Requests for Comment/Community Directors (Amendments)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing this RfC with every proposal listed being successful.

• Proposal 1: Election Commissioners are Stewards, the policy pages will be changed as indicated so that Stewards may take over these responsibilities instead of a separate entity.
• Proposal 2: Timeline formalized as proposed.
• Proposal 3: Mostly administrative change that is inline with the dissolution of the CoCC, not even sure this needed an RfC and should have been part of that cleanup but it may now be done with no questions.

-- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 16:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

---

This RfC is opened to discuss amendments to the existing policy on Community Directors' election to the Miraheze Limited Board of Directors'. The follow proposals are put forward, with justification, after a consultation of a range of interested members of the community in the successful running of an election.

Proposal 1: Election Commissioners are Stewards

Election Management is rewritten as follows:

Stewards are responsible for independently adjudicating community consensus in the election of Community Directors to the Miraheze Limited Board of Directors. Stewards should retain their independent views unless they are intending to stand in the election as a candidate. In the event of a Steward standing for election, they are not considered part of the Steward team for the purposes of this section.

Scope

A Steward will manage:

• Communicating with the Secretary of the Board to ensure that an election can be called timely and appropriately.
• Ensuring the election is carried out in a fair and legal manner.
• Declaring the result of the election and advising the Secretary of the Board.
• Ensuring all legal candidates are allowed to take place - liaising with the Secretary of the Board to confirm eligibility.
• Monitoring that the vote is closed in accordance with all rules.

Justification: As we saw with the attempt to elect a team for the Election Commission, it didn't go to plan.

Support

1.  Support As electing a Commission rarely, taking away from a talent pool of limited volunteers creates a situation where potentially candidates to be Community Directors need to stand for election as a Commissioner to allow an election to occur. John (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
2.  Strong support per nominator's rationale, and because it seems like too much bureaucracy to create an election commission, whose election requirements equal that required for Stewardship, when we have community-elected global Stewards that can fulfill this role, provided they're not running as candidates in the election. I also like the idea of non-participating Stewards closing Community Directors elections together, which really continues and embodies the idea of an election commission. Dmehus (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
3.  Strong support I mean, for the purpose of voting for Stewardship or any advanced rights, we should make sure nobody is going to be using sockpuppets, otherwise, that would just damage their chances of getting their rights worth. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
4.  Support I think we can trust Stewards and a separate commission simply didn't work. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 14:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
5.  Support per John. CircleyDoesExtracter(Circley Talk | Global |Email the Cloud) 15:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
6.  Strong support as per @DarkMatterMan4500: AfricaEditor (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
7.  Support per above, a separate commission doesn't seem to be effective and Stewards are trusted members of the community who will surely be able to fulfil the job. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
8.  Support per OP above, but see comment below. Sario528 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
9.  Strongest support Per everyone else who voted here. DuchessTheSponge (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
10.  Support I believe that since there are not too many active volunteers here there is not a need to have a separate election commissioner group and Stewards who enjoy the trust of the community are an appropriate "replacement" of this group. I am sure that if there is a conflict of interest the particular Steward will chose not to participate in assessing the election. At a future time it may be relevant to consider having separate commissioners but at this time I do not believe that this is needed. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
11.  Support per John, Stewards can be trusted in this capacity. — Arcversin (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
12.  Strongest support per DeeM28 and DarkMatterMan. BlueShamanBuffer (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
13.  Support --Hispano76 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
14.  Support Organization of responsibility should be based on its ability to achieve optimal results. Decentralization was attempted in this event and failed. Having stewards handle this is more efficient and practical. --SchizoidNightmares (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
15.  Support seams reasonable. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
16.  Support until growth in the ammount of volunteers or other changes make seperating the groups reasonable. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

