I'd have been more impressed if the answer was that we are a global and
multilingual organisation, and there is a potentially huge overhead in
translating multiple questions and answers into assorted languages of the
movement.
Limiting the amount of translation by only translating for languages where
Wikimedians have requested it, and limiting the number of questions seems
to me a very practical response. But it puts enormous power into the hands
of the people who composite and choose the questions.
As for the candidates, if they baulk at a few hours of answering relevant
questions, do they have the time available to take on the role?
WSC
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 00:17:24 -0400
> From: Benjamin Lees <emufarmers(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q&A
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAL04nz9KEb9bTrxd2bb_F4tDfoQ-VAw1p_GDx_JVJ=
> qTEQ0stQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="000000000000636f6e05c680d18c"
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:18 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > You have to appreciate that fulfilling the role of a board member of the
> > Wikimedia Foundations is very time consuming. The candidates that may be
> > chosen from are all volunteers, they have a day job. The argument for
> > having only eleven questions as given to us candidates was: there is a
> > limit to the number of questions because otherwise it will require too
> much
> > of your time.
> >
> > Is this the right approach? If this is a time-consuming role, it doesn't
> seem entirely unreasonable that the selection process would also be a
> little bit time-consuming. I'm not saying the election needs to be an
> endurance marathon, but the election should reflect the job.
>
> Being able to decide which questions are worth answering and which are best
> ignored is an important skill. For that matter, so is being able to
> reframe questions to address the points that you think are important, as
> you have done here.
>
> It's important also for board candidates to be able to answer questions
> that aren't the ones that are curated for them. The Foundation is the
> board's main contact with the outside world, but it shouldn't be the only
> one, as the Community Affairs Committee is a proper acknowledgment of.
> Only listening to the people in the room with you leads to iceberg warnings
> that go unheeded, as we've seen enough of lately. Even the very wise
> cannot see all ends, and all that.
>
> Benjamin
>
