Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:56, 22 November 2012

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2012-12-18 There are no active tasks for this page

Suggested agenda for the Electoral Commission

Feel free to ignore this if you feel it is intrusive, but I thought I'd give you some suggestions based on my previous experiences which led me to suggest the creation of the EC in the first place.

1. Establish e-mail contact between all of the commissioners
2. Do you decide between yourselves by vote or by consensus? I chose three members because both are possible, and when push comes to shove, you have an easy majority.
3. Decide on how the reserve member (Jimbo called it an advisory member) should be included, or not.
4. Decide on what other election staff need to be looped in on e-mails, or whether to do it on an ad-hoc basis.
5. Decide whether or not Election Administrators are still necessary, or whether the Electoral Commission has functionally displaced it.
6. Decide on your relationship with coordinators. Coordinators are self selected and essentially run themselves. Do you wish them to do so again this , with the EC serving to resolve disputes that the coordinators get into or cannot fix, or do you want to take on the disputes yourself and direct coordinators to act like your agents? There are other options you might think of as well
7. Related to both of those, someone needs to get into contact with Starling or someone equivalent. Who?

If I can be any help, let me know.--Tznkai (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

1. I've done this now.
2. I consensus with a default to voting if it isn't clear what has been decided.
3. I think Avi should be included in all discussions and emails, but if we have a vote, he shouldn't vote unless someone is recused to preserve the easy majority.
4. I suspect Tim Starling and the Scrutineers would need to be. We're all identified, so we can share private information among ourselves, but we should keep this in mind when looping others into aspect of it.
5. I think Commissioners have replaced Administrators as I always viewed Administrators as Coordinators who happened to have higher levels of access.
6. I think Coordinators are still useful, among other things handling the complex templates and linking. I would say things like removal of candidates, questions, or edit wars on ACE pages should be sent to the Commission to handle. I'm not saying we should take on the disputes ourselves, but if there is going to be an outcome-determinative action or an action requiring discretion, like removing questions, I think the RFC-granted authority of the Commissioners is a positive factor.
7. I nominate HappyMelon to contact Tim because he's clearly the technical expertise on the Commission.

I also think that at this point, the Commission needs to verify that all candidates are eligible. I believe all meet the 500+ and not banned/blocked criteria. I'm concerned that YOLO Swag (talk · contribs), Count Iblis (talk · contribs), David Fuchs (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs) have not included statements on former accounts (I realize they may have in an earlier election, but that doesn't cover new accounts created since that election). Count Iblis (talk · contribs) and YOLO Swag (talk · contribs) have not included a statement on willingness to identify. Also, if Jc37 (talk · contribs) could amend his "over 18" statement to reflect a willingness to ID; those are different things. MBisanz 18:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

1. In progress; thanks Matt.
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. Tim for the technical setup, indeed; but he probably doesn't have much interest in the 'community' side of it. Conversely scrutineers are interested in the community side but not the tech.
5. Agreed, the EAs were only ever coordinators who happened to be identified and willing to shoulder the privacy-related aspects of coordination. There's no need for a three-tier system.
6. Agreed.
7. I emailed Tim this morning (although since he's on UTC+10 he won't get it until tonight, he tends to reply in the small hours...).

Happy‑melon 18:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, while we're on the topic of preliminaries, I'll be recusing from matters that individually involve Salvio giuliano's candidacy, because if he is elected, I will assume his seat on WP:AUSC and Keilana's candidacy, because she nominated me for RFA. I won't be recused though from actions against multiple candidates that happen to include them (such as striking an inappropriate question asked of 8 candidates). MBisanz 18:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)