Difference between revisions of "Forum:Cross-wiki voting for elections"

From Meta Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Discussion)
(closure)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Index}}
 
  +
{{Forumheader|Index|name=Cross-wiki voting for elections|subject=Limit voting on board elections to meeting requirements on a per-wiki basis|notes=|closure=disallow|archive=true|date=19:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)|user=Gaz Lloyd|type=meta}}
   
 
Hello everyone,
 
Hello everyone,
Line 68: Line 68:
   
 
'''Support 1/Oppose 2/Neutral-leaning-towards-support on 3''' - [[User:Clv309|Christine]] 02:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 
'''Support 1/Oppose 2/Neutral-leaning-towards-support on 3''' - [[User:Clv309|Christine]] 02:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
'''Closed''' - There is consensus to remain with the status quo and not restrict cross-wiki voting. {{Signatures/Gaz Lloyd}} 19:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:36, 14 December 2019

Forums: Index > Cross-wiki voting for elections
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 December 2019 by Gaz Lloyd.

Hello everyone,

In anticipation of the Weird Gloop member elections anticipated soon, we are reviewing the voting method with regards to editors voting for people in other wikis (RS, OSRS and PT-BR).

As a recap, last years’ elections used the Schulze method. You can see how last year’s elections played out here and a discussion of the Schulze method here.

This year, We are anticipating 7 elected members: 3 from RS, 3 from OSRS and 1 from PT-BR.

Last year, anyone who had 100 edits total and 10 edits in the last 3 months could vote in both the RS and OSRS elections.

With regards to cross-wiki voting, there are 3 main models that have been brought forward in the last 1-2 months.

  1. Unrestricted voting (Status quo)
    • Everyone who meets eligibility criteria (100 edits and 10 in the last 3 months) can vote in all elections. For example, an RS editor can vote in RS, OSRS and PT-BR elections.
    • This ensures greatest representation of every elected member. This also allows people to be held accountable to other wikis.
  2. Wiki-specific eligibility
    • Editors can only vote in wikis where they have edited. For example, an RS editor can vote in RS elections, but not in OSRS and PT-BR elections. Someone who edits both the OSRS and RS wikis can vote in both the RS and OSRS elections.
    • The criteria to be able to vote in a specific wiki could either be
      • the full requirement: 100 edits total in the specific wiki and 10 edits in the last 3 months in the specific wiki, or
      • partial: e.g. 50 edits total in the specific wiki and 5 edits in the last 3 months in the specific wiki (overall 100 + 10 requirement still applies)
    • This lets people who participate in the specific wiki who might know most about the elected members vote. This may increase diversity of the board.
  3. "Minority" wiki exception
    • Everyone who meets eligibility criteria can vote in the RS and OSRS elections. However, only people who participate in the smaller wikis can vote in the smaller wikis (for now, only PT-BR, but hypothetically this would cover wikis such as RSC or German wiki).
      • To vote in the PT-BR wiki, one would have to edit the PT-BR. The full or partial requirements would apply.
    • This allows broad representation of the RS and OSRS wiki, while preventing the elected representatives of minority wikis (PT-BR) from being chosen by people who have never used or looked at said minority wiki.

Please note your support or opposition for each of the three proposals. You may support multiple options.

--Gau Cho (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Prefer 3, Support 2, Oppose 1 on the grounds that people have a clearer idea of what people do on the wikis where they actually operate, and also on the ground of decreasing impact of the votes of random people voting for people they don't know, especially re: PT-BR. i.e., it reduces the popularity contest and makes it more based on merit. --Gau Cho (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Prefer 1, Okay with 3 - I think everyone here wants to reduce the popularity contest. However, I actually find it MORE likely that people will vote based on popularity for people on wikis they're familiar with (and consequently, more likely to actually scrutinize the nomination statement if they're an uninvolved party). I think this is probably the core thing there's disagreement about, but it makes more sense to me this way, and is backed up a little bit by the (admittedly small) amount of existing data we have. Since I'm optimizing for a board filled with the people most capable of contributing to the company, rather than, say, the best wiki editors, that seems like the right move.

