

3. Failing to elect 3 members to represent a wiki[edit source]

Note that a couple of solutions in the previous section would still have the problem where we could fail to elect the number of members required for a given wiki.

  1. Change the number of elected members to be equal to the amount of people that passed the election.
  2. Same as above, but have another election in a month’s time to try and reach 7 total members (3 RS, 3 OSRS, 1 PT-BR), and then reverting the number of elected members back to 7.

Haidro (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Comment - There's two points I have:

  • Regardless of how many candidates we have, it is important for the community to be able to confirm their suitability. This applies whether we have too many or too few candidates for a given role. If we do not have enough successful candidates after the vote, I'm comfortable with that assuming the people that were wildly unsuitable were not elected. To that end, I think we need some sort of veto option that should be factored in the results somehow.
  • If we end up with too few successful candidates and we feel this number is insufficient for proper operation of the board, having a smaller scale election seems perfectly reasonable. Similarly, if a board member steps down for any reason, I think another election should be triggered. I would note that pt-br have circumvented any sort of obviously open process in both the initial election and the recent replacement, so I'm unsure if this suggestion is excessively bureaucratic.

cqm talk 10:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure - Due to lack of responses from the community, I believe that we can close this and come up with the solution during the next board meeting. This is something that can be discussed and then shared with the greater community afterwards. --Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 13:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)