Hi Rogol,
If you want to make an exception to pseudonymity and require real name disclosure for
volunteers in such a post then a post on a talkpage or on this mailing list isn't
enough to get a change. You or someone else would need to start a request for comment,
presumably on meta, and you'd need enough to agree with you to get consensus.
It would be a big change from the principle of only requiring real names for paid staff,
and for volunteers such as trustees who are in roles where it is legally required.
Regards
WSC
Nataliia,
Thanks for your prompt response. You have made your decision, and if you
have solicited applications for the Committee on the basis that the members
may remain pseudonymous, then I would not expect you to resile from that.
However for the next round perhaps you may wish to reconsider your policy
in the light of two points.
Firstly, I am not suggesting that members of the Committee be required to
link their real names and Wikimedia handles. I am suggesting that they be
required to act under their real names. This allows a transparent exercise
of their powers to, for example, bar candidates from standing for
nomination to the Board, and make it clear to the community in general and
the potential candidates in particular, where they might have a conflict of
interest. If a potential member of the Election Committee canot take the
risk of associating their name with the Foundation for fear of reprisals,
then that is regrettable, but the same would be true if they wished to
stand for the Board. There must be a balance between transparency and
getting the best candidates and in this case I suggest that you have struck
the balance in the wrong place.
Secondly, it has been claimed by Adrian that there is no need for this, as
he has been involved in government elections and has never been required to
disclose his name to the electors. I do not know which government he is
referring to, or how important a role he had in the election process, but
in the stable mature democracy where I live, the members of the electoral
commission are publicly named, the returning officers with responsibility
for conducting the elections are named (and are usually elected officials),
the count is conducted in a public forum, often televised, to which the
candidates have right of access, and the returning officers announce the
results in public, explicitly giving their names as part of the
announcement. I think that you can afford to be as transparent as that.
"Rogol"
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv <ntymkiv(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>