effe iets anders 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
>
>
Concur.
Jeff
>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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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
>
>
Concur.
Jeff
>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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l