Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/September 2006 elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Admin Gen related election things 2 Debates 3 Small announcement 4 Late Candidates 5 Question

[edit] Admin Gen related election things

As has been set as a lovely standard in the past, I will remain neutral in these elections as Admin Gen. However, I wish the best of luck to all of the candidates!

Additionally, to clarify the charter, the Admin Gen is re-chosen by the council after every election. Though I will certainly love to continue as Admin Gen, the council will make the decision as to the future of the position; whatever happens, it will be great! -- Natalya 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debates

Does anyone think we should have debates for the elections? I put a more detailed explanation at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small announcement

Just a heads up for everyone: after thinking it for a great deal, I've decided that I won't run for reelection this time around. I have no problems with the Advisory Council; in fact, it's been a pleasure to work alongside them for the last nine months, and have full confidence in their ability to keep the organization running. I would like to keep working with them, but I really have no time to give the position justice, so I'll pass the baton to someone who can dedicate more of his or her time to this. If everything goes well, I'll rerun soon, but for now, I want to say thanks, and good luck to all the candidates. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Late Candidates

Since we did not clarify if late candidates were allowed or not, and they were accepted in the last elections, unless anyone has any serious objections, they should be okay now. It is only to the disadvantage of the candidate anyway, as they will have less time to be voted for. Next elections, we will be sure to clarify this. Thanks! -- Natalya 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought we clarified it on the last election, but in either case, I agree. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think it's fine, as well. The more candidates to choose from, the better! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There was some discussion on it before, but I don't know if any actual decision was made. We can make an actual decision now, though, and say that it's fine! -- Natalya 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that the new AC make this decision to enforce this rule? It's only appropriate now that elections are underway.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the appropriate thing to do! It will be taken care of for the next election. -- Natalya 11:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I don't mean to be troublesome - as a non-member who hasn't stopped by these parts very often I'm genuinely curious and intrigued - but why does "an association of Wikipedians dedicated to strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community" need to run elections? And, not only elections but elections with multiple posts and a tranche system? Is being nice to each other and helping keep Wikipedia a friendly place really that difficult?! (repeat, this is a genuine question, I'm not trolling :)) --kingboyk 22:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We have elections and council to make Esperanza better, long ago we decided that having trusted editors in charge of the organization would allow us to grow and become a large, and more organized, group. Today, I think we can all say that Esperanza is much a stronger organization because of our wonderful council. Highway ^Daytrippers 22:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Great answer!! =) You see, without a council, Esperanza wouldn't be as organized for its functions as we are right now. However, the council doesn't have absolute power over Esperanza. The community still has a say over the council's decisions, which guarantees the "community" aspect of Esperanza.--Ed^{talk c E} 01:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)