Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/December 2005 elections
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All right. We need to discuss what's going to be done about the election. My idea:
- Two concurrent elections- one for AG, one for Tranche B. Users can run in both, or only one.
- If a user in Tranche A wants to run for AG, they must resign their post on the Advisory Committee. That way we don't have to run another election should they be elected.
- Elections should start on Monday, December 12th- that way, they end on Monday the 19th, well before Christmas and in enough time for most people to know how they did before going on vacation.
- In the case of a tie, we do run-offs as mentioned in the charter.
We should also add something to the Charter about what to do in case of another resignation. My idea:
- In the event that the Admin General should resign, the member of the Advisory Committee with the most votes in any one of the previous two elections shall immediately take office. In the case of a tie, all tied Committee members shall share the post of interim Admin General. At the next series of elections, as defined by the Esperanza Charter, a new Admin General shall be elected to a one-year term.
- In the event that any Advisory Committee member should resign, that spot shall remain open until the next series of elections, as defined by the Esperanza Charter. The member winning this seat shall hold the seat for the remainder of the prior candidate's term, or if this term has expired, for a full term as defined by the Esperanza Charter.
Any thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I like it. Perhaps bring the date forward a bit though. Seeing as it's for Admin Gen, I think 2 week voting period might be preferable. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I picked a week because A) That's how the last elections were done, and B) If I moved it up a week, it would start Monday, and there's no possible way to get everything done well that quickly. We need to notify all Esperanza members on the spam-list about the elections, once we get a consensus on how the elections should be held. Ral315 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Ral315 on this one, since things tend to move slowly around the wiki. However I'd start the election on Friday 9th so as to give people two weekends when to vote. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Then, the registration period for candidates should begin as quickly as possible and end at midnight (UTC), December 7. One week is enough to have people make up their minds, IMO. Then, the Advisory Committee (or the Election Committee) should verify that all the entrants can actually run for Admin Gen (basically, that they do have 150 edits), set the voting page, and then start it at midnight (UTC) December 12. But this is going to need spamming, I agree. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the initiative and setting up this page! However, could I suggest that we temporarily not discuss any more specifics at this moment? I've (hopefully) re-started some discussion with what remains of the decapitated "executive board" and I would like to hear back from them before any specifics about the elections are discussed. This shouldn't take too long, and as always, we value and treasure your opinions. Any thoughts on the general process and direction of Esperanza? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hehehe... sorry about going too deep into specifics, but we felt that we're in a mad dash against time, with the holidays coming. But yes, we'll wait.
- As for the general direction of Esperanza, it is fine, but it seems like we're just not getting the point accross somehow. Maybe we haven't advertised enough our programs (for example, I'm the head of the New Admin Coaching program, but I haven't done anything because no one has heard about it (I think). So, that's something we might want to address sooner or later. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- OK, an update: it appears that only myself and Bratsche are left. Acetic Acid has been inactive lately (see notice on his user page) and hasn't replied to emails, and RN's email recently bounced back. We (Bratsche and myself) have been discussing some ideas. First, I would like to ask the community whether or not they feel an Administrator General position is necessary. I'm not sure that an admin gen position is a benefit with the Advisory Council already, given that we could easily operate with just an advisory council and without another position. Thoughts on this? I'll post more later. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the initiative and setting up this page! However, could I suggest that we temporarily not discuss any more specifics at this moment? I've (hopefully) re-started some discussion with what remains of the decapitated "executive board" and I would like to hear back from them before any specifics about the elections are discussed. This shouldn't take too long, and as always, we value and treasure your opinions. Any thoughts on the general process and direction of Esperanza? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Then, the registration period for candidates should begin as quickly as possible and end at midnight (UTC), December 7. One week is enough to have people make up their minds, IMO. Then, the Advisory Committee (or the Election Committee) should verify that all the entrants can actually run for Admin Gen (basically, that they do have 150 edits), set the voting page, and then start it at midnight (UTC) December 12. But this is going to need spamming, I agree. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Ral315 on this one, since things tend to move slowly around the wiki. However I'd start the election on Friday 9th so as to give people two weekends when to vote. