Template:CharterVote2/52b/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
This article has been moved here from Election of the first ME/MC/EC.

The current phrasing of art. 21 is "The Managing Editor shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry during the same election period as the Management Council. For this election, up to four candidates shall be selected by the Management Council, taken from a list of Editors nominated by the community."

This excludes the first ME to be elected along with the MC. I suggest to add a statement to the transition section, such that the election of the first ME does not require prior existence of the MC. Instead, we could go for a nomination scheme similar to the one used for the Drafting Committee. --Daniel Mietchen 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As you all know, I am fundamentally opposed to the Managing Editor role as defined, but I was willing to compromise on letting the MC and EC be elected first, and then elect the ME. There are many reasons not to change the rules for immediate election of an ME, but one of the major ones, to me, is that I expect to see a growth in membership once we make a handover to community government. The pool of candidates for all offices becomes larger.

I oppose any changes in rules to force an early and special-case ME election. If the MC and EC are to give policy to the ME, it is only logical that those bodies be in place first. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine with me too, but in any case, we need clarification of the applicability of art. 21 to the first election of ME/MC. Also, article 51 about the initial numbers of EC/MC should go into the transition rules. --Daniel Mietchen 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The ME can make decisions where there is a lack of policy and that is what stimulates the EC or MC to create or improve current policy. I think we need the ME from the get go; to make interim decisions - then once the MC and EC get on their feet (which will take a little while) they can review the ME decisions. D. Matt Innis 12:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The first election should be for a full slate of all officers: 5 MC members, 7 EC members, ME, and Om. That's fourteen seats. The MC's first order of business should be to select the Constabulary. We should designate either the Om or the ME as being up for re-election first. We should also consider that it is now nearly August, and the Charter specifies that the boards shall be seated on January 1. I suggest that we grant the first boards an extra four or five months and specify that half the seats shall be up for re-election in 2011, to be seated January 1, 2012. Do we really want elections to coincide with the holidays? How did that get decided anyway?

We could have a call for nominations for the Om and leave it to the Current EC and ExComm to whittle the list to four .... nah, that would take us until December. Why don't we just get a list of nominations and just put that list to the citizenry? Fourteen seats is probably about 20% of the active membership anyway. Russell D. Jones 01:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Russell, we need to write this up, don't we? You seem to have a good handle on it, so write it up and I'll sign it. D. Matt Innis 01:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I think this should go into a new article directly after art. 51. Some draft phrasing:

• In parallel to the first elections of the Management Council and the Editorial Council, the first elections for the Managing Editor and the Ombudsman shall take place.
• Any Citizen may nominate one candidate for each of these two functions. These two nominated candidates cannot be identical, but the Citizen may nominate either of them, or both, also for the Management Council and/ or the Editorial Council.
• Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions. Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
• The Managing Editor and the Ombudsman shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry.
• In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, they shall declare which one they accept within one day of announcement of the election results. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.

--Daniel Mietchen 15:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear an explanation of why we should accept having a candidate run for two offices at once. At no other point in the Charter is this allowed, but an exception is made here. What's the rationale for that? Should we also include rules for deadlines, i.e. Nominations shall be accepted until fourteen days after the ratification of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting twenty days after the ratification of the charter; the election shall be completed twenty-eight days after the ratification of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office thirty days after the ratification of the charter.

ALSO, I'd like explicit language to set aside elections in December 2010. "This election shall fulfill the Citizendium's obligation to hold elections by December 21, 2010." I think it ridiculous to seat an EC for just four months. Russell D. Jones 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Russell. Also, one day to declare which position one accepts is too short. There are many people who are very committed to the project who do not visit the site every day. If people are allowed to run for more than one position, they need to be given more time. -Joe Quick 15:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with this language. I see no reason why the general procedures need to be treated as a special case just to have an ME on day 1. If the ME is to be guided by the MC and EC, should those bodies not be in place? Can an ME truly be responsive to organizations in formation, or does the ME set up as an interim authority create an immediate opportunity for conflict?

Matt, would you propose language, then, that shows all ME decisions are subject to review? I am rather passionate about the Charter not suggesting that the ME has any independent authority.

I agree that an ME candidate cannot also be nominated for OMB. Now, if the ME and OMB are first staffed at the time of the first election, may the individual run for EC or MC? Why? Why not? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter (Article 49), there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one). This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
• Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
• Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter.

Some ideas (to be added to Daniel's ideas above). Russell D. Jones 16:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I started this article is that the existing ones did not make any provisions for the initial elections of OMB/ME.

Some of the points you mention, Russell, are already in art. 51.

