tldr: At this point, the requirements will not be changed for this election
cycle. I recognize on one level this change seems as simple as changing the
election Meta page, but as we realized in discussion, in execution, it
requires a bit more than that. See my last thread for more information on
why that decision was made. I believe, given our time constraints, that the
right decision was made.
A few thoughts speaking for myself and not the committee. :)
As a supporter of our affiliates, I empathize with wanting them to be
included in all aspects of WMF governance. I agree that this discussion
points out a flaw in our current setup, and that is why I support the
notion of a standing elections committee. This year's committee has not yet
discussed that topic, but it is on the agenda to discuss when we are able
to do so.
Ultimately, we had about 72 hours to decide on the many nuances of this
issue, and even with this thread having taken place, it turned out that was
not enough to do the topic justice. Practically speaking, the committee had
to prioritize a lot of tasks and topics very quickly. Figuring out how to
handle nominations, which was a part of our mandate and we felt had much
broader implications (and so far I think has worked well) consumed much of
that valuable time, and I think fairly so. I agree this is a flaw in our
current process, but at this point, that was not an issue the committee is
able to address.
Having reviewed this discussion again, and based on some committee
conversations, I think there are a few questions and tasks which would need
to be addressed before the next election - and were not possible in the
timeline this year's committee had to work with.
- Affiliates, and many affiliate staff, are already able to engage in a
board election. That was in part why including them in the community board
election was not as urgent. However, that is not true for the FDC
elections. Should the requirements be split for that reason? How much
additional work would that require for the technical support staff?
- There is existing precedent on what qualifies as WMF involved
individuals - the staff, current and former board, as well as current and
former advisors. That is not as easily applied to all affiliates. It is
easier with chapters, but much harder with user groups. Should user groups
therefore just be left out? That seems unfair. There are user groups with
staff, and there are some currently more active than some chapters. So the
arguments in segregating them for the purposes of this conversation, in my
opinion, do not hold up. Which brings us to...
- If affiliate staff are included, then following the WMF example, that
implies other key leaders should be allowed to vote as well. That then
raises the question of who is in and who is out. That is easy to define
with WMF, we have clear lists available based on clear processes. However,
when considering nearly 75 different affiliates, there are commonalities,
but not universal terms and groups that can be easily applied to a
requirement. Some have advisory bodies, some do not. Some have staffs, some
do not. Some have governing boards, some do not. Some have designated
leaders, some do not.
- Many of the volunteer leaders are active editors, but as this election
has shown, that is not always the case. There was a chapter board member
that was ineligible, but may have qualified by all other practical
measurements, but that would not really have been addressed even if
affiliate staff were allowed to vote. If we had let in board members as
well, what about affiliates without elected or structured boards? Are they
just out of luck? So should affiliates then decide individually who
qualifies and submit those lists to WMF before the elections? That was not
possible this time, but is a possibility next time. And again, should some
of this just apply to the FDC elections and not board elections?
- How is WMF going to be able to verify "staff" and what does that
include for affiliates? The term is clearly defined for WMF, but not as
much for all 70 some affiliates spread across many countries with different
legal definitions of staff. Is someone doing pro-bono work staff? Some
would say yes, others no. So how will WMF go about verifying employment
status of each affiliate staff member that requests a vote? Is there one
easy method that is legal in every country an affiliate is based in? How up
to date are the existing public lists?
- Do we attempt to come up with a broad qualifying definition that then
allows for case by case determinations of the Elections Committee? How
would that work? Would there be an appeals process? How would that work?
- Ideally, these issues would be discussed more in-depth by the
committee, and a public RFC based on their initial findings would give the
community a chance to weigh in. That simply was not possible this time. I
recognize that is annoying given the issue came up months ago, but the
group charged with addressing it was not created until days before the
election process had to formally begin. That is not a problem we can
address right now, and I think the solution rests with a standing elections
committee.
I personally feel that there are answers to each of these questions - I
pose them not as a "this cannot be overcome" statement, but more to suggest
that 72 hours was not enough time to hash out each of these details. I also
offer them because I do not know who will be working on answering them - so
figure I might as well "brain dump" while it is present in my mind. ;)
-greg (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee (not
speaking in that capacity, except in "tldr" - but obviously influenced by
it)
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee (not speaking in that capacity
on this thread - but partly why I give affiliate topics so much thought)
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:08 PM, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Nathan
<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, James Alexander
<
jalexander(a)wikimedia.org
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
> itzik(a)wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
> > Any response or input from the
Election Committee?
>
>
> I think Greg
said it relatively well earlier as the coordinator for the
> committee (I am it's staff advisor). At this point the committee has
> decided on the voting requirements and it is highly unlikely to change
for
the current election cycle. They did have serious
discussions about
everything mentioned in this thread both on their list and during the
first
> committee meeting but in the end decided that they did not believe
there
> was a strong need for change right now. When
this conversation came
back
up
> it was broached whether we wanted to revisit and no one said expressed
a
desire
to.
Also as Greg said I think this is a good topic for a permanent election
committee which I very much think should exist.
James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
This is a weakness in the process. Itzik raised an issue and was told it
was too early to discuss. He raised it again when the elections
approached,
and is being told its too late. Obviously the
"committee" conducted its
deliberations on this question in secret, which is a strange approach
considering there have been requests and a desire for open discussion
from
the community.
I agree, I also wish that the committee had more time to make the decision.
I had hoped to seat them in January and they would have had a lot of time
to discuss this both here and elsewhere. Sadly we were waiting for the
board on a couple things and were unable to seat them until recently and at
that point there was a time crunch and things needed to be decided quickly.
As both Greg and I said however, these arguments were in no way ignored,
when I introduced the topic (in one of the very first emails to the
committee) I listed all of the questions here about staff voting, chapter
staff/board, edit requirements etc and then backed off. The committee
discussed all of those and decided, in the end, that this was the right
decision.
It's also worth pointing out that many of the
people in this discussion
agreed that the community requirements are so low that there should be no
reason any interested employee (of the WMF or elsewhere) can't qualify
under other criteria, eliminating the need for a special franchise for
WMF
employees.
On a completely personal level I actually think the requirements could be
lowered. We already had at least 1 individual who I think was a perfect fit
for the FDC for example but was unable to run and had to move himself to
ineligible because of the edit requirements (he may have had over 150 edits
this year and be very active in the movement as a whole but he did not have
the 20 edits in the past 6 months required). However the committee decided
not to do so and that is their prerogative.
Unfortunately it appears that anyone interested in adjusting the criteria
will need perfecting timing while broaching this
subject next year.
This is why Greg (and myself. and the election committee from last
year who made
a proposal <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Standing_Election_Committee>,
and from what I've seen the election committee from this year) want to
have the board create a standing committee. That standing committee would
be empowered to have this discussion at any point and to discuss the
positives and negatives both themselves and with the community and make a
decision. They are much less likely to run into the problem that a one off
committee has where decisions need to be discussed and made and quickly so
that they can get other logistics in place.
James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>