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I picked a week because A) That's how the last elections were done, and B) If I moved it up a week, it would start Monday, and there's no possible way to get everything done well that quickly. We need to notify all Esperanza members on the spam-list about the elections, once we get a consensus on how the elections should be held. Ral315 (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts are that we should keep the admin general position. The admin gen is a leader, and face of Esperanza, IMHO. I presume the missing advisory commitee spot will be filled in these elections? Banes 17:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- On Flcelloguy's point about the admin gen - a "leader" or "figurehead" is good marketing, a useful focal point for Esperanza and the community as a whole, and makes sense administratively. However, I think that a seperate election for an admin gen is probably unnecessary; a better solution might be to elect the Council and have them select an admin general from the Council itself. Prime Ministerial rather than Presidential democracy! That way, the number of elections (which can be devisive things) are cut down and should the admin gen choose to resign or leave the 'pedia entirely, the Council can elect another member in his/her place so we don't have a "gap" between admins-general. Also, that system allows the Council to call for an election or a special election in the event of the existing Council being depleted or having irreconcilable differences amongst themselves. Just my 2p/2c. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think that that's a very sensible suggestion and would support it fully. I prefer having a Prime Minister, not a President ;). Is it best to start a list now (like the last election) of people who want to become Admin Gen/Advisory council? --Celestianpower hablamé 21:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Celestianpower, I think that's a good idea. Whatever the "voting" time allowed, the "candidates" should have maximum chance to state their views and take questions (and only questions, not RfA-style "take it on the chin" attacks) from fellow members of the community. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- How's that? --Celestianpower hablamé 22:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Celestianpower, I think that's a good idea. Whatever the "voting" time allowed, the "candidates" should have maximum chance to state their views and take questions (and only questions, not RfA-style "take it on the chin" attacks) from fellow members of the community. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think that that's a very sensible suggestion and would support it fully. I prefer having a Prime Minister, not a President ;). Is it best to start a list now (like the last election) of people who want to become Admin Gen/Advisory council? --Celestianpower hablamé 21:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The election method will most likely be approval voting again. Questions should be fine, but please try and make this process go as smoothly as possible. It should be a rather stress-less process (unlike some RfAs). I'm thinking of having myself and several others monitor the elections; more on this after I discuss with the Advisory Council (i.e. Bratsche). I'm inclined toward just a one-week voting period with a seperate race for Administrator General. Any person running for Administrator General may also run for council but will not hold two spots if s/he wins both. Again, this is all tentative, but I'm looking at approximately December 16 as the start date. Again, this is all tentative and subject to change. Thoughts? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Definately approval votuing is the way to go.
- Questions, I would agree, should definately not stress the user and not be accusatory in tone.
- The third point about electing an Admin Gen separately I disagree with. I definately prefer the last idea of the council choosing a leader from among itself.
- Also, I've been thinking about council size. Would it not be better to have 4 members of the council (one of which is Admin Gen) and get rid of this confusing tranche system? Thoughts? --Celestianpower hablamé 12:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Celestianpower, with a system of only 4 members in the council, one being admin general, would be better. And the confusing tranche system needs to go. If there was only 4 members of the council, we would only need an election for the new admin general rather than two elections, eliminating the replacement we need in tranche B, Ryan Norton's spot. SWD316 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not opposed to either method of choosing the Admin Gen, but I think that if the "appointed Admin Gen" method is used, then the size of the AC would have to increase to 5, not 4. The point in the AC was having four people helping the AG, so if it stayed the same size, there would be only three users supporting the AG. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 03:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Someone's on the ball! --Celestianpower hablamé 15:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Changing the basic structure of leadership would require a change in the charter, which would require another vote. If a such a change were to occur, it would have to be before an election; however, there's really no time to do so now. I suggest bringing up the changes after the election and, if the community agrees, the changes can be implemented by February. Thoughts? For this election, approval voting will definitely be used. Anyone can run for AG or for council or both; however, if you win AG and council, the spot on the council will go to the next person. In other words, you can't be both. :-) I'm still marking December 16 as the start date and December 30 as the end date; two weeks should be adequate and gives us some time to certify the results. If anyone is interested in helping me coordinate this election, please let me know. I myself will neither be voting nor running for any office, so I will help put this together. Comments? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm too new to Esperanza for any vote of mine to be meaningful, so I'll be abstaining. I'll happily help you, Flcelloguy, with the election co-ordination on that basis, if you'd like? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, that would be great. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm too new to Esperanza for any vote of mine to be meaningful, so I'll be abstaining. I'll happily help you, Flcelloguy, with the election co-ordination on that basis, if you'd like? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Changing the basic structure of leadership would require a change in the charter, which would require another vote. If a such a change were to occur, it would have to be before an election; however, there's really no time to do so now. I suggest bringing up the changes after the election and, if the community agrees, the changes can be implemented by February. Thoughts? For this election, approval voting will definitely be used. Anyone can run for AG or for council or both; however, if you win AG and council, the spot on the council will go to the next person. In other words, you can't be both. :-) I'm still marking December 16 as the start date and December 30 as the end date; two weeks should be adequate and gives us some time to certify the results. If anyone is interested in helping me coordinate this election, please let me know. I myself will neither be voting nor running for any office, so I will help put this together. Comments? