Commons talk:Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections 2021

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Support[edit]

The roles here, chair, secretary, membership coordinator, and program coordinator, are typical for wiki community organizations and a good start to establishing organizational structure for this group.

After several years of existence and growing interesting in organized photography support, now is the time to establish a little administrative structure to bring stability to this community and the peer to peer support which it provides.

I support this structure and the idea of establishing these roles.

Whenever someone proposes roles, I always recommend giving an estimate of the time commitment for the roles as well. If this group does 4 events per year, then at least the time commitment for each of these roles is 3 hours per event, plus 3 hours of annual reporting. Anyone who could commit 15 hours a year to this group would be good for this role. At minimum, 8 hours could be reasonable if not all people were at all event. If someone contributed more than 15 hours a year then that is very generous and the group is fortunate to have them, but for accessibility and to give an opportunity for many people to serve, I think asking 8-15 hours a year is reasonable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, though I would add at least two general committee members (role can be to help when things get busy during events but also fill in if there is a vacancy with any of the other roles). Bidgee (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I do have a query: Will there be a Board or only executive roles? If there will be, at least 5 members would do. The roles of the Board are to set the direction, create policies and serve as the representatives of its members. -Filipinayzd (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --XRay 💬 05:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support committee members is a good idea. --MB-one (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this, it would be helpful to share the workload if we can add VICE-CHAIR, JOINT SECRETARY, Treasurer (if needed) -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your initiative. I am also in favor of adding other members to the board for support. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the feedback so far. I've just added two more roles (Vice Chair and Treasurer) to the list in order to share the workload better. Anything else that you'd like to change before the voting starts next week? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea[edit]

I will stand for the election too 197.220.169.144 00:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the group?[edit]

I recently submitted images to Wiki Loves Earth. Some countries ran a well-organized competition. Some were unprofessional - This image was a national winner. Might the group have a role in Commons photo competitions? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp I'm a common member of juries in WLEs or WLMs competitions, last year e.g. I was member of WLM in Iran and there were complaints about the winner images here on Commons. I didn't share the criticism fully but it's common pratice that the jury is composed of people with different backgrounds (experienced photographers, historian, local Wikimedians, etc.) and I cannot imagine that the organizers will change that. So, having a person in each jury that ensures a good quality is for sure a good idea and most of the countries would embrace that, but one person cannot determine the outcome alone. --Poco a poco (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the end it will always be up to the local organizers, to determine the jury and set the standards for their contest. However, I think it is a very good idea as a user group to offer our support in some way. We could e. g. compile a list of experienced jurors, offer standardized checklists for evaluation of images, etc. --MB-one (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

I think this is a very good step to Frank Schulenburg. Some Administrative structure would definitely provide much needed direction for the group and its members. However, i noticed you didn't talk about qualifications for contesting. Is everyone allowed to contest? --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Role of the board[edit]

Hey Filipinayzd, with regard to your remark "The roles of the Board are to set the direction, create policies and serve as the representatives of its members", I'd like to share some of my thoughts. – I think for a group like ours it will be important to involve the members in decisionmaking and setting the direction as much as possible. While I agree with you that corporate/governance boards usually are the ones that set the direction for an organization, our context feels different to me. In the Wikimedia universe, we've traditionally cherished discussion and consensus as means of coming to conclusions, instead of doing things in a top-down way. I personally would like a future board of this group to ask our members for feedback whenever appropriate. However, that's only my perspective and I'd encourage others to chime in as well. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roles, scopes, planning, stakes[edit]

