I support public voting. Because of that, I’ll say how and why did I vote.
To be honest, my first four votes were already known. There are four candidates which I am supporting because I am convinced, according to their previous work, that they will be good Board members: Gerard Meijssen, Kat Walsh, Samuel Klein and Ting Chen. So, all of them got 1 from me. I would be perfectly happy if I would see any of three of them at the Board.
The next candidate about whom I was thinking is Domas. I would give to him 2 because he is a MediaWiki contributor for a long time.
Then, I went to check candidates’ answers to questions so I would be able to rank others. Thanks to Privatemusings for asking the question about the explicit sexual content.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen will be at the sixth place and Jose Gustavo Gonora at the seventh (see below for the fifth one). The first one said nicely worded “fuck off” (which I really prefer as the answer to such question), the second one raised that not only explicit sexual content is a censorship-related problem. Yes, Muhammad cartoons are the same type of problem. Just persons who are totally unaware about multiculturality may say that explicit sexual content is not acceptible, while pictures of Muhammad are.
Because of the answer on the same question Gregory Kohs got 99 (just because I am not sure would 100 work; it is the bottom). I was thinking to give 99 to Kevin Riley O’Keeffe, but he got 98. I have some sympathies to genuine right-wingers. They are honest.
Because of the answer on the same question Adam Koenigsberg got 4, which means that he is at the eight place. He said that he is against any kind of censorship, but that it should be decided by community. Nice position, however, too polite answer. Maybe others would appreciate such answer more.
Domas and Beauford Anton Stenberg want to have balanced censorship. So, they’ve got balanced 50.
Because the rest of the candidates didn’t give answers to this question, I had to find another way for making decisions about them: Dan Rosenthal, Steve Smith, Relly Komaruzaman, Brady Brim-DeForest, Ralph Potdevin, Lourie Pieterse, Thomas Braun.
Dan was a candidate last year, so I tried to find a similar question from the previous elections, and, of course, I’ve found it. Dan gave last year the answer which I would give: “fuck off”+”try to understand that there are other cultures, too”. So, he is at the fifth place with score 2.
Steve Smith. He was the candidate last year, too. Nicely worded “fuck off”, so he will be together with Jussi-Ville at the sixth place with 3 points.
Relly Komaruzaman. This is the candidate who didn’t know what to state. 40 for participating in the race 🙂
Brady Brim-DeForest. Interesting and strong candidate. Unfortunatelly, I know approximately nothing about his involvement in Wikimedia projects. 10 points.
Ralph Potdevin. Weak statement, without any answer. 90. (I suppose that he would be better than Gregory and Kevin. It is really hard not to be.)
Lourie Pieterse. I know many 18 years old who would make much better statement than Lourie. Board elections are not about his dreams, but about our dreams. 95. Weak is better than dangerous.
Thomas Braun. Interesting. As with Brady, unfortunately, I know approximately nothing about his involvement in Wikimedia projects. 10 points.