•  Comment: Stewards are Stewards because they are trusted, thus my support for this proposal. But should we have a mechanism to remove a misbehaving Steward from Commissioner duties as a precaution? Sario528 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I'd imagine that if a Steward "misbehaved" or had some sort of inappropriate interest the other Stewards could decide to remove the particular Steward from the election commission. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Reception123, as we do have procedures to remove Stewards. We're essentially eliminating the Election Commission and Election Commissioners, to which there have never been any appointed, and replacing them with the uninvolved, non-participating "election commissioners" for the purposes of administering occasional, ad hoc (presumably not more than once per year) elections. So, I do feel the concern is quite a remote one, but assume the panel of existing uninvolved, non-participating Stewards would simply exclude the Steward from acting as part of the election administration panel. Dmehus (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  So, how will this affect you guys as a whole? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Formalise an Election Timeline

The policy currently has a 28-day limit written into it. I propose that we formalise what these 28-days actually are in terms of a timeline.

• Day 1: Nominations are opened by the Board of Directors by liaising with the 'election commission' (dependent on proposal 1).
• Day 1 - Day 7: Nominations are received and the community can ask questions to candidates. Nominees should ensure questions are answered as soon as practicable. During this period, candidacy checks are completed.
• Day 8 - 28: The community vote on nominees. Additional questions can be asked during this period.
• Day 28: The 'election commission' close requests, certify the results and have the Board of Directors' Secretary also certify the validity of the results.
• Any day after the 28th: Board of Directors vote on appointments of successful candidates.

Justification: Creating a clear timeline, ensure strict deadlines are maintained and expectations are managed.

Support

1.  Support One week for nominations, three weeks for voting. John (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
2.  Support as a reasonable timeline. While the global central notice would be within the non-participating Stewards purview to draft and publish, I'm wondering if it would be preferable for a one-week central notice, two-week central notice, or a central notice that runs for the entire duration of the campaign? Perhaps one central notice for the nomination period, and one central notice for the actual voting period? Dmehus (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
3.  Strong support I don't suppose why not. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
4.  Support No issues ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 14:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
5.  Support If it's good, it's good. This nomination system seems good enough for me. CircleyDoesExtracter(Circley Talk | Global |Email the Cloud) 15:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
6.  Support per above, the timeline seems reasonable and fair. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
7.  Strong support Very reasonable timeline, and having the process so clearly defined will make following it easier. Sario528 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
8.  Strong support DuchessTheSponge (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
9.  Support I have no issues with the proposed timeline. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
10.  Support Looks reasonable, and I would support a central notice running the length of the campaign, perhaps split up per Dmehus's suggestion. — Arcversin (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
11.  Strong support The timeline is perfect. BlueShamanBuffer (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
12. --Hispano76 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
13.  Support –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

1. I definitely think this change should happen, if not sooner than later. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Eligibility Cleanup

Under the current policy, 'The user must be in good global standing (no CoCC determined violations)' is a eligibility requirement. As the CoCC will be dissolved in July, removing this line makes sense - especially as to date there have been no CoCC violation determinations.

Support

1.  Support Administrative change. John (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
2.  Support per nominator's rationale. This is really just a housekeeping amendment. I did wonder whether we could've alternatively dropped the third C in CoCC, but would create ambiguity in terms of platform, with each platform moderators responsible for determining Code of Conduct violations. In short, this is much simpler and it's not really a needed clause either. Dmehus (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
3.  Strongest support I think this should be for the better to begin with. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
4.  Support obvious ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 15:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
5.  Support Already known. CircleyDoesExtracter(Circley Talk | Global |Email the Cloud) 15:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
6.  Strongest support This makes sense, as the CoC Commission will be dissolved in July. —MarioMario456 15:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
7.  Support per above. Reception123 (talk) (C) 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
8.  Support Needs to happen, even if the other Proposals fail. Sario528 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
9.  Support DuchessTheSponge (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
10.  Support Since the CoCC will no longer exist soon this is an obvious requirement. --DeeM28 (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
11.  Support Asexual King Dice (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
12.  Support per above. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
13.  Support as cleanup. — Arcversin (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
14.  Strong support per CoC's future dissolution. BlueShamanBuffer (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
15.  Support –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

1. This is the right move for these types of changes. I'm glad Void stepped up to the plate as an SRE recently. This just proves that he has more potential too. But other than that, this change might spark criticism too (as a downside). DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section