I keep coming back to what I perceive to be a bit of a mismatch between the creation of six formalized roles (and a board? as the board?) and the scope of our activities thus far. Frank has earned a break as primary (sole?) organizer, but has shown that our activities as they exist now can be managed by one or two people. I feel like if we're going to create six formal roles, it should be as a step towards something bigger rather than a way to divide current responsibilities. Others might disagree, but personally, I would expect that anyone seeking election to one of these spots would have some sense of what the group should/will become rather than just volunteering to take on an aspect of what happens already. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rhododendrites,
I agree that candidates who're planning to run for one of these positions should have a clear vision of what they'd like to achieve. I'll make sure to include that question in the template for candidates to fill out.
Just in case you're wondering, here are just some thoughts of how I envision the future of the Commons Photographers User Group:
  • Getting an awards program started: I think we can do better with regard to showing how much we appreciate other people's work. So, e.g. I'd love to see some kind of "Newcomer of the Year" award that highlights the work of photographers who have recently joined Wikimedia Commons and/or our Featured Picture process. I could also imagine specific awards drive more engagement in areas where Commons is weak, e.g. food photography.
  • Photographers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have access to a vast amount of photography gear through the Wikimedia chapters in their countries. I'd love to see our user group help with making that happen in other parts of the world as well. Making high-quality cameras and lenses available to people in countries with a lower income level would also be in line with Wikimedia's effort for increased equity.
  • I'd like to meet fellow Commons photographers at least once a year. I'd also love to see regional photographers meeting as well as opportunities to meet across countries. All of that requires funding and maybe also thinking about non-profit status.
  • Some of the infrastructure here on Commons is broken (the most prominent example being the upload feature). To me it seems like the Wikimedia Foundation has been listening more to organized groups than to individual contributors. It might be worth for our group to have a stronger voice in global strategy discussions in order to ensure that the needs of creators of visual content will be met better in the future.
  • And finally, I'd like the group to think about how we can bring more photography enthusiasts to Wikimedia Commons. How can we do more outreach and encourage others to share their images under a free license? Taking photos for Wikipedia is such an amazing thing to do – wouldn't it be nice if more people would engage in it?
Now, these are only my ideas and – as always – I'd like to hear from others what their vision for this group looks like.
All the best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have modest wishes that this group can request and receive Wikimedia Movement funding to maintain paid staff administrators to assist with communication and reporting, particularly so that members can better participate in Wikimedia discussions and to better include underrepresented groups such as those from lower and middle income countries. If there is funding for base administration then diversity is possible, and without that funding, I do not think any wiki community organization can be diverse. Commons photographers should include people from every country and background.
Before starting new programs, I would like to see this group be stable for organizing meetups, documenting discussions, and supporting the Wikimedia community's existing and established photography programs. After getting staff support for the basics, then I would like see new programs.
The most likely start to new programs will be from volunteers who spontaneously commit their own labor to organize them. I think that more people will do volunteer community organization if they can rely on paid staff of an organization like this one to help document and communicate those programs.
Communication is really hard and requires paid staff. For a global group like this, we have messages to send through multiple platforms and in multiple languages, and someone has to respond especially to newcomers. I see no hope of managing that without funding, unless diversity is removed as a goal and the outreach is for people who already have the time and support they need.
I would assist in grant writing but I would want a board and proposed staffing ideas in place to begin. Perhaps this group could form its own organization, or perhaps it could partner with an existing Wikimedia user group and fund someone there to assist. I expect lots of wiki organizations would like to partner with a Commons project and might like the assistance in applying for funding to the mutual benefit of both this group and their organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating other members?[edit]

