SJ, Can you please contact any Wikimedia chapter and ask them to request nominations? There are two criteria for nominations - one is that their name has to be posted on the nomination page, and the other is that a Wikimedia chapter has to support their nomination. < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominat… Get any chapter to make any request for whatever kind of person they would nominate, then maybe they can call for whatever they want. Going into more detail - the traditional duties of a board member are that they approve the annual budget and oversee an organization's executive director. That could mean anything, but such as it is, this is the role description. The election belongs to the chapters. My request would be that anyone get chapters engaged in any way possible, from discussing nominations, to talking now about what kind of person they would elect, to planning questions to ask before and during the election, and to plan how to choose how each organizations vote will be cast in such a way that it reflects the desire of chapter members. All Wikimedia chapters are encouraged to request the involvement of all other Wikimedia chapters in this election. 2 of 10 seats of the board of trustees will be chosen. Ask questions everywhere. This is a wiki election and should proceed in wiki style. yours, On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Samuel Klein &lt;meta.sj(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Dear Chris and all, > What sorts of candidates are you looking for? How are you directing your > search / how can we best help get the word to people who might be good > candidates? What do you see as the skills or other qualities the a Trustee > needs, or that would be effective on the Board? > The FAQ says little about nominations, and the nomination form is also > extremely generic. Given the current difficulties around strategy & > governance, more detail seems called for. > Warmly, > Sam > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Chris Keating &lt;chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Wikimedia friends, > > > **Call for Nominations - Affiliate Selected Board Seats** > > > This year the Wikimedia chapters and Thematic Organisations will select > two > > members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board. > > > We would like to invite nominations for candidates to be elected to the > WMF > > board in this process. Please help us by distributing this call for > > candidates as widely as possible through such forums as mailing lists, > > village pumps, and blogs. > > > *Role of WMF Board members* > > > The Wikimedia Foundation board provide governance and strategic oversight > > of the WMF. The role of Wikimedia Foundation board members is set out in > > detail here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member > > > Successful candidates will bring expertise and understanding to help the > > Board further its goals and ability to work effectively at a strategic > and > > governance level. The work of the Board is conducted in English (though > > fluency in additional languages is an advantage) and the role involves a > > significant commitment, including travel to several in-person meetings in > > California or worldwide. > > > *Nominations and selection process* > > > Nominations should be posted using this form on Meta-Wiki: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominat… > > > If you need assistance completing the wiki-template, please contact one > of > > the election facilitators who will be happy to assist. > > > Nominations are open until the end of 8 March 2016 (midnight UTC). To be > > entered into the ballot, a candidate's nomination must be accompanied by > a > > statement of support from a Chapter or Thematic Organisation, which may > > accompany the nomination or be received no later than 22 March 2016. > > > The timeline for the selection process can be seen here: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016 > > > There is also a selection FAQ here: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats_election_FAQ > > > Many thanks, > > > Chris Keating > > Lorenzo Losa > > Lane Rasberry > > - Election Facilitators > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> > > -- > > Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 > 4266 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com

Risker, I think Lane understood SJ's question, and stated that it's outside his group's mandate. I sympathize with Lane's position. I agree with SJ's concern about what kind of candidates should be considered, but I do not think it would be appropriate for a group of three to set the tone of what kind of candidates the *chapters* should choose. I hope that some way or another, there can be some open and thoughtful communication about what qualities would be most helpful, that might help individuals decide whether they want to apply, and that the chapters might find helpful in evaluating whatever candidates emerge. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 18, 2016 8:16 PM, "Risker" &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Good points, thanks for clarifying. Agreed. -Pete On Feb 18, 2016 9:29 PM, "Risker" &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Risker, SJ, Pete, and others - Help! This election is what people make of it. It might be the case that many people concerned about Wikimedia governance do not even realize what is at stake in this election. There has recently been a lot of discussion about the board of trustees. In this election, there will be turnover of two seats. If anyone has ideas for getting chapters more involved in the election then please get anyone involved in any way that you can. SJ in response to your questions 1. So far as I know no one has contacted chapters directly. I would like for every chapter to take responsibility for contacting a few others and confirming that they are engaged in the election. It would be difficult to centrally manage communication with everyone. Do you know anyone at any chapter that you could ask to have their chapter discuss the election with a few others? 2. I do not expect anyone to contribute to the election questions. Anyone may. Last election there were four candidates and only about 2/3 of chapters voted, so perhaps the votes were cast by personal connections. My personal perspective is that a lively election discussion has not historically happened. One could happen this time - if you can encourage anyone to start one then please do so. Anne - 1. Yes there are three white males on the election committee. If you identify someone else who wants the role then please have them contact me and I will advocate that the election committee give them my position if you think diversity is useful. There is nothing that I am doing in this role that I could not do outside of it, and I feel that any non-white male in this role would get no particular privilege to do anything they could not otherwise, but just the same, consider my position open for anyone who wants it. I would coach my replacement. 2. I care less about the characteristics of candidates and more about the characteristics of voting organizations. I want every organization with a vote to vote, and if you can think of a way to encourage more organizations to vote, then share. I want the inactive chapters to vote even if they have not had wiki-engagement for years. Election success from my perspective is the highest possible vote rate and the most communication among chapters to encourage each other to vote and to discuss how they will vote. If possible, I would like every voting organization to give a statement describing how they decided their vote, but that is left to the chapter to share as they like and I think it would be unfair to pressure anyone to do this. In some cases voting might mean one person cast the vote without consulting with others, and in other cases it might mean that there was an effort to get opinions from a large chapter membership. Whatever the case, I want all organizations to vote, and I would prefer that chapters look to each other and think about everyone else's vote process. Everyone - feel free to speak up if you want election assistance! yours, On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Sam Klein &lt;sjklein(a)hcs.harvard.edu&gt; wrote: -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com