Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008

Documentation

For discussion of the Coordinators election for May 2008 standing list

Discussion

Election necessary?

Is a formal election really necessary? Since the coordinators-idea doesn't involve special authorities and there isn't a huge demand for such positions, the election seems to be a solution searching for a problem. I'd rather see an initial committee appointed (the 3 candidates listed here, plus any volunteers), go to lunch & brainstorm (what each wants to be responsible for, how the project would best be structured), and report back here for general discussion/concensus. Basically, I'd rather see the committee system grown organically, rather than the hierachical election format. --maclean 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments noted. Anyone else feel this way. "go to lunch" is an interesting concept in cyberspace! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Process usually has it benefits ...even if it seems silly. Raul654 (talk · contribs) is an example of this: the FA director since day 1 when it was trivial. But he did go through a selection process that keeps the whiners at bay. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the FA director does have special authorities, whereas a Novels Coordinator would not. Also, Raul654 was confirmed for something he already did, rather than selected (the option for an election had little support). My understanding of the novels coordinator position is that it is just somebody to do maintenance tasks and facilitate discussions, with a 'leader' to be a spokesperson/contact. My point is that there shouldn't be an election unless there are more people who want the job than there are positions. maclean 07:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to have coordinators with powers over other users, maybe we should model the project on the wikipedia project on th whole, but that is just one man's opinion.WilliamMThompson (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If the co-ordinators wanted to "go to lunch", they could have a nice cup of tea and a sit down :) Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Asst Coordinators

I take it all candidates are currently running for Lead Coordinator. Will the Asst. jobs be filled by the runners-up, or are those to be elected separately? Are all of the candidates willing to be Asst if they do not win the Lead role? PeregrineV (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

# of coordinators

Um, it looks like there are currently six more positions open than people running for them. I notice that the Films project started with only 3 coordinators, expanding to five later on. That might be the way to go here as well. I did list this on the announcements section of the WikiProject Council page, and there might be some more candidates arriving after that. It might not be a bad idea to extend the nomination period a little on that basis. I might consider running as an assistant myself, but think that, what with one thing and another, I might be maybe more than overextending myself a little. John Carter (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to nomination period extension. Thank you for promoting this. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

With the recent very unfortunate withdrawl of Kevin's candidacy, it looks like the number of candidates has dropped. I'm not sure I would want to be listed as any sort of official coordinator, but I could at least help with some of the assessments and reviews as time permits, if nothing else. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course! Every bit helps ...or should I say ...every edit helps. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the intentions to reduce the number of potentially elected coordinators to a smaller number, or to wait for others to fill the vacant positions? If the latter, God knows I'm not particularly qualified for this field, but I would be willing to take on some of the duties of one of the bottom-tier coordinators, more or less as a "fill-in", and otherwise helping with review, templates, assessment, and other activities as I can. And it really would look very bad if there were elections to elect nine people and only two ran. Something should definitely be decided one way or another, and probably fairly soon. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

With only two candidates, both of whom are excellent, I wonder if it makes sense to have a lead coordinator and a regular coordinator. Makes the latter position sort of like a vice-presidency. I think that co-coordinators might be a better approach. As long as Wassup and Yllo keep the communication lines open, I doubt they'd somehow step on each other's toes. --JayHenry (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is getting kind of silly. :) I'm already beginning to wonder about technical issues, such as with Kevin MIA, what about this month's newsletter? Do we in all actuality need this election when it's obvious that at least two people are going to take on some equally important form of responsibility? I just get the feeling that we should start acting rather than talking. María (habla conmigo) 11:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I've been acting more than talking and so far no one has objected too much :-) This process does seem silly but as I said above, should this project take off then the process will matter. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think having co-coordinators from this election is best, with the opportunity available to add more members when needed. Maybe Kevin could take on a less demanding job as Advisor for those problems that may need his experience. Boylo (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bummer.

Well, a couple sockpuppets (since removed) and three series candidates (two of which have withdrawn) later, we've gotten precisely nowhere. :( The initial idea for a coordinator election was posed by an abusive sockpuppet weasel, after all; perhaps it wasn't such a great idea in the first place. Shall we just close this baby down and attempt to find a resolution in community-based actions rather than coordinator-based? Some of the suggestions above definitely have merit. Thoughts? María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. The problem is of course that a lot of the "grunt work" won't get done without coordinators doing it, although there are a few bots coming out that will help at least a little. Maybe the best thing to do would be to have an interim coordinator or two and maybe try again in a few months? It isn't unheard of for elections to be delayed when many of the candidates beome non-candidates before the election. John Carter (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The "grunt work" issue is a very good point. I personally would be happy if Yllosubmarine was officially the coordinator! I would be more than happy to help out as time on opportunity allowed, whether or not I was "formally" one as well. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to help out as well.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Eek, I don't want to be completely in charge. :) With help from others, however, I'm definitely willing to get some things in motion. Right now I'm concentrating on assessments and the quality scale; discussion can be found at the forum. María (habla conmigo) 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No-one wants you to be completely "in charge". :) But the idea of a project co-ordinator as a "go-to person" seems useful enough, and you're as good a candidate as any. Of course, the project will continue to hum along even without one. Nevertheless, if you and the rest of the project are willing, we can start referring any general queries to you. Just a thought. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 12:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds reasonable if everyone's for that. María (habla conmigo) 12:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So, are the elections closed or not?

I think it would be a good idea to announce the results if they are. Just a thought, mind you. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to mention it in the next newsletter? Less time and effort, etc. María (habla conmigo) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See details are in May Newsletter Boylo (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I do think it would be better that we restrict users to only one vote, seeing as problems could arise in the future if we have users voting mutiple times. Unless, was there some rule that I didn't know about regarding this, that would probably be for the best. ~ Bella Swan^? 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea was follow the current system where everyone got to !vote for as many candidates as they sought fit to !vote for, and the top !vote-getters being the winners. Unfortunately, a few of the candidates pulled out. Such voting practices are standard in wikipedia, I think, so it probably shouldn't be likely to cause too much harm. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)