[Foundation-l] Voting requirements for community selected seats (Was: unable to vote)

[effe iets anders]

2008/6/4, Samuel Klein <meta.sj op gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Lars Aronsson <lars op aronsson.se> wrote:
>
>  > Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>  >
>  > > Lodewijk, it's worth noting that several of the board candidates
>  > > (myself included), have interpreted "community selected seats"
>  > > as inherently being "community representative seats", meaning
>  >
>
>
> These board seats were originally explicitly intended to represent the
>  community (in fact two different subsets of it), so this is not just the
>  interpretation of some current candidates.
>
>
>  > the desires of the community. There's no written rule that says
>  > it has to be that way, but rather a moral obligation towards the
>  > community, even beyond that of the electorate.
>
>
> Yes, this obligation certainly extends beyond the electorate; I don't agree
>  with effe at all that those who cannot vote are not represented; indeed as
>  many of the newer and more interesting ideas in any community come from its
>  newest members, those deserve attention for their fresh perspective just as
>  longstanding contributors do for their commitment and experience.
>
I agree with you though (even if you disagree with me ;-) ) that
people who can or may not vote are not necessarily not represented. I
do however feel that if you are not in the group that is being
represented, that you should not be able to vote either. There is a
subtle difference here. And it might or might not be that one counts
newer members of "the community" to belong to that community. One
could or could not count teachers as part of it. However, if you are
going to set who is able to vote and who not, you should *first* ask
yourself the question who exactly is this community that is selecting
/ being represented, before going into details.

>
>  In particular, we have many people who could be counted as our
>  > community, but who aren't currently allowed to vote for the board.
>  >
>
>
> This is true, and in some ways unfortunate -- at least if 'voting' is what
>  really counts in our Board elections.  but our Board and community are
>  unusual, and significantly more directly engaged than most.  Directly asking
>  and answering questions, proposing specific detailed ideas or [re]solutions,
>  and amplifying the voices of others can be done by anyone so motivated...
>  This has significantly more impact than one's actual vote.
>
>

When this happens, that is a good thing indeed. However, I do feel the
urge to mention that only very few community selected board members do
this, unfortunately. (Which means that we should maybe select more
specifically board members who do this, which is the whole thing we
can do with this vote)

>
>
>  > I suggest that the people who are elected or appointed in various
>  > ways see this as a strike of luck, and once on the board they only
>  > claim to represent themselves, as best they can, for the good of
>  > all mankind.  I don't mind the WMF being undemocratic.  I think
>  >
>
>
> Lars, I generally agree with your ideas, but I can't understand how you
>  would say on the one hand that a Board member who feels responsible to
>  represent the community should not say so; and on the other that they should
>  represent themselves "for the good of mankind", something fare more complex.
>
>  Community representatives should make every effort to represent the views of
>  the community, not their own -- personal opinions should take a back seat to
>  revealing, understanding, organizing and clearly expressing the drives,
>  fears, priorities, and ideas of different community groups.  This is true
>  whether said representatives are elected, appointed, or emerge fully formed
>  from the top of The Great Wikiball.
>
>  SJ
>
> _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>