Mailing List Archive

Aphaia wrote:

>Thank you for your interest on Election.
>
>Today I would like to invite you to an open question from me. About
>voters' eligibility. There is no discussion among three, mainly
>because two of them have been not available since the midst of this
>month, hence no opinion, there is no consensus based conclusion.
>
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elections_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%2C_2006/En#Open_question:_on_voters.27_elibiglity
>
>I could rather say "we will do so-and-so because of lack of
>consensus", without bother you with my question, but even if I should
>say so at that time, I think it would be nice to know what kind of
>trends are found among us, the community from hundreds projects,
>people from hundreds lands and languages.
>
>Cheers,
>
>
In America, only convicted felons loose the right to vote, and only in
certain states. People on probation have the right to vote, and people
from every social class and range of offenses have the right to vote
(except for convicted felons). No "Concensus" of citizens can strip from
any individual the right to vote in this country. This is because we are
an "enlightened society", not the forum of the Roman Senate where
splinter groups assassinate the emperor and and citizen or senator with
views we don't like, or the Court of Queen Elizabet in the 1500's where
you could loose your head for wearing the wrong color clothes on the
wrong day or criticize the queen. I thank God America doesn't run this
way, or most countries in modern times (except for a few in the middle
eastern countries).

Ultimately, the finanacial contributors to the Foundation will vote with
their $$$ to confirm your choices and practices. Banned users from the
whole of Wikimedia should not vote. Banned users from a particular
project should vtoe just not on that project. This isn't an article for
deletion, it's board members for the community. All the communities
should vote. I am glad you raised this issue because it shows exactly
where you stand, and I'm happy to know it.

Jeff

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think th idea of exampting people who don't have the right to work
on a wiki anymore should also not be allowed to be part of the group
that is represented by the representative is ok. It is not possible to
make a good comparison with the American way of democratics, please
let us not stick into that discussion, because there are much more
other sides to the story, but let's stick to the core of the question.

What are the elections for? We choose a representative. That
representative represents the communities. If someone is no part of
the communities, should it be able to vote who should represent that
community? It's a good question. But I don't think someone should be
taken away his or her right to vote when (s)he is banned from a
project. That would be as an additional punishment. I think it would
be best to state that the edits on the project you are indeinitely
banned from do not count. So if it was your only project, you can't
vote. But when you were active enough on another project as well, and
not banned indef there, it's ok to vote. That way it is not an
additional punishment, but a clearer definition of the representation.

Lodewijk

2006/8/25, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com>:
> Aphaia wrote:
>
> >Thank you for your interest on Election.
> >
> >Today I would like to invite you to an open question from me. About
> >voters' eligibility. There is no discussion among three, mainly
> >because two of them have been not available since the midst of this
> >month, hence no opinion, there is no consensus based conclusion.
> >
> >http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elections_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%2C_2006/En#Open_question:_on_voters.27_elibiglity
> >
> >I could rather say "we will do so-and-so because of lack of
> >consensus", without bother you with my question, but even if I should
> >say so at that time, I think it would be nice to know what kind of
> >trends are found among us, the community from hundreds projects,
> >people from hundreds lands and languages.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >
> In America, only convicted felons loose the right to vote, and only in
> certain states. People on probation have the right to vote, and people
> from every social class and range of offenses have the right to vote
> (except for convicted felons). No "Concensus" of citizens can strip from
> any individual the right to vote in this country. This is because we are
> an "enlightened society", not the forum of the Roman Senate where
> splinter groups assassinate the emperor and and citizen or senator with
> views we don't like, or the Court of Queen Elizabet in the 1500's where
> you could loose your head for wearing the wrong color clothes on the
> wrong day or criticize the queen. I thank God America doesn't run this
> way, or most countries in modern times (except for a few in the middle
> eastern countries).
>
> Ultimately, the finanacial contributors to the Foundation will vote with
> their $$$ to confirm your choices and practices. Banned users from the
> whole of Wikimedia should not vote. Banned users from a particular
> project should vtoe just not on that project. This isn't an article for
> deletion, it's board members for the community. All the communities
> should vote. I am glad you raised this issue because it shows exactly
> where you stand, and I'm happy to know it.
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 25/08/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think th idea of exampting people who don't have the right to work
> on a wiki anymore should also not be allowed to be part of the group
> that is represented by the representative is ok. It is not possible to
> make a good comparison with the American way of democratics, please
> let us not stick into that discussion, because there are much more
> other sides to the story, but let's stick to the core of the question.
>
> What are the elections for? We choose a representative. That
> representative represents the communities. If someone is no part of
> the communities, should it be able to vote who should represent that
> community? It's a good question. But I don't think someone should be
> taken away his or her right to vote when (s)he is banned from a
> project. That would be as an additional punishment. I think it would
> be best to state that the edits on the project you are indeinitely
> banned from do not count. So if it was your only project, you can't
> vote. But when you were active enough on another project as well, and
> not banned indef there, it's ok to vote. That way it is not an
> additional punishment, but a clearer definition of the representation.
>
> Lodewijk

Yes, that's a sensible interpretation. OTOH, if someone has been
blocked from four projects and is only active on one, it might just
mean project #5 hasn't caught them yet ;-)

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:

>In America, only convicted felons loose the right to vote, and only in
>certain states. People on probation have the right to vote, and people
>from every social class and range of offenses have the right to vote
>(except for convicted felons). No "Concensus" of citizens can strip from
>any individual the right to vote in this country. This is because we are
>an "enlightened society", not the forum of the Roman Senate where
>splinter groups assassinate the emperor and and citizen or senator with
>views we don't like, or the Court of Queen Elizabet in the 1500's where
>you could loose your head for wearing the wrong color clothes on the
>wrong day or criticize the queen. I thank God America doesn't run this
>way, or most countries in modern times (except for a few in the middle
>eastern countries).
>
But even the United States has a minimum voting age, and a waiting
period before new immigrants can become citizens. I appreciate your
scare quotes around "enlightened society". I'm sure that a modern
Senate and its parties have more sophisticated ways of performing
political assassinations without getting into the very messy business of
physical assassinations. America runs this way when it's running other
countries. The last democratically elected ruler of Iran was
assasinated by the Americans.

>Banned users from the
>whole of Wikimedia should not vote. Banned users from a particular
>project should vtoe just not on that project. This isn't an article for
>deletion, it's board members for the community. All the communities
>should vote.
>
Single sign-on will make the process easier. All individuals, rather
than all communities should vote.

Ec


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
>
>
>
>>In America, only convicted felons loose the right to vote, and only in
>>certain states. People on probation have the right to vote, and people
>>
>>
>>from every social class and range of offenses have the right to vote
>
>
>>(except for convicted felons). No "Concensus" of citizens can strip from
>>any individual the right to vote in this country. This is because we are
>>an "enlightened society", not the forum of the Roman Senate where
>>splinter groups assassinate the emperor and and citizen or senator with
>>views we don't like, or the Court of Queen Elizabet in the 1500's where
>>you could loose your head for wearing the wrong color clothes on the
>>wrong day or criticize the queen. I thank God America doesn't run this
>>way, or most countries in modern times (except for a few in the middle
>>eastern countries).
>>
>>
>>
>But even the United States has a minimum voting age, and a waiting
>period before new immigrants can become citizens. I appreciate your
>scare quotes around "enlightened society". I'm sure that a modern
>Senate and its parties have more sophisticated ways of performing
>political assassinations without getting into the very messy business of
>physical assassinations. America runs this way when it's running other
>countries. The last democratically elected ruler of Iran was
>assasinated by the Americans.
>
>

Probably a good topic to avoid.

>
>
>>Banned users from the
>>whole of Wikimedia should not vote. Banned users from a particular
>>project should vtoe just not on that project. This isn't an article for
>>deletion, it's board members for the community. All the communities
>>should vote.
>>
>>
>>
>Single sign-on will make the process easier. All individuals, rather
>than all communities should vote.
>
>
Thanks for the correction.

Jeff

>Ec
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

For dear subscribers:
please discuss the democracy in general in ANOTHER mailinglist, and
put your idea not here directly, but the specific page on meta. There
a discussion/presentation of opinion already has begun, I don't want
to see this discussion split here and there.

Effe, can you please c&p your postings to that page? If you have done
it already, please forgive my hasteness.

On 8/26/06, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> >Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>In America, only convicted felons loose the right to vote, and only in
> >>certain states. People on probation have the right to vote, and people
> >>
> >>
> >>from every social class and range of offenses have the right to vote
> >
> >
> >>(except for convicted felons). No "Concensus" of citizens can strip from
> >>any individual the right to vote in this country. This is because we are
> >>an "enlightened society", not the forum of the Roman Senate where
> >>splinter groups assassinate the emperor and and citizen or senator with
> >>views we don't like, or the Court of Queen Elizabet in the 1500's where
> >>you could loose your head for wearing the wrong color clothes on the
> >>wrong day or criticize the queen. I thank God America doesn't run this
> >>way, or most countries in modern times (except for a few in the middle
> >>eastern countries).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >But even the United States has a minimum voting age, and a waiting
> >period before new immigrants can become citizens. I appreciate your
> >scare quotes around "enlightened society". I'm sure that a modern
> >Senate and its parties have more sophisticated ways of performing
> >political assassinations without getting into the very messy business of
> >physical assassinations. America runs this way when it's running other
> >countries. The last democratically elected ruler of Iran was
> >assasinated by the Americans.
> >
> >
>
> Probably a good topic to avoid.
>
> >
> >
> >>Banned users from the
> >>whole of Wikimedia should not vote. Banned users from a particular
> >>project should vtoe just not on that project. This isn't an article for
> >>deletion, it's board members for the community. All the communities
> >>should vote.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Single sign-on will make the process easier. All individuals, rather
> >than all communities should vote.
> >
> >
> Thanks for the correction.
>
> Jeff
>
> >Ec
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >foundation-l mailing list
> >foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Kizu Naoko
Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
* vivemus, mea Lesbia, amemus *
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 8/25/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
> What are the elections for? We choose a representative. That
> representative represents the communities. If someone is no part of
> the communities, should it be able to vote who should represent that
> community? It's a good question. But I don't think someone should be
> taken away his or her right to vote when (s)he is banned from a
> project. That would be as an additional punishment. I think it would
> be best to state that the edits on the project you are indeinitely
> banned from do not count. So if it was your only project, you can't
> vote. But when you were active enough on another project as well, and
> not banned indef there, it's ok to vote. That way it is not an
> additional punishment, but a clearer definition of the representation.

ACK. Also seems easiest to implement; Special:Boardvote only has to
check for a local block flag.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Such implementation will reduce our work greatly.
Thank you for your coding in advance.


On 8/26/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/06, effe iets anders <effeietsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What are the elections for? We choose a representative. That
> > representative represents the communities. If someone is no part of
> > the communities, should it be able to vote who should represent that
> > community? It's a good question. But I don't think someone should be
> > taken away his or her right to vote when (s)he is banned from a
> > project. That would be as an additional punishment. I think it would
> > be best to state that the edits on the project you are indeinitely
> > banned from do not count. So if it was your only project, you can't
> > vote. But when you were active enough on another project as well, and
> > not banned indef there, it's ok to vote. That way it is not an
> > additional punishment, but a clearer definition of the representation.
>
> ACK. Also seems easiest to implement; Special:Boardvote only has to
> check for a local block flag.
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
Kizu Naoko
Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
* vivemus, mea Lesbia, amemus *
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 8/27/06, Aphaia <aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
> To developers:
> There was something wrong around August 1, when we tried to update the
> sitenotice. We thought it changed globally, but apparently, not. Geni
> suggested already there were other projects lacking the sitenotice.
>

You did except in the cases where there was already something in
sitenotice. This has to be the case in order to allow people to
translate the thing.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l