Hoi,
Really more bureaucracy? As if that does not bring its own conflict of
interest?
Thanks,
GerardM
On 9 April 2016 at 10:20, Ilario Valdelli <valdelli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What should be noted is that a personal declaration of
COI cannot be
sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a
committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the
candidacy and to manage them better.
Kind regards
Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten" <mail(a)anderswennersten.se>
ha
scritto:
I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and
find that he in his
mail
made an excellent explanation on how the
situation made the option to
resign the only reasonable way forward
BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within
a
year after being appointed, and before any future
election (either a snap
byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should
look
into if anything can be learnt. And if there are
things, primary in the
election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI
consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major
strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any
influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and
that
he outside this competence finds he has limited
"value" for the board
work.
But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of
(lightweight)
"vetting" by the Election committee by
all candidates have identified
this
risk (which then could have been feedbacked to
the candidate)? Should for
future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the
candidate
statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not
fulfilling the Board criteria)
had helped?
The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes
in
the election process has to await this formation,
but I believe a
discussion of learnings can start independently.
Anders
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>