On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1] 

What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining "community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "implemented on a trial basis for the 2022 election".  


I don't think it follows that the Board intends to use this model for the following (2024?) election of the four seats elected last year. Indeed, I am virtually certain they won't, given the significance of the movement governance changes that are going on, and the level of change we have seen in WMF board elections in the last few years.


You don't say you "trial" something if you're planning to do it only this once. 

This whole change in process goes back to a "Call for feedback" that was put out on December 23, 2021, i.e. one day before Christmas Eve.[1] 

There is hardly a worse working day in the year to make such an announcement, for most people in our movement, if the intent truly is to attract widespread attention. Why not wait until the New Year, and make such an announcement once people are back at their desks, undistracted by holiday preparations? 

(Announcing potentially contentious items or U-turns this close to Christmas should really be forbidden. A similar thing was done in the Abstract Wikipedia licensing discussion.[2])

Subsequently this "Call for feedback" process seems to have consisted almost exclusively of four calls or meetings between the WMF and a number of affiliates.[3] The description of these meetings on Meta includes the following item:

"By Victoria: Currently, there are a range of options for affiliates to be involved; e.g. the same way as before (ASBS) or; the affiliates could select among the candidates, and the community votes on those candidates, or swap it around, to have the community vote on a shortlist for the affiliates to vote on."

I assume that "Victoria" refers to WMF Board Member Victoria Doronina. If that is so, then it is somewhat obfuscatory – although not altogether incorrect, of course – to say on the page on Meta summarising these discussions:[4]

"One member of the community suggested that diversity (regional, gender, expertise and others) could be ensured if the election process was modified to allow the affiliates to choose a shortlist of 10-15 candidates. This is in a way similar to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection process. The community would later vote and select their representatives from that shortlist."

Of course Victoria is a longstanding community member, but she is also presently a WMF Board Member. If a WMF Board Member suggests changes to the way the WMF Board will be constituted in future, then I think it would be proper to identify this suggestion as originating from within the Board itself. If another Victoria was meant, then this point is moot.

As for the question in your other mail, Chris, the two seats in question are not affiliate seats. For better or worse, they are now community-and-affiliate-selected seats.[3] They should be selected by a method that is equitable. The method Dariusz announced is not.

A couple of people on the Kurier Diskussion page in de:WP and on Meta have made comments to the effect that volunteers always end up voting for white men living in the West. It's worth noting that the people placed 5th and 6th in last year's community vote were a woman from Ivory Coast (who lost out by the slimmest of margins) and a Brit living on Tenerife, a Spanish island off the coast of Africa.

Andreas