One of the stated objectives for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation is
to have a more diverse representation, for it to be more inclusive. As an
abstract it is a really worthwhile objective, once chosen as one of the
more diverse board members of the Wikimedia Foundation however, it is easy
to find it is a poisoned chalice.
The problem is that there is now a huge carnival where board candidates are
trotted around explaining themselves, giving their points of view. In this
way expectations are raised that cannot be fulfilled. They cannot be
fulfilled for several reasons.
- the board activities are to consider proposals and points of view as
prepared by the Wikimedia organisation
- there is no room to introduce independent points of view for
consideration
- even when all community elected board members agree on a point of view
(unlikely), they are by design a minority
When people are later judged for their contributions on the board by our
communities, there is no defence when it is argued that nothing
materialised from initial good intentions. In addition, there is no
interest from the Wikimedia organisation to learn what drives candidate
board members to invest an inordinate amount of time to play a role on the
"governing" level they are to enable.
Diversity can be many things but it is tokenism when board members are only
to fulfil a predetermined role. It is tokenism when the tradition of
prevalence for English and Wikipedia is not even considered. It is tokenism
when the needs of communities we could serve are not considered only
because "it is not a community we have defined we serve" particularly as
there is no cost except for initial configuration.
I have brought these points forward earlier in private communications. They
are not reflected in the provided feedback.
Thanks,
GerardM