Self-nomination should be only one way to obtaining a list for users to vote on. Will there be a second stage, allowing us to nominate others? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, encouraging other members to run is a great idea. Why don't you approach a couple of people and see whether a small nudge makes a difference? Also, as always, I'd like to hear what others think. Any ideas for how to get more candidates? Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right here on the talk page seems like a sensible place to ping people and suggest they run. I endorse peer pressure as a valid tactic in generating a good volunteer board/committee. :)
BTW, I don't think we've talked about a style of voting, which also matters for positions with only one candidate (not a good idea to just have people "sign up" for board seats, of course). If we don't get more nominations, I'd probably recommend reducing the number of roles. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would like to nominate Frank Schulenburg, Rhododendrites, Archaeodontosaurus, Ikan Kekek, Basile Morin, Nirmal Dulal, George Chernilevsky, XRay, Ermell if they wished to be nominated. There are many other names I would support too. I do not wish to be nominated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice of you to nominate me, but I doubt I'm the right person for this kind of work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The best representative to the photographers group I can think of is Aristeas Poco a poco (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Poco a poco; I am very honoured. But I am sorry I cannot stand for election. First I am a poor photographer; IMHO the Commons Photographers User Group should be represented by our most excellent photographers. Second, I am already “doing the dishes” at the FPC gallery pages, i.e. fixing gallery links, sorting unsorted images, scanning for delisted and fake FPs etc.; that does not look like much, but behind the scenes I have already spent about 100 hours this year for that. --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Charles. I think any of the people you mentioned would be helpful in one role or another. For myself, between starting a new job, WikiNYC activities, and recently transitioning to the role of elderly dog hospice nurse, I'm not in a position to take on new responsibilities, but thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your idea, Charles. I am honored that you thought of me. Unfortunately, I don't see any possibility of getting involved in the organizational tasks.--XRay 💬 17:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you the honor Charles. But I feel the same as XRay. Did it work that badly? Any increase in administrative work also takes time away from the photography work.--Ermell (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp, I'll serve in whatever role is necessary to keep this going. However, I'm still hoping for others to step up. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope so, Frank Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised at the notion that we need officers who are the best photographers. No, the kinds we need are first, organizers and second, teachers. Our activities should focus on helping the ignorant, for example those who don't know much about technical matters such as cameras, composition, lighting, editing, workflow management, finding targets, and so forth. If our leaders are also good photographers, that's nice too. Not that I have useful powers in organizing, or in relevant technical fields except Commons photo curatorial work. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting procedure[edit]

Dear all,

Thanks so much for all your input so far and a big thank you to the candidates. As I'm running for one of the seats, I will have to play a more passive role from this point on. As for how I initially imagined the voting process, here are my thoughts:

  1. Everyone who's been a member of our group at the beginning of the board election process can vote.
  2. Voters can either support or oppose each candidate.
  3. Candidates who gain more support than oppose votes are elected (simple majority). If more than one person runs for a specific role, the candidate with the better ratio of support to oppose votes gets elected.

Going forward, I'd love to have someone to oversee this election. I think Bluerasberry has some experience as he's been on election committees before… would you be willing to help?

Oh, one other question we need to decide is: should users who are currently blocked (as one of our candidates is) be able to be elected?

Please let me all know what you think. Best --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO candidates must be in good standing on Commons (no current or recent blocks or restrictions), and has been a registered (on Commons) user for six months (ideally twelve) or more.
Only one account can be a member of the group, no secondary accounts. Bidgee (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1  Support --Matthias Süßen (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1. And I would support that the candidates report any blocks in the past on their own. I don't think that it makes sense that each voter has to investigate such things by themselves Poco a poco (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can adopt some idea for online voting from here "How to run an online election" Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'm seeing consensus around the rules that (1) all candidates have to be in good standing on Commons ("no current or recent blocks or restrictions") and (2) candidates must have been registered for at least six months or more. Also, next time, candidates should self-report blocks during the nomination phase. That means that Contributers2020 isn't currently eligible, because he's been blocked in the Commons namespace until next year. Also, Suyash, thanks for pointing out WikiProjectMed's election process. If I understand it correctly, theirs was a secret ballot, which I think would be inappropriate in our case as we don't have an election committee. I think we should push for a maximum of transparency this time and then re-consider next year. I'm confident that we'll learn along the way and that things will get better over time. Thanks again, everyone! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer for election committee I recently organized the Wiki Project Med election which Suyash described.
I have managed other wiki elections also. This one is already underway and rather casual. Such as it is, I volunteer to mediate dispute, respond to procedural concerns, scrutinize the voting, discuss rules as needed, and close the election. Happy to support and thanks. I think it would be good to use this election as an opportunity to set a precedent for a bit more organization the next time. Restricting votes to current participants is a good idea. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Much appreciated, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of nominee[edit]

