Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2020/2

Volunteering to not volunteer
I'd like to not re-nominate myself for coordinatorship, if there are enough new and returning volunteers to fill the positions for the coming term. I've had a great time here over the years and will still be a semi-active member, but hope to refocus some of my editing energies on content creation. And as someone mentioned before, it might not be a bad idea to make room for new assistant coordinators to come in and get a bit of experience. In the case that nominations are sparse in a couple weeks, I'll self-nom then. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Reidgreg; I haven't thought much about renomination. I'd like to pack Wikipedia in for a while but there's always stuff that needs doing... and I get bored in winter. Thanks for your service, you've been an excellent coordinator and lead. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  22:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I will support whatever each of you chooses. I'll be here, stuck at home for the foreseeable future. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have confidence in the five nominees so won't be putting my name forward.  I'll probably be around for the next term and will keep the guild pages watchlisted. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Question
What exactky is going on here? 20:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's the Election of Coordinators for the second half of 2020. Nominations are now open; self-nominations are welcome. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  20:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool. Stay safe and well, -- Total Eclipse 2017 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too :)  Baffle☿gab  21:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Voting is pointless
Compared to the 2016 United States presidential election (or any other elections that isn't pointless like this one), voting in this election is truly pointless. 1 for lead coordinator and 4 coordinators are open. and there is exactly that many nominations for this election. So no need to vote. &#123;&#123;reply to&#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 01:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's true we don't hold the Fate of nations in our hands, but it's not just a rubber stamping exercise, it's your chance to make your views of the candidates abilities to coordinate the project known. We use a simple approval vote system; if you feel a candidate is unsuitable, feel free to say so in her or his comments and questions subsection, and your comments may sway other editors' opinions. It seems to have worked quite well for the past decade or so. Similarly, feel free to suggest an alternative selection system. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  02:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , well, why wouldn't you? :) My opinion is that Wikipedia is a project based on consencus - prersonally, I wouldn't feel comfortable being coord without knowing that I had the support of the Project. Also, I don't think we should be comparing a small election in the corner of Wikipedia to the US Presidential Election - compared to that, you're right, this election is really pointless, why don't we all run for governor or mayor of our respective states or towns? :) Thanks for your concerns anyway, I hope I didn't come off as hostile, it's a fair point you raise. Cheers -- puddleglum  2.0  02:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , please take a look at the most recent election page, which illustrates how our elections, even though they are of the approval type, can result in nominated candidates not ending up as coordinators. In that election, some of the experienced coordinators gently recommended that, whose helpful response is above, wait six months to make sure that they gained some experience with the Guild before jumping into a coordinator role. Puddleglum2.0 voluntarily withdrew, edited diligently during our drives and blitzes, and is back on the nomination slate this time (thanks for returning, PG!). Also in that election, long-time coordinator self-nominated, and later withdrew when it was clear that there were plenty of coordinators available.
 * Far from being pointless, both of those events look like a process that works quite well to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay well maybe it's only pointless with there are less nominations than open positions. Since the June 2018 elections, there has only been one diffrence (soon going to be two). For 2 years, it's been almost ht same people. Watch this election turn out as predicted. &#123;&#123; reply to &#124;Can I Log In&#125;&#125; 's talk page! 04:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the alternative? To not have elections and operate as a cabal?  Consensus-building on Wikipedia is going to take a month (like RFCs, for example) and we go through this process now and then for accountability to the membership and so it isn't an unreasonable commitment for volunteers.  In addition to approval voting, the voting page is sometimes used as a forum to discuss the Guild's direction for the coming term.  Certainly, issues can be raised at any time on the Guild talk pages, but this one is publicized and might get a little more attention while it is active.  Lastly, even if it is a foregone conclusion that the nominees will be elected, I don't feel it's pointless to say, "Hey, I've noticed the good contributions you've made and I entrust you to take care of this corner of Wikipedia for us."  It's a good opportunity to thank editors for many hours of volunteering. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a non-issue, IMO., you're free to vote (or not) as you wish; the GOCE was a collegial, fairly close-knit wikiproject long before you came along. Even the title of this thread is a pointy assumption of bad faith.  Mini  apolis  17:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a non-issue, IMO., you're free to vote (or not) as you wish; the GOCE was a collegial, fairly close-knit wikiproject long before you came along. Even the title of this thread is a pointy assumption of bad faith.  Mini  apolis  17:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)