Election nonsense in Wikimedia
As I mentioned earlier, I was notified by email yesterday of the results of the Board election. Erik, as most everyone no doubt knows, had the largest number of votes, but not a majority. Now, it is a well-grounded principle of parliamentary law that no person may win an election with less than a majority of the votes cast; to do otherwise contravenes one of the fundamental principles underlying parliamentary law. Of course, by using approval voting, the Foundation chose an election process which is well-known not to comport with the fundamental principles of parliamentary law. But we already knew that the Foundation has, at best, a tenuous connection with sensible principles of governance. Trying to change that was one of the reason I ran for Board.
I replied to the formal notification of the results with a demand for a runoff election. Jimbo has informed me that he is not willing to do that. I'm not really that surprised. In any case, Erik lacks a mandate and his presence of the board is illegimate under any reasonable interpretation of parliamentary law. But the Wikimedia Foundation Board has always been something of a farce anyway.
The Board must not, under any circumstances, use approval voting for the purpose of electing officers; approval voting is parliamentarily invalid on several counts. I personally would recommend some form of single transferrable vote. I would also strongly suggest the use of indirect elections, with projects electing delegates to an assembly. This assembly, at the very least, should then elect the Board, and it is my preference that such an assembly should be the actual governing authority of the Foundation. I have not strongly advocated this because I know that Jimbo would strongly oppose it, in large part because it represents a threat to his intentions to maintain firm control over the Foundation. But I think this is the best way to deal with the widespread demand from Wikimedians to have a Board that is accountable and responsible to Wikimedians, without also making Board elections totally dependent on popularity (which is what happened with this most recent election).
While Erik is not the worst choice the community could have made, he is certainly not even close to the best, and I suspect that the Foundation will be, at least in the short term, worse off for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kelly, for all your insistence that you're not interested in politics you've really gone bezerk on this one!
ReplyDeleteIn the grand scheme of things, what really matters for Wikipedia is creating quality product. By contrast, the people who flock there for social intercourse and politicking always end up leaving; this is the way it should be.
I'll accept you at your word from the earlier post that you aren't interested in politics, and on that premise implore you to return to return to Wikipedia to create content. After all, that's what the good people go there for.
However, if you stay away I can only assume you were never interested in the project's goals and were just there to social climb, engage in politics, insult people, get into fights and hang out on irc with your buddies.
Time will tell, or maybe it already has.
I can be cognizant of politics without particularily enjoying them. I was a political science minor back in the day, after all. It's a fascinating subject to study from a distance, and totally disgusting (in my opinion) to get caught up in the middle of.
ReplyDeleteHowever, your conclusion is misfounded. If I don't come back to Wikipedia, it'll be because something more interesting has captivated my attention in the meantime. I've moved from project to project many times in my life, and my moving on from any one project doesn't mean that, while I was working on it, I was anything other than totally committed to it.
I won't be returning right away for reasons given in a previous comment. I do hope to return someday, but that day won't be soon -- and snarky comments like this one just extend the time before I'll feel comfortable about returning. I certainly won't be returning to an environment filled with open hostility and prejudicial idiots.
If there would have been a direct contest between mindspillage and eloquence to finally decide between the candidates, the final result would most probably not have been different. Erik had nearly 300 votes more than mindspillage.
ReplyDeleteIndirect elections could have prevented him, as most local community representatives meanwhile are Jimbos puppets, but the community chose otherwise. That you left the project entirely may show that your commitment to the project does not run that deep, and so that you are not on the board now probably was a "wise choice".
The UK manages to be relatively democratic with its traditional first-past-the-post electoral system.
ReplyDelete