Sue writes:
"Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway.
"Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?"
It makes sense to me. I think many thoughtful people recognize that the edit-count requirement is a fairly weak metric of engagement in the Wikimedia community. I also think the exemptions actually have reflected the same recognition -- that someone who is not a dedicated editor may be a committed and contributing member of the community in other ways than super-numerous recent edits.
That there should be some threshold of engagement I think is necessary to prevent capture of WMF board, but I'm not sure it needs to be as high as it is right now.
FWIW, when I was on staff I did not vote for WMF board positions, even though I could, because I thought it was important in the role I was playing to recuse myself from engagement in the elections. I don't think that reasoning would apply to all staff members, but it felt applicable in my particular case.
--Mike
Hello, If those three seats are to be elected by the community, then voting should be restricted actually to the power editors. I could imagine that one of those three seats - or, instead, a fourth one - is elected by the staff, maybe plus the members of the Advisory board. E.g. Greenpeace Germany has 1/4 of its board members elected by staff. With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3 by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the board members would be not directly coopted. Many other varieties are possible, of course. The staff could together vote one elector who would take part in the selection by the chapters, the same for the Wikimedia User Groups. But then, this voting group should select ultimately not 2 but 3 seats. People who don't edit but belong to the movement can have their influence via the chapters and in future the thorgs.
Kind regards
Ziko
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org