I don't really want to generate yet-another-thread, but it seems to me that many people in this conversation don't really understand the need of chapter-elected seats, which to me feels like "I don't understand the need for chapters".
I have mixed feeling about this. Of course, I've been in a chapter board member for 5 years, so I do think they are useful. Chapters, in my POV, help Wikipedia be understood and engaged by the outside world: institutions, GLAMs, schools, universities, normal people. They try to bring institution in Wikipedia, as useful, free content. They talk a lot with people, make presentations and try to explain Wikipedia. This is something that the editing community doesn't do very often.
Also, I think is that with chapters/affiliates there is at least the beginning of a global conversation: chapters discuss a lot with each other, and chapter elected seats are the result of a diplomatic conversation. Their appointed are usually more diverse than "community-selected"... Many, for example, don't come from English Wikipedia as their mother wiki.
Maybe I'm mistaken but it seems to me that when we talk about community, we implicitly assume that is the English Wikipedia community. This then means there is a huge disproportion between native English speakers (US, UK, Australia, for etc.) and the rest of the world. As much as I understand that many editors don't feel that chapters are relevant, at least I feel that chapters and affiliates do try to talk to each other and build an international community and common discourse. It is a layer on top, if you will, but it has advantages.
M2c.
Aubrey
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:
I like the idea of reserved seats for the global south. I would prefer to still have some appointed members for expertise, but that number should be diminished to give the community seats a majority.
Somewhat controversial: I'd prefer to scrap the affiliate - selected seats. Chapters vary so much in organization and effectiveness that having seats for them isn't ideal to me.
And, of course, let's remove Jimbo's seat. He contributes little to the board or movement these days except for the occasional response on his talk page, accepting awards on our behalf, and making ridiculous public comments which are listened to due to his status. I actually have nothing against the guy personally, but I see no need for this relic of a seat to continue. Salam,
I sincerely appreciated any effort to craft a reform for the Board of Trustees membership. Thank you, Dariusz and Todd. Also, apologize for (possibly) flawed English, since it isn't my first language :)
As a volunteer from the so-called Global South community, I'm much more concerned about the diversity issue in the Board. The issue here is that geographical and linguistic groups that are significant in the current state of our community should be proportionally represented. We must ensure that their voice will be heard on deciding important issues that might also affect them, in one way or another. Our current Board consist of no Asian or African, a very disturbing reality especially if we consider the immense potential and rapidly growing community in these two region.
Allow me to propose the Board composition I felt the most suitable to accommodate this issue. This Board will be comprised of fifteen members, all with same voting power:
- One Founder's Seat, reserved for Jimbo. While I believe that some might
found this as a strangely contrast position for any reform needed by the Board, I think that we still need him in the Board as the voice of moderation and what makes us completely unique to other Internet institution.
- Six regional seats, popularly elected by the regional communities. The
proposed "regional communities" would be North America, South and Central America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Asia Pacific and Oceania.
- Five at-large seats, or what we call today as community seats. Like the
regional one, it will be popularly elected --- but by the whole community.
- Three affiliate seats, elected by the affiliate and thematic
organizations.
Yes, there might be some flaw in this proposal. The biggest concern will be how to define and categorize a project into a specific "regional community". Maybe we could categorize the editors based on where do they edit (English Wikipedia editors will be voting for European seat) or where do they reside (which also possibly will raise question about privacy etc).
Some might also question about why there is no more appointed seats. While I do agree with those who are saying that we need professional experts to sit in the Board, I believe that their power and influence should be nowhere more than the community to avoid another Arnnon-like controversy. So I would like to see them as members of the Advisory Board (as discussed in another thread before), possibly with increased function.
I'd be very grateful to know your thoughts.
Best,
Ramzy _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe