Hi Amir, thank you for the patient explanation!
Yes, it makes sense now. I've been thrown off by wiki election math (again [1]).
I also happily accept the community consensus even if it endorses a circle logo. But I gently suggest that our vote tally is an unconvincing reflection of any consensus. This isn't a new problem, so I don't want to suggest we drag out the logo nomination, but I think it gives a good example of why on-wiki democratic machinery is in need of reform.There's a lot to say on the topic, but for now I can give an
example of a single statistic, that the winning logo has 63
support votes out of 216 total support votes, or 29% of the
total. That means there are 153 potentially disenfranchised
voters, which is an analysis we should be obligated to run. Were
63 of these 153 also people who voted for the winning proposal as
well? (We know that at least 90 did not vote for the winner.)
Potentially these voters had another much preferred favorite?
Should we hold a run-off between the winners? Would a
ranked-choice tally like Round 1 have given different results?
These are questions we can't answer without using a better
electoral system.
Kind regards,
Adam
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adamw/Draft/Board_Election_analysis
[2] 216 = 63 + 29+8+13+18+13+4+9+2+6+9+2+25+6+3+6
Hey,The first round was using the standard voting process in wikis (using support/oppose and the thresholds like 70%) and this is the way we elect admins, checkusers or other user rights, or change policies in Wikis. I don't recall that there has ever been anyone elected as admin with below 70% or we have ever changed any policies with below 70% (not to mention the runner up logos are 56% and 61%, basically for any support, they had an opposition). Our logo is similar, no logo except proposal six could reach seventy percent and while there were good designs that almost made it but clearly none of them has enough support (and percentage of support) to reach the next round. That's a pity (one of the runner ups was actually by me) but if that's what the community wants, I happily accept it.
The second round has always been about different variants of the logos that pass the first round.
HTH
On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 9:30 AM Adam Wight <adam.wight@wikimedia.de> wrote:
_______________________________________________Hi, thanks for helping coordinate this process!
I have concerns about what happened between round 1 and round 2, it seems that we're no longer left with a real choice. It's unclear what method was used to tally the round 1 votes, was this a "support percentage"? Whenever a vote is taken, it's important to stick to democratic norms, basically "one person, one vote". Round 2 is entirely variations on a single proposal, which disenfranchises everyone who didn't prefer that design. Is it too late to discuss?
Kind regards,
Adam
On 9/25/20 11:42 PM, Amir Sarabadani wrote:
Hello,The subject line is self-explanatory, you can go to the voting page and cast your vote.
This is going to continue for a month and it's about different variants of the top contender (different colors, different wordmarks, etc.). You need to order logos based on your preference (the most preferred one first, the least preferred one the last) and then cast your vote. The final winner will be chosen using Schulze method.
If you have mistakenly voted in the test phase, you can just copy your vote from the test page to the actual voting page (the numbers of logos haven't changed).
Special thank you to Chuck Roslof from WMF legal for doing the preliminary clearance of the proposal.
Have a nice weekend!--
Amir (he/him)
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Amir (he/him)
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l