Anders Wennersten, 31/07/2013 09:18:
As Bishakha I believe time now is ripe to strengthen
the election
process and that we should aim for a standing committee. In the same
time I think it would be good to look into this group a bit further
(technical support, how to elect the committee, split dates for
FDC/board elections etc).
I have put up a proposal at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Po…
where I differ with Bishakha on the size and think five members, more
dedicated, would do
The proposals differ, but they all seem to share some premises that I
don't understand. In my opinion:
1) if we have few candidates and few votes for the WMF board election,
of course the board itself is responsible of this and has to take care
of it: it's not about election processes or other superstructures;
2) if the election committee as a whole failed to do its job, its scope
and recruitment should be more focused (so that people know what's
important to get done and they do it), rather than its prerogatives
further expanded.
The two are tightly connected, see (B) below.
Two examples.
A) I want the election committee to ensure that each vote is kept
private and counted fairly: this year's committee didn't explain what
the consequences of migrating to a WMF-hosted wiki are; a bigger
committee would reduce privacy.
B) I don't want the committee to decide the rules for the elections,
especially during the elections. That's both wrong and a waste of time.
Rules should be decided by the board (directly or not, addressing COI of
course) in a way that makes them integral to a broader reasoning on what
the board should be and what are the means for reaching the defined goals.
Nemo