Hi Andreas,
a quick and short response: we do not provide a response on a thing that
has not been collectively discussed. That's a standard that should be kept,
and the organization of elections is definitely something that needs
discussing every time they happen (the procedure involves several months of
work of the governance committee, before going to the board discussion).
In no way the "reluctance" should be read as a commitment to organize the
future elections in some specific way.
Our approach to this particular, upcoming elections of 2 seats was
straightforward: we recognized the fact that the community input was
missing for seats historically reserved for affiliate-only nomination. Two
of these seats are upcoming for re-election, and we focused on optimizing
the process for these two seats, with no specific intent for the community
elections in the future.
I realize it is difficult not to assume that we're secretly plotting to
take over the world, but the mundane reality is that much as we would love
to, we lack the bandwidth and to a large extent focus on things as they
come.
best,
Dariusz
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:41 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dariusz and all,
Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple
locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly
community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community
members will be given a free vote.
This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for
Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where
mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has
clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the
answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other,
Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."*
I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you think
about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing community-selected
seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new category, "Community-
and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if you do intend to abolish
community voting. After all, these were the very words, "community voting",
that were removed from the bylaws.
So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024
selection process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of
the 2021 vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024
procedure to be similar to this year, i.e.:
– either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by
the affiliates,
– or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the
community.
Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because the
community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022 (as
was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the
affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024.
But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing
community influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of
community influence on the board, because either way, the community vote
will always be filtered through affiliate preferences.
I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued strenuously
against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was concurrently talk of
removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia Weekly Faceboook
group[3] (my emphases):
*It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I
should.*
*As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or the
dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the
encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a
community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that
we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means
safety for all these values in the long run.*
*In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it
increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of
professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and
control. I am a steadfast proponent of that - you can speak to James
Heilman for more details (I've not consulted with him in advance but I'm
sure he'll tell you about my concerns about the "professional" board
members who don't seem to have our values at heart.)*
*I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest proposals from
some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control - in
the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board
members" language that might mean anything or nothing - is not negotiable.*
*I believe that we need to be moving in a mildly different direction with
the board expansion. I don't want to make a specific proposal but I will
say this: rather than an expansion that keeps community in a slight +1
position, I think we need an expansion that gives the community an
absolutely dominant role.*
*I've not spoken yet about my personal role, because I want us to focus on
the long run. But my preference is not to step aside until I am sure that
the "professional" appointed seats are absolutely always in service to the
community, by making sure that their numbers are - relative to the
community numbers - reduced.*
*Removing my voting seat - yes, it's a good idea in the long run, as I am
just one person and not that important in the grand scheme of things. But
for now, I feel that my role is to represent the moral conscience of the
movement and to prevent takeover by outside interests who do not understand
our values. So for those who ask when, I would say: when we are safe. And I
don't think that's true just yet.*
He had said earlier[4] that he would "personally only support a final
revision which explicitly includes community voting and I believe it is
abundantly clear to everyone on the board that this is mandatory."
Unfortunately he was mistaken on both counts; in the end, community voting
was struck from the bylaws by a unanimous board resolution, supported by
both James and Jimmy.[5]
Of course, if I am entirely wrong about all of this, and the board has no
intention whatsoever of making the 2024 vote for the four former
community-selected seats anything other than a free community vote, all it
takes is an email to this mailing list to commit to this now – that the
2024 selection process will be a free and open community vote – to put such
speculation to rest.
And the absence of such an email will speak volumes as well.
Best wishes,
Andreas
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
[2]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws&diff=123603&a…
[3]
https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/3448296538551486/…
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard…
Diff:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Boar…
[5]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Amended_Bylaws_Articles_IV…
P.S. Just for clarity, my brief comment earlier about the 5th and
6th-placed in last year's board selection vote was intended to indicate
that the community is quite capable of selecting diverse candidates. If the
two seats the WMF is looking to fill this year had been filled last year,
along with the 4 seats that resulted from the 2021 community vote, we would
have had, based on the reported results of that community vote:[6]
1. An American woman
2. A woman from Belarus currently living in the UK
3. A Polish man splitting his time between Poland and the US
4. An Italian man
5. A woman from Ivory Coast
6. A British man living in the Spanish island of Tenerife off the coast of
Africa
There are gaps here (Asia, foremost), but it's clearly not true that left
to its own devices, the community only votes for white men living in the
West.
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 3:13 PM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Last year the community voted that way putting
diverse candidates at 5th
and 6th position because the election method could not work properly, even
assuming (as it was) a general attempt of diverse choice by the electorate.
The main issue was in the low threshold for the candidatures. As soon as I
figured out with a simple set of simulations I tried to warn and I was
semi-harassed on the telegram chat. One person told me to shut up because I
did not understand how STV worked, another one accused me of being in bad
taste.
However, my analysis was probably right. I expected the output to be
gender balanced but not geographically balanced because of dispersion among
candidates. Unfortunately people were probably too ideologically oriented
by how good STV system was and how great was to have so many candidates.
Just to be clear, I don't dislike STV, but at least I understand how to
simulate an election. If you want to use STV for a diverse output, put a
clear selection of candidates after studying how people usually vote.
In general, this community has no literacy on electoral process but more
importantly, it does not want it. That's why discussing this topic seems
almost useless. People could mix up everything together, sometimes they
just take a concept and put it to the extreme.
