Last year the community voted that way putting diverse candidates at 5th and 6th position
because the election method could not work properly, even assuming (as it was) a general
attempt of diverse choice by the electorate. The main issue was in the low threshold for
the candidatures. As soon as I figured out with a simple set of simulations I tried to
warn and I was semi-harassed on the telegram chat. One person told me to shut up because I
did not understand how STV worked, another one accused me of being in bad taste.
However, my analysis was probably right. I expected the output to be gender balanced but
not geographically balanced because of dispersion among candidates. Unfortunately people
were probably too ideologically oriented by how good STV system was and how great was to
have so many candidates. Just to be clear, I don't dislike STV, but at least I
understand how to simulate an election. If you want to use STV for a diverse output, put a
clear selection of candidates after studying how people usually vote.
In general, this community has no literacy on electoral process but more importantly, it
does not want it. That's why discussing this topic seems almost useless. People could
mix up everything together, sometimes they just take a concept and put it to the extreme.
The direct elections was poor because of the lack of understanding of the voting behavior.
I am sure even now somebody thinks we have elected so many "white people"
because of the "racist" (or more nuanced adjective) electorate, but it would
have happened with an honest attempt of diversity by voters, which I think it actually
occurred.
As for this issue, these other seats with this system. in the end it looks that the power
of the generic users might have increased, we are switching probably from a totally
affiliate-oriented election to an election where the community in one step of the process
cast a vote in a open at-large election which is generally good. If you have a good
selections of candidates, the result might be balanced.
The ASBS2019 election was already an improvement enlarging the electoral base, it was more
transparent and public the previous elections of affiliates seats, but it still had to
face some issues. One is that some affiliates cast the actual vote among few people with
no real participation of their members (even suggesting them to at least inform their
members they were casting a vote was "too much"), the other one that a small
fraction of active users could be more involved in the process in two or more UGs.
Giving a power of selecting candidates and not final votes to affiliates force them to
care more about that step, producing convincing figures while the at-large election still
has some issues but it's more democratic for the final choice. It might work, if
correctly calibrated.One issue of the at-large elections is the threshold for candidates,
but delegating to the affiliates might lead to both strong and diverse options, without
excessive dispersion.
Another issue of the at-large elections are the votes of institutional account that are
not properly handled. Usually people here make some weird comparison about civil servants
voting but it has nothing to do with it. You just expect people to reach voting right by
themselves and not as a result of c.o.i paid activity, and you should be more careful
about it in the case of close results. If the internal process of affiliates select the
candidates, than that would be a good moment to decide the weigh of this type of votes at
the next step if it's an at large election. Again, you probably don't want to deal
with this problem with a close call.
In any case, again, electoral literacy is hard, while taking one concept and enlarging it
for a "soapbox moment" is easy. just to clear I have nothing against one
position or another per se. For example I disagree with the merge of the two types of
seats because it might lead to some functional results if correctly handled but for sure
with the strong ideological positions we face, it can only lead to more chaos. So far, I
might say that both processes might end up to more open globally than in the past.
Although they could have been much better.
Like everything, we will deal with the data at the end for those who want to care.
Alessandro
Il domenica 24 aprile 2022, 14:58:23 CEST, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> ha
scritto:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)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
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing_discussio…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call…
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call…
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org