When Frank Schulenburg performed a "minor" edit to reformat the candidates section in preparation for voting, they also removed one candidate. Frank is themselves a candidate, and has apparently offered no explanation for this; the removed candidate has now complained on their talk page. What is going on? Brianjd (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. Please see the section above. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Schulenburg Wow, you changed the rules after the close of nominations to disqualify a candidate, but didn't bother stating the new rules on the voting page, and didn't bother notifying the candidate. I think this board needs to have a good think about this "transparency" thing. Brianjd (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contributers2020 probably should've been notified, and we should probably have some voting rules somewhere, but this is the first time doing this -- it's been pretty casual/ad hoc. Hopefully next time it'll be more structured. Frank's not competing with the Contributers2020 for any position, the proposed rules are stated just above, and the assumption of bad faith seems off-base. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites I didn't actually accuse anyone of acting in bad faith, and having read the previous section, I don't actually think anyone is acting in bad faith. Having said that, one candidate removing another, in an edit primarily intended for a different purpose, where that edit is marked as "minor" and not explained anywhere, does seem like evidence of bad faith. Even a note in the edit summary or on the voting page referring to a discussion on the talk page would have changed things, but here we have nothing at all. Brianjd (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note to the voting page and pinged Bluerasberry to review it. Brianjd (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed resolution[edit]

This election and process has been proceeding quickly. The reason is that this is a relatively small community which is transitioning to need more administration. There is not money or obvious power at stake here, so if anyone observes this discussion, I want them to understand that this election is important but it grants more commitments than it does power. This is rushed and late for this election, but in response to this conflict, I adapted some election rules and published them for discussion now and in preparation for the next election. Here are some rules:

The present conflict as I see it is that Frank, who has been in a leadership role for this organization and who has done much of the organization for this election, deleted a candidate from the ballot. I believe that the reason for deletion is that the candidate, Contributers2020, is blocked on Wikimedia Commons. No explanation was given.

Here is my proposed resolution:

  • Contributers2020 stays removed from the ballot. There is already a widely established Wikimedia community practice of prohibiting blocked users from taking positions which represent the Wikimedia community, when they themselves are under restriction. I would have been willing to hear an exception but none was requested. The nominee should have known the customs around block restrictions and been proactive in asking how the block would affect their nomination.
  • Future elections should have a scrutiny period between nominations and confirmation of candidates. If that scrutiny period were in place here, then this problem would have been prevented.
  • I acknowledge Contributers2020 as wronged, and I apologize as election coordinator. Contributers2020, you deserved an explanation and discussion, and to have access to rules in advance. That should have come from the election committee. You have my apology, and to show my sincerity and make things better for the future, I drafted election rules linked above. I also thank you for nominating yourself. Blocks happen to all kinds of users. Blocks are a reason to have a discussion, and not to discount a person's contributions or their comments.
  • Frank, you did an error in removing this candidate from the ballot. The right way to file a dispute is posting to a talk page or telling me as election coordinator. You are too involved in this election as a candidate to make judgements about the election's administration. I invite you to offer an apology to Contributers2020 and commit to support independent elections.
  • Contributers2020, I recognize that you are blocked on Commons. Because of this trouble, something that I will additionally offer is that if you have comments about this election which you want known, then post them where you can and get them to me, and I will get them into this election's closing report.
  • Brianjd, thank you for your scrutiny of the election process. Your report is valid. If you have more to say then post more.
  • Finally, I recommend that the current election proceed as it is without other changes to the process. I do not believe that the election is disrupted significantly because of this issue.