The main reason for allowing someone to run for two positions this time is that normally, they would be able to run for the OMB/EC in December and for the MC/ME in June, but that these elections are in parallel this first time. Also, we have very few people who stand good chances of being elected as OMB or ME, and all of them would probably be very valuable for (or motivated to serve in) the EC/MC if they end up second place.

I think a 28-day voting period is too long.

--Daniel Mietchen 16:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's two weeks for nominations and about a week for the election itself. I was assuming that nominees would want to post position statements and so on. Plus it gives time for electioneering (if only six people are nominated for MC, for instance, then some arm-twisting is in order and that takes time).

But Daniel, I don't really think that someone having been elected to the EC in December would turn around and seek a seat to the MC in June. A person can't have two seats normally. Are these seats going to be competitive anyway? Are we really going to get four nominees for ME when the nominees know that three of them won't be able to run for MC/EC until another six months to a year? Daniel, you may have uncovered a flaw in the general election program as now written. Anyone not elected to ME or Om would indeed be very valuable on the MC/EC (if they ran for that, too) if they ended up in second, third, or fourth place. Russell D. Jones 18:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I had originally misread the 28-day period — seems clear now. Further, someone not having been elected to the EC in December could turn around and seek a seat to the MC in June. The danger of not finding enough suitable candidates elected is real, but I would prefer to reduce the number of available seats instead of "electioneering". I also think it is worth to consider Condorcet's method for voting &e.g. via CIVS. --Daniel Mietchen 19:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

CIVS is interesting, but I wonder how we could ensure one citizen one vote instead of five email addresses five votes or eight URLs eight votes. Russell D. Jones 19:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The election could be set up such that its "supervisor" has to invite everyone by email. Dunno if we have the email lists in a format that could be used to cut& paste there, and CIVS has a default limit of 1000 participants per vote, which is not sufficient for the current phrasing that allows any unblocked user to participate in the vote. We could ask them whether they would allow us to set one up for 10,000 voters, but given that we may end up with just 42 or so votes, that's perhaps not an option. --Daniel Mietchen 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

But we ARE ambitious!! If and when the time comes, we can ask. Russell D. Jones 20:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Any Citizen may nominate one candidate for each of these two functions. These two nominated candidates cannot be identical, but the Citizen may nominate either of them, or both, also for the Management Council and/ or the Editorial Council."

I think this may work better for us:

• "Any Citizen may nominate one candidate for ME and one candidate for OM. They may be identical and may also be nominated for Editorial Council and Management Council positions. In the case that the same candidate wins more than one seat, they may choose their preferred seat leaving other vote takers to advance into the vacated position(s)."

D. Matt Innis 13:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This language seems to suggest that I may nominate someone for both ME and Om AND for seats on BOTH the MC and EC (four seats in total). I also don't like the restriction on nomination. Russell D. Jones 14:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this was only the first election, an ME candidate cannot run for OM if they fail. This allows the possibility that they could lose the ME, but still be on the EC, or MC, or OM. It is different than the above config. Are you thinking something should restrict that? Are you thinking that, if someone loses the ME, they shouldn't be OM?

What is the restriction on nominations that concerns you?

