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

[Birgitte SB]

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> 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
> 

After reading that I am honestly not sure what your
position is.  But I do agree with your last sentance. 
I think asking some of these communities why they did
not participate in the election would give something
useful to consider.  Maybe polling is too complicated,
but even asking a simple open-ended question would be
worthwile.  If anyone here participates at an
underepresented community I really would be interested
if you could ask for people who did not vote to share
the reasons they gave for not participating.  And of
course report some of these answers back here.  I
don't know.  I could be completely wrong about
indirect elections.  But I just wonder if we are
overlooking a much simpler solution to the lack of
participation.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com