Autoeditor Election: HibiscusKazeneko

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Autoeditor Election: HibiscusKazeneko

The Returning Officer
This election has been cancelled by the proposer (pankkake).

Details:
http://musicbrainz.org/election/291

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Autoeditor Election: HibiscusKazeneko

pankkake
On 2015-02-04 18:13, The Returning Officer wrote:
> This election has been cancelled by the proposer (pankkake).
>
> Details:
> http://musicbrainz.org/election/291

Even though this would pass, there are not enough Yes and too much No
for my liking. I'd rather have auto-editors elected later, but well-elected.

In the meantime, I would suggest making HibiscusKazeneko's MB experience
less frustrating by voting on and approving some of her edits.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Autoeditor Election: HibiscusKazeneko

KRSCuan
On 04.02.2015 18:17 pankkake wrote:
> On 2015-02-04 18:13, The Returning Officer wrote:
>> This election has been cancelled by the proposer (pankkake).
>>
>> Details:
>> http://musicbrainz.org/election/291
>
> Even though this would pass, there are not enough Yes and too much No
> for my liking. I'd rather have auto-editors elected later, but well-elected.
I'm not happy about this result either, but I felt this nomination was
badly timed. A record of 16/16/6 yes/abstain/no votes isn't very
impressive either, so canceling at this point is in line with what seems
to be informally established consensus among auto-editors.

Just going on with the vote would have probably led to this discussion
as well, which I think we last had on a very tight election or an evenly
split nomination (which was therefore declined), but this way I can
spill it out more freely and with less implications:


     Should a simple majority of yes vs. no votes still be sufficient?


A super-majority of yes vs. no votes was previously discussed and seems
to be what's informally applied, although whether to set it at
three-fifths, two-thirds, three-fourths or somewhere else would be an
issue of contention.

Another option would be to also count abstentions for purposes of
determining quorum/majority, although that could effectively turn them
into nicer-sounding no votes.

Keep in mind that most elections in the last 5–7 years were very clear,
often with 80–90% yes vs. no votes and sometimes no opposition at all.
And even if an editor would fail to be elected at the first try, they
can be nominated again.

> In the meantime, I would suggest making HibiscusKazeneko's MB experience
> less frustrating by voting on and approving some of her edits.
Agreed.

- KRSCuan

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Autoeditor Election: HibiscusKazeneko

Kuno Woudt-2
In reply to this post by The Returning Officer

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 12:22 AM, KRSCuan wrote:
>
>      Should a simple majority of yes vs. no votes still be sufficient?
>
>
> A super-majority of yes vs. no votes was previously discussed and seems
> to be what's informally applied, although whether to set it at
> three-fifths, two-thirds, three-fourths or somewhere else would be an
> issue of contention.

As you mention, this seems to already get informally applied.  So I
wouldn't object to making that formal.  I'd suggest two-thirds, but
don't care strongly about the exact ratio.

-- Kuno.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Autoeditor Election: HibiscusKazeneko

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
In reply to this post by pankkake
One thing - for what it's worth, this election satisfies a 2/3rds and a 3/5ths rule, and it's very very close to 3/4ths, so it's nowhere as contested as it could have been and it would pass with a lot of the proposed rule changes.

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:17 PM, pankkake <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 2015-02-04 18:13, The Returning Officer wrote:
> This election has been cancelled by the proposer (pankkake).
>
> Details:
> http://musicbrainz.org/election/291

Even though this would pass, there are not enough Yes and too much No
for my liking. I'd rather have auto-editors elected later, but well-elected.

In the meantime, I would suggest making HibiscusKazeneko's MB experience
less frustrating by voting on and approving some of her edits.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods



--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Autoeditor Election: HibiscusKazeneko

pankkake
On 2015-02-06 19:50, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> One thing - for what it's worth, this election satisfies a 2/3rds and a
> 3/5ths rule, and it's very very close to 3/4ths, so it's nowhere as
> contested as it could have been and it would pass with a lot of the
> proposed rule changes.
>

Also, do you count the first 3 (proposer, seconders) as votes?
Anyway, I think we're all aspiring for consensus in edits, so it seems
also a given on more important matters. I'm not sure it needs to be
formalized, and how it could be formalized.
Enough people took time to write why they voted No, which in the end
mattered more than the votes to me.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Autoeditor Election: HibiscusKazeneko

KRSCuan
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On 06.02.2015 19:50, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> One thing - for what it's worth, this election satisfies a 2/3rds and a
> 3/5ths rule, and it's very very close to 3/4ths, so it's nowhere as
> contested as it could have been and it would pass with a lot of the
> proposed rule changes.
That's beside the point I'm trying to make. We shouldn't set a bar based
on the outcome it would have led to here.

The tally of votes could have changed if the election had been left open
for the full duration, maybe surpassing three-fourths or failing
two-thirds in the end. But since the election was cancelled, at least we
don't risk to come up with a rule saying it shouldn't have passed in the
first place.

The election wouldn't have passed if we had included abstentions in the
total (which is practiced in some votes in actual politics, e.g. in the
US Senate or European Parliament). And the high amount of abstentions is
what also concerned me about the preliminary result. However, abstaining
can mean a whole lot of different things to each votes: Slight
reservations not strong enough to cast a damning No, an "I don't know,
"I don't care", etc. So whether and how to count abstentions is a matter
of interpretation. Should they count as an effective No, half Yes and
half No, or as if the person hadn't voted at all? These all have their
drawbacks. If we count abstentions in the total, requiring a two-thirds
or even three-fourths majority would also be too harsh.

What I'd consider a sensible bar would be either two-thirds or
three-fourths of yes vs. no votes, or a simple (or perhaps three-fifths)
yes majority among all votes. If agree on a way to count abstentions,
that is.

We could also say that it is sufficient to leave the bar as-is and have
the nominator exert the right to cancel the election, as done here. But
the last time we had this discussion, it was because the nominator
didn't cancel the election on a tight vote.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-automods mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-automods