Thanks. Excuse my haste and fast judgement, but I believe that I spent an appropriate amount of time and attention on this. Anyone with comments feel free to post. Of course I may have made errors or misunderstood, and if I did, tell me. My goal here is finding a resolution and progress. as election coordinator - Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Blueraberry, could you please elaborate on why you think I removed a candidate without an explanation, given that I explicitly pointed this out on December 1st? Also, a couple days before the election started, I clearly stated that I was uncomfortable playing an active role in the election and asked for support. I have to admit that I'm extremely disappointed and hurt by the accusations above. Both by you and Brian (I reached out to Andy separately). Now, with that being said, I'd like to ask all three of you for an apology. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Schulenburg: Yes, I apologize. I should tell you that I am Catholic and confession comes easily for me. I do not see the taboo on apologies that some others may feel, nor do I intend hurt or disappointment on anyone. I see apologies as a quick way to resolve conflict.
I see your documentation. I am just short on time as an election coordinator, over committed, and looking for quick resolution. That is not an excuse, but that is my explanation. When you made your posts I did not respond because I was still transitioning into this rushed election coordinator appointment. I apologize for taking the role but not fulfilling my commitment to read all the context, and for failing to act to resolve issues. To make things better and to show my respect for you, I have those election rules published above when I offered to this group and which I will continue to develop. My intent with those rules is to give everyone in this group a better future experience.
You as an election candidates passed judgment in an election dispute, and I see this as a transgression. You might have been uncomfortable removing a nominee but you still did it. I know the pressure you were under to encourage an election to happen on time, and I see that you wanted more administrative support than I or other people offered. That said - we have a dispute, and if you want me as election coordinator to resolve it, then I need for you to relinquish your control over election administration now and retroactively.
I do not think the apology costs you anything, and I thought that an apology would be a way to preserve the integrity of the election, move forward, and close out the dispute. If you have other ideas, you want me to assign responsibility for resolving this dispute to you, or you want this conversation to grow, then suggest what you would like to happen next. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I really appreciate your message. I just apologized to Contributers2020. I should have notified him of the removal and I admit that I could have done better. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies don't come so easily for me; I especially don't like apologising when I have done nothing wrong. It is unreasonable to expect other users to dig into the talk page to an explanation, especially for an "minor" edit with no summary. I did skim the talk page, but the section above (along with all the other sections) appeared to be irrelevant.
I also don't appreciate being asked for an apology without being notified of this.
Having said that, I see that both Frank Schulenburg and Bluerasberry have made great strides in the right direction, and I consider this issue resolved from my point of view. I will remove this page from my watchlist. Brianjd (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder - voting closes 17 December[edit]

If it is December 17 anywhere on earth, then members of this group are still eligible to vote. Rules are at Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections - vote if eligible - I will count votes soon. Ask if you have questions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:@ Blue Rasberry , doesn't even matter as there is only one person running for one role. It is really useless to continue now as there are no opposing candidates, plus every candidate have atleast gotten 10 supports and no opposes (with the exception of Frank, but still he is a deserving candidate). I suggest to give the roles everyone are running for...Contributers2020Talk to me here 13:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 2 people are for events coordinator- I take my statement back.

One person voting two people for the same role[edit]

Hello all, I have a concern.

