I think you are very generous saying “chapter selection process is not very transparent”, saying "absolutely opaque outside the chapters" perhaps is a bit more realistic.
I have to say that according to the rules of the call in last election I presented a candidate to the chapter’s board selected members.
He devoted his time to write the candidacy and answer the questions made by the chapters.
The process is so opaque that nobody contacted him after the elections. Officially he doesn’t know yet if he has been elected or not.
Of course nobody has thanked him his effort for participating in the process.
We don’t know neither who else participated in the process nor the answers given by the other participants.
I have done my proposals at movement roles page but it seems to me that it is difficult to understand why this information is not publicly available.
By the way, I have to say thanks to you, Phoebe. You published your candidacy and your answers which honours you.
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:52:46 -0700 From: phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian) To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: <AANLkTinKYDzBsOuims+4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz@mail.gmail.comAANLkTinKYDzBsOuims%2B4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia shipmaster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that
the
board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the bylaws to indicate that.
Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as
broad
as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that
still
means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the
chapters
are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board majority.
Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community
to
revoke their representation.
Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process
is
very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many
people
belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would
otherwise
meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet
the
definition of "community member") are members of chapters. ?I have a hard time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the community. ?They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
Risker/Anne
changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away from the original subject of moderation....
As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in :)
I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next, will be better. That's something we all want to see.
Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation -- to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder. Additionally, the chapters *are* a part of the greater Wikimedia movement, and selecting seats via chapters helps ensure that those chapters get a place at the table. In the U.S. there has not been a chapter presence until WM-NYC was founded, but that's not true in other places -- Wikimedia Deutschland was of course founded before the WMF itself was founded, and many of the other chapters are well established too.
Now, you could certainly ask, given all that, why in the world the chapters would have selected me -- yet another American English Wikipedian -- to be on the board. And that's a perfectly valid question! It's important to realize however that I am not a "representative" of the chapters. On the board itself, I am identified as a board member or sometimes as a community board member, but not as someone who is there specifically to advance chapter interests or be more involved with chapters than anyone else (there are currently three board members on the chapcom, for instance: one is chapter-selected, one is community-elected, and one is appointed). I am honored that the chapters thought that I would be a good board member *in general*, to work on all of the issues that the WMF faces -- and hopefully that is why they selected me :)
As for community accountability, I certainly feel accountable to the community. I also feel accountable to the long-term survival and health of the Wikimedia projects, and will do my utmost to help make decisions that will both help ensure this survival and that also represent community interests and needs. I have been around for long enough, and thought hard enough about the community, to realize the obvious -- that there is no single "community" for a trustee to represent. There are editors of all different types and interests, there are chapter members, there are even readers... but I do think that we have some important shared values, of openness and freedom and knowledge-sharing, and those values underpin my decisions.
As for knowing what it is the board does -- yes by all means if you care about this topic go to the movement roles meeting (I have a work conflict, sadly). I also hope to start having more open IRC community meetings, as I mentioned a month or so ago at the IRC meeting with Bishakha -- I just haven't had time to schedule them yet is all. Soon :) And please ask questions anytime.
-- phoebe
--
- I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
Hoi, The fact that nobody informed the "losers" that they had lost wins definitely not the price for best practices. I know for a fact that the person involved in the election process has been suggested to do so. People do appreciate a word of thanks for being a candidate and a good loser.
As far as I know only winners have been announced. It is not clear even to participants in the election how many votes they got. A thick veil of secrecy hung over this election. I was warned that by posting my candidacy I might no longer be eligible ...
So yes, there is room for improvement in the procedure. In the end good people were elected. People with a long track record in our movement. As far as I am concerned all is well that ends well. <grin> it could have been better </grin> Thanks, GerardM
On 21 October 2010 13:48, Joan Goma jrgoma@gmail.com wrote:
I think you are very generous saying “chapter selection process is not very transparent”, saying "absolutely opaque outside the chapters" perhaps is a bit more realistic.