I'm okay with option 3 mostly because it seems unlikely that we'll have multiple candidates for the "minority" groups anyway. ʞooɔ 23:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Support 1 - I disagree with the assertion that because I know what someone does on a wiki now, I therefore know if they'll be a good board member. We tend to be complacent when it comes to actually scrutinising candidates for pretty much everything and the elections last year were no exception. I intend to ask everyone questions and I feel like I should be able to translate the responses into votes depending on the answers I recieve. Otherwise, we may as well not hold the discussion on meta at all and silo it off further. Board members make decisions that can effect all the wikis and therefore we should be able to fully engage in the process for more than 3/7 or 1/7 candidates (depending on which wiki you edit). cqm talk 00:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Support 1/Oppose 2/Neutral 3 - Per cam STAR the coolest bean (talk 2 me xoxo) 00:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Support 1/Oppose 2/Oppose 3 - I don't think you need to edit the wikis to necessarily know what's going on with them or how they run. Talk-to Kelsey 01:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose 1/Support 2/Neutral 3 - While I understand that you don't necessarily need to actively edit a wiki to know what's going on, presumably members are to represent their wiki's, which is in opposition to open voting. This is especially true as currently there are no restrictions as to who can run for election from a specific wiki. While Cook makes an interesting point, I'm interested to see if that holds true in the future. Cqm is essentially making the same point, just specifically about himself, which I respect, but again, that's him, and not the voting community as a whole. I wasn't around for the last elections, but I'm very hesitant to believe that, the majority, much less everyone, who votes does their due diligence on candidates.

I fully agree with his statement that the board members need to be people capable (and willing) to contribute to the company rather than good editors/admins.

I'm also very hesitant to make exceptions for specific wiki's, although I'd be more ok if it was worded as applying to "minor" or "lesser" wikis or something like that, which are then defined elsewhere (or determined by the presiding board etc). Such that it would also be able to add, say the de wiki in the future. Elessar2 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that my points were specific to myself. I would expect all members of the community to be free to engage with all candidates in the election. If it's the case that not everyone does due diligence, then we should be leading by example and supporting people to do that, not actively preventing them. cqm talk 12:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal - It has come to my attention that, according to analysis of the last election, people were more likely to vote for the stronger candidates, vs the more popular ones if they were unfamiliar with them. Additionally it seems that most people are less concerned with board members representing a specific wiki and more with them being generally good candidates, which is a valid viewpoint but in my opinion somewhat opposed to the way the constitution is being written, and voting is being handled. As such I propose the following:

Each wiki elects 1 member, as a representative of that wiki. These members are elected only by those editors who meet the voting requirements of that specific wiki, and the candidates must meet the requirement themselves. The later is flexible, but the idea is that the candidate is also active on that wiki and a representative of that specific wiki.
The rest of the members are the top candidates left remaining after the other (3) have been selected.
Basically everyone votes on all candidates, and the rest takes place when votes are tallied. Nothing would change for the candidates (other than some may have to run not for a specific wiki) or the voters.
I'm interested to hear what os people have to say, since it somewhat limits their power since the number of rs3 editors is greater. Keep in mind though that currently anyone can run for any wiki (maybe this is what needs to change) which hasn't actually happened, but is possible. Also regardless of who runs, rs3 editors still have the majority of the say in which candidates are actually elected. I'm open to any alternative proposals. Elessar2 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Also OS had far fewer candidates last election. Elessar2 (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Support 1, oppose 2 and 3 - I think that voters should have a say in all the candidates that are chosen as the board as a whole is representing all the wikis. It's entirely possible for voters who are not active on the wiki that a candidate is nominating for to form valid opinions on the suitability of the candidates. As Cqm has said, the discussion part of the process is to allow voters to assess that, and that is also where any concerns about candidates should be raised by those most familiar with the candidates. The personal characteristics of candidates is the most important consideration, and not their editing history, so I don't think that personal knowledge of candidates' editing from being active on the same wiki(s) as them should be required.

That said I am also opposed to Elessar's further proposal above, as I think it's important that the board contains members who are familiar with any specific concerns from each of the wikis. I dislike the idea of it being possible for the RS and OSRS wikis to not have an equal number of members who are familiar with wiki-specific issues and the potential for inequality resulting from that (or at least a perception of inequality). IsobelJ (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"important that the board contains members who are familiar with any specific concerns from each of the wikis" Not sure how true this can be when there are no wiki specific requirements. Elessar2 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Support 1, Neutral 3 - Jakesterwars (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Support 1/Oppose 2/Oppose 3 - Meeeeerds msg 01:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Support 1/Oppose 2/Neutral-leaning-towards-support on 3 - Christine 02:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Closed - There is consensus to remain with the status quo and not restrict cross-wiki voting. Gaz (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)