This procedure is unfair for some candidates and is sowing suspiciousness against chapters.
Last elections I nominated a candidate and also sent questions to be passed to all candidates.
The situation was absolutely crazy. Some candidates had access to chapters wiki and could have feedback from the answers of other candidates while others like the one I nominated didn't. One candidate, Phoebe, published her answers which honors her and the others not. When the election process finished nobody told the candidates without access to internal wiki the results. Still today nobody has told anything to them. And ofcourse I don't know the answers to my questions.
Chapters elected board members means that the chapters are who have to appoint them but doesn't mean that this doesn't affect and is of interest of the entire community.
Chapters would do a favor to themselves if they publish the candidatures, and keep questions to candidates and discussion publicly. Otherwise this is only creating division and suspiciousness among chapters and communities and among communities with chapters and communities without chapters.
If someone want to have private conversations everybody has freedom of speach to talk to everybody trough private means. But WMF means belong to a common, free and open project and must not be transformed in a privative asset.
I think that we must try to keep everything free and open by default. Only kept private when there are very strong reasons like legal requirements and this is not the case. It is ridiculous that we have gone to strike against SOPA and we are accepting to transform in privative the informations about a process that affects all the movement.
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 13:21:14 -0200 From: B?ria Lima berialima@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees Message-ID: <CAA2XHjDSOtH2v+BNn7xwBnN-m91gxWOHLpmtnXypFA-0YumP2g@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hello, I will (try to) answer everyone - so I will send several mails in a row... please stick with me during the process.
*Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more
transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the discussion on Meta, why not just have it there in the first place?*
Because not all the discussion will be in meta. Some parts are confidential and will not be disclose in Meta. I know you people might start scream: "CABAL!" but that is a chapters decision, not a community one. We do need to give them a safe space to work and get a consensus. And some people might feel better asking some questions in a private wiki.
*I assume that all candidates must identify with the WMF before their
candidacy is accepted, is that correct?
According with the meta page ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Process) :
*All candidate statements will have to supply the following information: *
- *The name of the nominee*
- *The name of the nominating chapter (if applicable)*
- *A statement from the chapter in support of the nominee (if
applicable)* 4. *A statement from the nominee in support of themselves, accompanied by a short CV and confirming they are willing and eligible to take a seat on the WMF board. Any candidates with Chapters wiki accounts will have those accounts disabled for the duration of the selection process.*
So, no, they don't need to send their document to Phillipe.
- As well, will candidates who are chapter executive members be required to
take a leave of absence or to resign from their executive position during their Board candidacy?
Another question already answered in a document, this time in the Resolution (
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_s... ):
*Chapter-selected Trustees must resign from any chapter-board, governance, chapter-paid, or Foundation-paid position for the duration of their terms as Trustees, but may continue to serve chapters in informal or advisory capacities.*
*One more question, this time about who will actually be doing the voting.
Can you clarify exactly who will be voting in this selection process?
Will
it be one representative for each of the 38 chapters, or will more than
one
representative be participating?*
Who will vote? Everyone here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Chapters
Each chapter has a vote, and how they decide their candidates is up to them. Some held a internal vote, some decide in General Assembly, some have an internal discussion in ML... you would need to ask each one of the 38 to know the exact process. _____ *B?ria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 03:49, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups.
On 31 January 2012 22:43, B?ria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Risker. let's go by question.
*Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?
Everthing that is in Chapters wiki is replicated in meta. All the links
in
the Call for Candidates (CfC) are from meta. Everyone can read the discussion. So far the only discussion in chapters wiki was the
election
for moderators, and the review of the CfC wording. We are not trying to exclude the community - by the contrary - we would be glad to have the community involved in the process, not only with questions, but also as candidates.
Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the discussion on Meta, why not just have it there in the first place?
- Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire
Wikimedia
community to see? *
The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the candidate has no problem with that.
I'm sorry, I have a problem with that. All other candidates for Board seats must publicly disclose their real name in their candidate presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of Trustees anonymously or under a pseudonym).
I assume that all candidates must identify with the WMF before their candidacy is accepted, is that correct?
As well, will candidates who are chapter executive members be required to take a leave of absence or to resign from their executive position during their Board candidacy?
*Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of
Wikimedians)
be considered?*
With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No.
There
are a vote for elect the community members of the Board, that happened
last
year and will occur again next year. This vote is decided only by the chapters according with WMF bylaws itself. Quoting: "Be*ginning in July 2008, two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered years*"[1].
I am pleased to hear that questions and suggestions from the majority of Wikimedians will be accepted.
One more question, this time about who will actually be doing the voting. Can you clarify exactly who will be voting in this selection process? Will it be one representative for each of the 38 chapters, or will more than one representative be participating?
Thanks again,
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Joan Goma jrgoma@gmail.com wrote:
This procedure is unfair for some candidates and is sowing suspiciousness against chapters.
Please read http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_IV_-... section 3D
"Chapter-selected Trustees. Two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered years according to a procedure approved by a majority of the chapters and approved by the Board. Amendments to this procedure also must be approved by a majority of the chapters and approved by the Board. "
Last elections I nominated a candidate and also sent questions to be passed to all candidates.
The situation was absolutely crazy. Some candidates had access to chapters wiki and could have feedback from the answers of other candidates while others like the one I nominated didn't. One candidate, Phoebe, published her answers which honors her and the others not. When the election process finished nobody told the candidates without access to internal wiki the results. Still today nobody has told anything to them. And ofcourse I don't know the answers to my questions.
The bylaws do not say that the chapters have to vote candidates, but to select board members. This means that the rules are different from those of an election.
Chapters elected board members means that the chapters are who have to appoint them but doesn't mean that this doesn't affect and is of interest of the entire community.
I don't know Catalan, I know that in Spanish "elegido" means both elected and selected, but in English the difference is clear.
Chapters would do a favor to themselves if they publish the candidatures, and keep questions to candidates and discussion publicly. Otherwise this is only creating division and suspiciousness among chapters and communities and among communities with chapters and communities without chapters.
There are a number of reasons to keep the discussion closed. First, chapters may propose for a seat someone who is not interested (let's say I suggest Barck Obama), or the non-selected candidate does not want to be publicly known as a loser. But I agree it would be good if the Chapters gave a report saying: "We considered 10 people, 3 of them declined the offer, and among the other 7 we though Alice and Bob were the best choice because of this and this".
I think that we must try to keep everything free and open by default. Only kept private when there are very strong reasons like legal requirements and this is not the case. It is ridiculous that we have gone to strike against SOPA and we are accepting to transform in privative the informations about a process that affects all the movement.
Privacy is a right too. Cruccone
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Please read http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_IV_-... section 3D
"Chapter-selected Trustees. Two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered years according to a procedure approved by a majority of the chapters and approved by the Board. Amendments to this procedure also must be approved by a majority of the chapters and approved by the Board. "
This is the second time on a thread on this subject today that someone has responded with a link to the bylaws. "This is the way things are" is not an effective response to "here's how I think things should be." And now that we've had the link posted several times, it would be nice if no one else felt the urge to point out the obvious.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 19:17, Joan Goma jrgoma@gmail.com wrote:
The situation was absolutely crazy. Some candidates had access to chapters wiki and could have feedback from the answers of other candidates while others like the one I nominated didn't. One candidate, Phoebe, published her answers which honors her and the others not. When the election process finished nobody told the candidates without access to internal wiki the results. Still today nobody has told anything to them. And ofcourse I don't know the answers to my questions.
As the most of those issues depend on MediaWiki features and moderators, it will be changed this time. No candidate would have access to the list and wiki, and candidates will have as equal as possible treatment (it's not possible to control what would 100-150 members of chapters list share with whom).
Chapters would do a favor to themselves if they publish the candidatures, and keep questions to candidates and discussion publicly. Otherwise this is only creating division and suspiciousness among chapters and communities and among communities with chapters and communities without chapters.
If someone want to have private conversations everybody has freedom of speach to talk to everybody trough private means. But WMF means belong to a common, free and open project and must not be transformed in a privative asset.
I think that we must try to keep everything free and open by default. Only kept private when there are very strong reasons like legal requirements and this is not the case. It is ridiculous that we have gone to strike against SOPA and we are accepting to transform in privative the informations about a process that affects all the movement.
Agreed.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org