I have to say that according to the rules of the call in last election I presented a candidate to the chapter’s board selected members.
He devoted his time to write the candidacy and answer the questions made by the chapters.
The process is so opaque that nobody contacted him after the elections. Officially he doesn’t know yet if he has been elected or not.
Of course nobody has thanked him his effort for participating in the process.
We don’t know neither who else participated in the process nor the answers given by the other participants.
I have done my proposals at movement roles page but it seems to me that it is difficult to understand why this information is not publicly available.
By the way, I have to say thanks to you, Phoebe. You published your candidacy and your answers which honours you.
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:52:46 -0700 From: phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian) To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: <AANLkTinKYDzBsOuims+4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz@mail.gmail.comAANLkTinKYDzBsOuims%2B4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz@mail.gmail.com
<AANLkTinKYDzBsOuims%2B4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz@mail.gmail.comAANLkTinKYDzBsOuims%252B4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia shipmaster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that
the
board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in
the
bylaws to indicate that.
Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as
broad
as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that
still
means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the
chapters
are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board majority.
Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community
at
large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the
community
to
revoke their representation.
Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election
process
is
very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many
people
belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would
otherwise
meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely
acknowledged
that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet
the
definition of "community member") are members of chapters. ?I have a
hard
time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the community. ?They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
Risker/Anne
changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away from the original subject of moderation....
As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump
in
:)
I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next, will be better. That's something we all want to see.
Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation -- to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder. Additionally, the chapters *are* a part of the greater Wikimedia movement, and selecting seats via chapters helps ensure that those chapters get a place at the table. In the U.S. there has not been a chapter presence until WM-NYC was founded, but that's not true in other places -- Wikimedia Deutschland was of course founded before the WMF itself was founded, and many of the other chapters are well established too.
Now, you could certainly ask, given all that, why in the world the chapters would have selected me -- yet another American English Wikipedian -- to be on the board. And that's a perfectly valid question! It's important to realize however that I am not a "representative" of the chapters. On the board itself, I am identified as a board member or sometimes as a community board member, but not as someone who is there specifically to advance chapter interests or be more involved with chapters than anyone else (there are currently three board members on the chapcom, for instance: one is chapter-selected, one is community-elected, and one is appointed). I am honored that the chapters thought that I would be a good board member *in general*, to work on all of the issues that the WMF faces -- and hopefully that is why they selected me :)
As for community accountability, I certainly feel accountable to the community. I also feel accountable to the long-term survival and health of the Wikimedia projects, and will do my utmost to help make decisions that will both help ensure this survival and that also represent community interests and needs. I have been around for long enough, and thought hard enough about the community, to realize the obvious -- that there is no single "community" for a trustee to represent. There are editors of all different types and interests, there are chapter members, there are even readers... but I do think that we have some important shared values, of openness and freedom and knowledge-sharing, and those values underpin my decisions.
As for knowing what it is the board does -- yes by all means if you care about this topic go to the movement roles meeting (I have a work conflict, sadly). I also hope to start having more open IRC community meetings, as I mentioned a month or so ago at the IRC meeting with Bishakha -- I just haven't had time to schedule them yet is all. Soon :) And please ask questions anytime.
-- phoebe
--
- I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The fact that nobody informed the "losers" that they had lost wins definitely not the price for best practices. I know for a fact that the person involved in the election process has been suggested to do so. People do appreciate a word of thanks for being a candidate and a good loser.
As far as I know only winners have been announced. It is not clear even to participants in the election how many votes they got. A thick veil of secrecy hung over this election. I was warned that by posting my candidacy I might no longer be eligible ...
So yes, there is room for improvement in the procedure. In the end good people were elected. People with a long track record in our movement. As far as I am concerned all is well that ends well. <grin> it could have been better </grin> Thanks, GerardM
You were warned that making your candidacy public would render you ineligible for election? That seems... highly strange, and at odds with the Wikimedia culture that chapters are supposed to support. Can you elaborate on what happened?
Nathan
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org