[Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

[Ray Saintonge]

Birgitte SB wrote:

>--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>geni wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>En is the biggest project by any reasonable
>>>      
>>>
>>metric. Thus it seems
>>    
>>
>>>reasonable that it sould have a significant say
>>>      
>>>
>>over who ultimately
>>    
>>
>>>runs it.
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't think anyone would disagree with that, of
>>course.
>>
>>The question is, how to make sure that people in
>>smaller language 
>>projects have a proper voice.  It is not trivial to
>>do this in a sensible way.
>>
>>The current situation is not horrible in this
>>regard, because it does 
>>not matter where someone *comes from* per se, so
>>long as they take a global approach.
>>
>>--Jimbo
>>    
>>
>Why do you believe low voter turnout is due to direct
>elections?  Why is it not simply due to apathy or lack
>of understanding about the Foundation?  To a belief
>that the Foundation doesn't directly affect the
>smaller projects?  Or some other reason.  Can we
>conduct some polls as to why certain projects did not
>vote before designing a new election system?
>
These are all possibilities, but I don't see how a poll would be a 
useful metric.  With over 700 projects it is easy to see that the small 
number of people regularly involved in them may just feel that what they 
say or think doesn't matter.  It is also impossible for each of those 
projects to be directly represented on the Board. 

While I agree that the Board should be bigger there are still limits 
beyond which it would become unworkable or just as dysfunctional as a 
Board that's too small.  I don't know what the optimum number should be.

I think that the autonomy of each project and each chapter should be 
paramount.  Any limitations to that autonomy should be clear and 
unambiguous.  The application of the four general pillars as principles 
would certainly be a fair limitation, as would "Wikipedia is an 
encyclopedia" to all Wikipedias.  It also makes sense that WMF would 
have some control over its logos.

Between the Board and the individual projects we need new but complex 
structures that have no model to go by.  Councils that bring together 
Wikimedians by language, by type of project or by nationality are all 
possibilites but even there the autonomy of the smaller units needs to 
be recognized.  A technical advance may seem the best thing imaginable 
on a big Wikipedia, but a smaller Wikipedia may not be ready for it.  It 
may be discussed and approved by a Council of Wikipedias, but would 
essentially still need to be ratified by each one before it is 
applicable there.

The legal responsibilities of the Board need to be recognized, but those 
responsibilities should never be more than they need to be.  Having 
members who act illegally on their own initiative is inevitable.  If we 
consider the WMF to be a service provider it should not be required to 
act as a baby sitter.  The circumstances when it would act to block an 
illegal act must be clearly defined.  Experience can easily show us that 
random allegations by uninvolved third parties tend to give very 
uncertain expressions of what is legal.  We do need some clear 
understanding of the point at which the WMF becomes responsible for 
certain kinds of action.

We need to always keep in mind that there is no organization like 
Wikimedia, and to avoid preconceptions about what its structure will 
ultimately become.  Every step of the way needs careful consideration.

Ec