The direct elections was poor because of the lack of understanding of the
voting behavior. I am sure even now somebody thinks we have elected so many
"white people" because of the "racist" (or more nuanced adjective)
electorate, but it would have happened with an honest attempt of diversity
by voters, which I think it actually occurred.
As for this issue, these other seats with this system. in the end it
looks that the power of the generic users might have increased, we are
switching probably from a totally affiliate-oriented election to an
election where the community in one step of the process cast a vote in a
open at-large election which is generally good. If you have a good
selections of candidates, the result might be balanced.
The ASBS2019 election was already an improvement enlarging the electoral
base, it was more transparent and public the previous elections of
affiliates seats, but it still had to face some issues. One is that some
affiliates cast the actual vote among few people with no real participation
of their members (even suggesting them to at least inform their members
they were casting a vote was "too much"), the other one that a small
fraction of active users could be more involved in the process in two or
more UGs.
Giving a power of selecting candidates and not final votes to affiliates
force them to care more about that step, producing convincing figures while
the at-large election still has some issues but it's more democratic for
the final choice. It might work, if correctly calibrated.
One issue of the at-large elections is the threshold for candidates,
but delegating to the affiliates might lead to both strong and diverse
options, without excessive dispersion.
Another issue of the at-large elections are the votes of institutional
account that are not properly handled. Usually people here make some weird
comparison about civil servants voting but it has nothing to do with it.
You just expect people to reach voting right by themselves and not as a
result of c.o.i paid activity, and you should be more careful about it in
the case of close results. If the internal process of affiliates select the
candidates, than that would be a good moment to decide the weigh of this
type of votes at the next step if it's an at large election. Again, you
probably don't want to deal with this problem with a close call.
In any case, again, electoral literacy is hard, while taking one concept
and enlarging it for a "soapbox moment" is easy. just to clear I have
nothing against one position or another per se. For example I disagree with
the merge of the two types of seats because it might lead to some
functional results if correctly handled but for sure with the strong
ideological positions we face, it can only lead to more chaos. So far, I
might say that both processes might end up to more open globally than in
the past. Although they could have been much better.
Like everything, we will deal with the data at the end for those who want
to care.
Alessandro
Il domenica 24 aprile 2022, 14:58:23 CEST, Andreas Kolbe <
jayen466(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate
trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board
member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1]
What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining
"community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being
"*implemented
on a trial basis for the 2022 election*".
I don't think it follows that the Board intends to use this model for the
following (2024?) election of the four seats elected last year. Indeed, I
am virtually certain they won't, given the significance of the movement
governance changes that are going on, and the level of change we have seen
in WMF board elections in the last few years.
You don't say you "trial" something if you're planning to do it only
this
once.
This whole change in process goes back to a "Call for feedback" that was
put out on December 23, 2021, i.e. one day before Christmas Eve.[1]
There is hardly a worse working day in the year to make such an
announcement, for most people in our movement, if the intent truly is to
attract widespread attention. Why not wait until the New Year, and make
such an announcement once people are back at their desks, undistracted by
holiday preparations?
(Announcing potentially contentious items or U-turns this close to
Christmas should really be forbidden. A similar thing was done in the
Abstract Wikipedia licensing discussion.[2])
Subsequently this "Call for feedback" process seems to have consisted
almost exclusively of four calls or meetings between the WMF and a number
of affiliates.[3] The description of these meetings on Meta includes the
following item:
*"By Victoria: Currently, there are a range of options for affiliates to
be involved; e.g. the same way as before (ASBS) or; the affiliates could
select among the candidates, and the community votes on those candidates,
or swap it around, to have the community vote on a shortlist for the
affiliates to vote on."*
I assume that "Victoria" refers to WMF Board Member Victoria Doronina. If
that is so, then it is somewhat obfuscatory – although not altogether
incorrect, of course – to say on the page on Meta summarising these
discussions:[4]
*"One member of the community suggested that diversity (regional, gender,
expertise and others) could be ensured if the election process was modified
to allow the affiliates to choose a shortlist of 10-15 candidates. This is
in a way similar to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee selection
process. The community would later vote and select their representatives
from that shortlist."*
Of course Victoria is a longstanding community member, but she is also
presently a WMF Board Member. If a WMF Board Member suggests changes to the
way the WMF Board will be constituted in future, then I think it would be
proper to identify this suggestion as originating from within the Board
itself. If another Victoria was meant, then this point is moot.
As for the question in your other mail, Chris, the two seats in question
are not affiliate seats. For better or worse, they are now
community-and-affiliate-selected seats.[3] They should be selected by a
method that is equitable. The method Dariusz announced is not.
A couple of people on the Kurier Diskussion page in de:WP and on Meta
have made comments to the effect that volunteers always end up voting for
white men living in the West. It's worth noting that the people placed 5th
and 6th in last year's community vote were a woman from Ivory Coast (who
lost out by the slimmest of margins) and a Brit living on Tenerife, a
Spanish island off the coast of Africa.
Andreas
[1]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing_discussio…
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call…
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call…
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
________________________________________________________________________________
*Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark
dariusz.jemielniak(a)fulbrightmail.org
<dariusz.jemielniak(a)fulbrightmail.org> as a more permanent contact
address. *