Talk:Stewards/elections 2009: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jayvdb in topic Suffrage to vote
Content deleted Content added
m Talk:Stewards/elections 2008-2009 moved to Talk:Stewards/elections 2008 over redirect: revert; I didn't realize I'd have to change categories and everything. Don't think I'm gonna be able to finish this. Someone else maybe can. |
m →Suffrage to vote: seems reasonable |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I would again suggest that suffrage requirements for voting ought to be tightened, and suggest that the qualifications for voting in a board election be used. What we have now, one edit on any wiki, and a link to Meta, is way too loose and too easy to game. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 14:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
I would again suggest that suffrage requirements for voting ought to be tightened, and suggest that the qualifications for voting in a board election be used. What we have now, one edit on any wiki, and a link to Meta, is way too loose and too easy to game. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 14:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Yes, definitely. The board vote requirements seem to be reasonable for stewelections as well. --[[User:Thogo|Thogo]] <small>([[User talk:Thogo|talk]])</small> 18:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
:Yes, definitely. The board vote requirements seem to be reasonable for stewelections as well. --[[User:Thogo|Thogo]] <small>([[User talk:Thogo|talk]])</small> 18:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I agree; we need broad community participation - it is important to ensure that the results actually reflect broader community confidence in the person's ability to do the role. The board vote requirements seem appropriate. [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] 12:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:56, 29 November 2008
Times
Someone mentioned on IRC that this shouldn't run at the same time as the fundraiser, due to the work required by the translators. Majorly talk 13:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- When does the fundraiser end? WJBscribe (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- From what I've been told, it will end at an as-of-yet undetermined time in January (probably toward the beginning of the month). --MZMcBride 17:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is scheduled to run through January 15, according to this. - Rjd0060 17:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- This was also mentioned on-wiki as well. As stated there, waiting is probably quite a good idea. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Would it be correct to say that we're looking at making this a 2009 election, then? And if so, shouldn't we change the page to reflect this? At least eliminating the part about voting starting on ?? November seems like a good idea, since it obviously won't start in November at all. Heimstern 09:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Changing the page name is a good idea. Majorly talk 13:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe changing it to something that carries 08-09 in the name to convey that it's not like two whole years are being skipped, more like that it's shifting from the end of a year to the beginning of the next. ++Lar: t/c 13:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Changing the page name is a good idea. Majorly talk 13:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Suffrage to vote
I would again suggest that suffrage requirements for voting ought to be tightened, and suggest that the qualifications for voting in a board election be used. What we have now, one edit on any wiki, and a link to Meta, is way too loose and too easy to game. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely. The board vote requirements seem to be reasonable for stewelections as well. --Thogo (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree; we need broad community participation - it is important to ensure that the results actually reflect broader community confidence in the person's ability to do the role. The board vote requirements seem appropriate. John Vandenberg 12:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)