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Someone's on the ball! --Celestianpower hablamé 15:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not opposed to either method of choosing the Admin Gen, but I think that if the "appointed Admin Gen" method is used, then the size of the AC would have to increase to 5, not 4. The point in the AC was having four people helping the AG, so if it stayed the same size, there would be only three users supporting the AG. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 03:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Celestianpower, with a system of only 4 members in the council, one being admin general, would be better. And the confusing tranche system needs to go. If there was only 4 members of the council, we would only need an election for the new admin general rather than two elections, eliminating the replacement we need in tranche B, Ryan Norton's spot. SWD316 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Pre-election
Candidates moved to main page. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Avoiding Another Early Election
Maybe we should have 7 seats instead of 5 and put the quorum at 3 so things can still go on even if one or two people quit. I mean, we definately have enough people. karmafist 16:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- What's a quorum? Sorry, I don't understand. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- A quorum is basically a minimal number of officers/members of an organization (I think ;-). Having 7 seats (including the Admin General) seems like a reasonable suggestion, especially since Esperanza has noticeably grown since the last election. What are your thoughts? Sango123 (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that depends. If we retain the "tranche" system then 3 + Admin Gen per ytranche is good but if we go for no tranches then 4 + Admin Gen would be optimum for half a year I think. What work does the Advisory Council physically do? What should they be doing? --Celestianpower hablamé 21:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- A quorum is basically a minimal number of officers/members of an organization that have to be present on a meeting for it to proceed. Usually, how it works is that out of x people in an organization, (x/2)+1 members must be present or otherwise the meeting is cancelled due to lack of quorum. It may be adjusted for special situations and the like. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- The problem with reforms now is that they require a change in the charter. I suggest that if changes are needed, to discuss them after this election and then perhaps hold the referendum before the February elections. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- A quorum is basically a minimal number of officers/members of an organization that have to be present on a meeting for it to proceed. Usually, how it works is that out of x people in an organization, (x/2)+1 members must be present or otherwise the meeting is cancelled due to lack of quorum. It may be adjusted for special situations and the like. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that depends. If we retain the "tranche" system then 3 + Admin Gen per ytranche is good but if we go for no tranches then 4 + Admin Gen would be optimum for half a year I think. What work does the Advisory Council physically do? What should they be doing? --Celestianpower hablamé 21:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- A quorum is basically a minimal number of officers/members of an organization (I think ;-). Having 7 seats (including the Admin General) seems like a reasonable suggestion, especially since Esperanza has noticeably grown since the last election. What are your thoughts? Sango123 (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Candidate statements
I was recently asked about whether or not we would have candidate statements. I don't have a problem with having such statements and giving other Esperanzians the chance to ask a few questions, but I don't wish for candidates to feel compelled to do so. Thus, making a candidate statement is completely optional. By no means feel obligated to do so. If you do wish to make a statement as a candidate, I've posted instructions on the project page on how to create a candidate statement at a subpage. If you do create a subpage, other Esperanzians may use that page to ask questions, if they wish. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to create a subheading for people to place their candidate statements under. JDH Owens 18:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and moved the link next to your name so that the page is less cluttered. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Just curuious
Why were there 3 Administrator General's (Carriker, Redwolf, Essjay) when the term is one year and why have aren't they still members of Esperanza? Just Curious. -4micah 22:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure JCarriker was just temporary since he's the one that founded Esperanza, not sure about Redwolf, and Essjay has quit Wikipedia, apparently indefinitely. - Pureblade | Θ 00:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify some things: I haven't left Esperanza, I just forgot place my name back in the active members column and I'm not particpating in the election because of the neutrality precedent. -JCarriker 08:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Tranches
Wait a second, wouldn't whoever wins in Tranche B only be there for like a week? karmafist 21:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, the current users in Tranche B serve until December 31. The top two vote-getters will serve on Tranche B for four months (until April) and the third vote-getter will join me in Tranche A and serve until February. I'll update the main page soon to reflect all the current and past leaders of Esperanza. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Election Staff: Wikizach
I am new and I want to help out as best as I can. I am very interested in this (I love Politics) and so I want to be on the election staff. I would really appreciate if I could help in any way possible. Just tell me what to do! Wikizach 15:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
