-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Hi,
On 6/18/19 3:24 PM, Yaron Koren wrote:
That's what I'm writing about: I now think that the committee should be decided via open elections, instead of having the committee appoint itself. At the moment, this group has a complete lack of accountability: they could make any decision whatsoever at any time, and, according to the rules, there is literally no one who can stop them. With every passing year and additional "renewal" (that's what it's called), [3] it seems to me that their legitimacy as representing the views of the overall community decreases.
I don't agree with your conclusion, but I understand and somewhat agree with having a bit more turnover/change in the makeup of the committee.
But my understanding is that there simply has been a lack of candidates stepping forward. In the discussion for 2018 candidates[1], Dereckson said that there were only 3 applications for people not already on the committee, and 11 total for 10 spots. Maybe Amir or another committee member can shed some light on what the situation was like this year.
I think even less people are likely to stand for an election than in the current selection process.
So, what do people think - is there any kind of significant support for the idea of elections for the CoC Committee?
I think it really depends for what kind of a makeup of committee we're looking for. I'd like to see the committee staffed with active Wikimedia developers who are familiar with our community norms, and then diversity across background/geography/employer/etc. I'm not sure whether an election is really the best way to create that kind of a committee.
In any case, so far I've personally been happy with the candidates and don't yet see any reason for change.
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Ub92clsm4nuzuvzl
- -- Legoktm