D. Matt Innis 14:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Any Citizen may nominate one candidate for ME and one candidate for OM." What if I want to nominate four citizens for ME and three for Om? Russell D. Jones 14:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, why not. D. Matt Innis 15:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If we allow multiply elected people to choose after the elections, I think giving them four options is way too much, as this would disrespect the right of the citizenry to vote. I find two options per candidate more reasonable. Alternatively, if candidates were to state their priorities before the election (and be bound to stick to them afterwards), I am OK with having them run for all four, since few voters will consciously vote to seat someone on their fourth-ranked priority. --Daniel Mietchen 22:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As for voting mechanics, there is also Ballotbin. No Condorcet, but unlimited number of voters, which can also be invited on a one-vote-per-email basis. --Daniel Mietchen 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as you know that you are deciding that we will likely end up with a few good people without any positions while fighting to get qualified people on the councils. D. Matt Innis 22:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, it seems also that you're volunteering yourself to run the election. One of my dad's favorite sayings was that "no good deed goes unpunished."  :) Russell D. Jones 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent) May I ask "what problem are you trying to solve?" As Russell can probably articulate better than I, there are various proportional and other voting systems that allow people to vote for multiple candidates in a reasonably rational way. It is not clear, however, that complex voting systems are what we need when we are trying to finish the Charter. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: CZ:Charter drafting committee#Next step makes it clear who runs the initial elections (my suggestions were meant to facilitate their work), and prescribing technical details of following ones is clearly not Charter-level. --Daniel Mietchen 00:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty lost from the beginning with this article, but I'm totally lost now. Is this supposed to address the voting mechanics of the election? I don't think that's necessary. I do think it's important to try to fill all of the prescribed positions in the first election cycle. -Joe Quick 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is to explain when that first election cycle is to occur, how it is to be done, and what it is to do. It is going to occur outside of any election cycle prescribed by the Charter. If the charter doesn't allow for this, that first election becomes an illegal election. Also the charter explains that only one half of the seats on any council shall be up for election and that the MC is elected in the spring, and the EC is the Fall. But this first election will not follow the charter regarding any of these prescriptions. Again, without explicit charter authorization, this first election will be illegal. The "Next Step" only specifies how the charter will be ratified; it does not explain how to proceed once the charter is ratified. This article does. Russell D. Jones 15:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear if splitting the article would help, but I can't support a special procedure for the first election, with the possible exception of having short-term council members. I just can't see the rush to ME; I am less concerned about OMB. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if what Russell says above is true, then we need something for this first election. I'd suggest that we return to the simple solution: Vote for the ME and OMB in a separate election immediately after ratification of the charter. Then elect all MC and EC positions on the dates specified. KISS D. Matt Innis 17:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Voting for the ME and OMB before the councils reinforces the perception that the ME is most important. Oppose. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Equally oppose. All fourteen positions should be elected asap. Russell D. Jones 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Equally oppose. I fully agree with Russell's summary above [15:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)], what we need is just to put it into Charter language, and that's what I tried above. Apologies for some of the comments getting off-topic and thus leading to confusion. --Daniel Mietchen 22:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Okay, so here's where we're at: I don't see where the previous discussion about nominations led anywhere. The following is a collation of all the discussion on this page to this point. Russell D. Jones 23:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter (Article 49), there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one). This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
• Any Citizen may nominate candidates for these positions.
• Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
• Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter.
• Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible to appear on the ballot. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions. Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
• All positions shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry.
• In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, the candidate shall declare which one he or she accepts within one day of announcement of the election results. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.

Very close — thanks! Upon first reading, the only situation we do not seem to have covered here (nor for the regular elections) are ties: What if two OMB candidates (or the fifth and sixth candidate for the MC) reach the same simple majority? In such cases, Condorcet comes in handy, but its shouldn't be written into the Charter. Any other way? Wiki-age, i.e. the time elapsed since the first edit (in main space)? Or some random choice? --Daniel Mietchen 00:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another option would be a run-off election within three days for ties? D. Matt Innis 01:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly prefer runoffs to obscure metrics. In flesh-and-blood elections, a coin toss is sometimes used -- I'm not sure how that might be done here, other than perhaps "heads if the next day's Dow Jones Industrial Average (or something)'s last digit is odd, tails if even." Howard C. Berkowitz 01:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the new text to look at. That makes much more sense to me than the conversation above. I made a grammar correction, but I think it looks very good. I'm in favor of a runoff in case of a tie. -Joe Quick 13:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but I still think one day to declare which position one accepts is not realistically enough time. -Joe Quick 13:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, one day is not enough. And a runoff is a good idea, provided it doesn't drag on for another month and the council can get on with it while the run-off is on-going. But that doesn't need charter rules, except "There shall be a run-off election for ties." Russell D. Jones 14:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Is three days enough? I want to strike a balance between the schedule of people who don't check in every day and the community's need to move on. That would give us the following. -Joe Quick 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter (Article 49), there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one). This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
• Any Citizen may nominate candidates for these positions.
• Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
• Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter.
• Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible to appear on the ballot. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions. Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
• All positions shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry. In the case of a tie, an immediate run-off election shall be held.
• In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, the candidate shall declare which one he or she accepts within one day three days of announcement of the election results. In the event that such a declaration has not been made during this period, the candidate shall be considered elected for the position for which the nomination was accepted first. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.

Agree --Russell D. Jones 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. D. Matt Innis 17:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about candidates who run for seats in these elections. If they take their nominations any serious, they should have an interest to check the election results with a much shorter delay than three days. However, if you all insist on three days, I will not stand in the way. Another issue is what happens if they do not meet this deadline. I would suggest that in such cases, they should count (by the end of the deadline) as elected for the position for which they accepted their nomination first. --Daniel Mietchen 10:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel's default sounds reasonable to me. Russell D. Jones 12:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Just make sure people can't accept two nominations with a single edit to the wiki... -Joe Quick 13:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there are times when people cannot help missing 24 hour deadline, but 99% can make a 72 hour deadline, so I'm for the three days and am fine with Daniel's default "go with the one they picked as their first." D. Matt Innis 14:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Added the "picked first" note. @Joe, even if they accept both nominations with one edit (which could be prevented by design), there would still be one listed earlier than the other, thus establishing priority. --Daniel Mietchen 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Still Agree. D. Matt Innis 21:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I still agree too. And I think Russell's note above implies agreement; mine just below it did. I'm going to green the article so we can move forward. -Joe Quick 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)