Why is one person voting both, Shreya.Bhopal and OtuNwachinemere (who both are running for events coordinator). When we stand for election, we can only vote 1 for a seat, but here people like Ziko, Gnangarra, Marcus Cyron and Em-mustapha voted both. This should be against the rule...--Contributers2020Talk to me here 13:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nowhere written, that there's only one seat. And even if it were so, as long nowhere is witten, that I only can vote for just one candidate per seat, I von vote for as much as I want. There's definetly nothing wrong to have two events coordinators. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Waste of a !vote really - If we had to choose the top dog of WMF you wouldn't !vote for both people would you ... you'd go with one or the other. But it's Marcus's !vote and if that's how they want to !vote then I guess that's up to them. Just flip a coin and go with what ever the flip coin result is. –Davey2010Talk 17:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We currently do not have many election rules. If you want a rule, or you find a good set of rules to adopt, then share with the current rule set at Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections.
Wiki editors do all sorts of unexpected things in elections, so getting ballots where the voter selects all opposing candidates does not surprise me. When the election is over everyone will see the results, I will make a count and report some results, propose an outcome, and if anyone likes they can question, contest, or re-interpret the results until we find consensus.
In this case, the act of voting is serving other purposes in addition to selecting a candidate. Voting also is a sign of belief in the democratic voting process, review of and support for the individual candidates, and a public display of group participation in the governance process. This election has public ballots which disclose both the voter and their vote, so some of the social circumstances around voting will be much different than a conventional municipal election.
Whatever the case, if you have a concern or objection or even pause with confusion, post to talk it out. Your concerns are not just important for this election, but also for designing the wiki voting process for this group and the other groups that will copy this one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that supporting more than one candidate is a problem. It reflects the voters who support both candidates and the majority of votes wins. The important part in counting the votes is to remove incorrect votes of people who are not members of the group or gave more than one vote per candidate etc. --Ailura (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do Support both candidates this way I can say so, it's either express that support or express I support neither... either way the outcome in terms of numbers is the same but in terms of actually moral/psychological impact to the person who nominated is acknowledging both. Compared to my personal experience with the MCDC where I was asked by a community to stand and then didnt receive any support from them I felt abuse and unvalued for doing so while going through all the effort of detailed responses to the 20 question game, and effort in the graphing each response between 5 options many of which had no ability for any nuisances in why. If I think a candidate deserves my support then they will get that support even if it conflicts because I think another candidate also deserve my support as well. Gnangarra 06:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed election results[edit]

Voting outcomes

The voting period ended after 17 December AOE (anywhere on Earth). 7 candidates stood for elected positions. All of them received support. The lowest number of support votes received by a candidate is 7, and the highest number of support votes is 29. One candidate received 3 oppose votes, and no other candidate received any. Two candidates stood for the same position of "events coordinator".

I propose that the following people are confirmed to board positions:

I propose to delay confirming an events coordinator. Two options for this position are that both candidates get invitations to their own board seats for this this position, or that only the person with the most votes gets the position. Possible ways to decide what to do are informal membership discussion on this talk page or decision of the presumed candidates above by the end of their first board meeting. By the rules of the election, Wilsn had more votes and would be the selected candidate, but if membership feels that more help is welcome and that this election is informal, then taking two candidates could be acceptable.

As a next step I call for anyone to review this proposed election outcome and speak out if anything seems in error. If this organization's membership does not object, then I encourage the persons listed above to meet, accept their board positions, then proceed as the first board of this organization.

Election challenges and responses
  1. Frank organized the start of the election, then I took control of the election as the sole member of "election committee".
    Next time, the board should designate an election committee to start elections
  2. This election began without rules in place
    Next time, use election rules, starting with these Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections
  3. There was an issue about removing a candidate
    Next time there should be an election committee at the start of the election. All issues go to that election committee, who will have final decision while also encouraging public discussion whenever an issue is public.
  4. I observed one person who voted in this election who was not listed as member on the first day of voting
    Rejecting votes does not change the election result, as only one position had more than one candidate. Even so, I reject votes cast by non-members in this election. Members are responsible for registering their names on the Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Membership list In meetings of the organization and in announcing future elections, remind participants that they have to register as members to be eligible to vote. There is no easy wiki-way for any election committee to confirm eligibility other than manually checking all usernames on ballots versus the membership register. I checked a few, but not all votes. About 30 people voted.
  5. There may be errors in this result, or other people may have more to say about this or future elections
    If they do, then they should speak up here or edit the election rules so that the next election will be better.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Commons_Photographers_User_Group/Board_Elections_2021&oldid=618161733"