[Foundation-l] Florence and the election

[Michael Snow]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>   
>> It will be interesting to again have an election in which there is no 
>> incumbent running. From the reaction, it appears the candidates are 
>> looking forward to that, and I hope we get an abundance of good 
>> candidates. While only one board member will be chosen in this election, 
>> the process has also helped other good people become better known in the 
>> community prior to serving on the board.
>>
>> I am puzzled by one thing, though. Historically, female candidates have 
>> tended to do quite well in our elections, both for the board and on 
>> various projects, and yet not a single woman is running so far. I can 
>> certainly think of a few I would consider excellent candidates. Now I do 
>> not mean to suggest that because Florence is a woman, she should be 
>> replaced by a woman, or some other quota-like arrangement. But I do want 
>> to strongly encourage more thoughtful people who care about Wikimedia, 
>> whether or not they are female, to take advantage of this opportunity 
>> and make themselves available. (Again, this does not reflect on any of 
>> the current candidates, I simply want as many good options as possible, 
>> and figure the voting system will help us make a strong choice.)
>>     
> Okay, now you have me really befuzzled. Why didn't you make this obser-
> vation directed the other way, when Anthere and Angela were the only
> chosen trustees?
Because the observation is about the pool of candidates, not about the 
ultimate selections. I fully expect that people will vote their 
preferences based on the individual merits of the candidates, not gender 
(or national origin, ethnicity, whatever). But when the available group 
is 11-0 male so far, though I can quickly think of women I'd be happy to 
see run, it causes me to wonder. Aside from the time issue Phoebe 
mentioned, what is holding back a broader group of good candidates, male 
or female, from participating in community elections?
> Or for that matter, why choose to focus on the gender
> angle, and ignore for instance the current blatant norte-americano
> bias on the board? I honestly don't see you have a point to stand upon...
>   
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Going based on 
country of residence, the current board has four North Americans and 
four Europeans. What makes that a blatant North American bias? And as I 
said, my question is more about the candidate pool from which the 
community will choose. The candidates in this election are fairly mixed 
in this regard, also including one from the Middle East and two 
transplants (from Asia and to Oceania). Looking at the candidates, 
clearly the gender disparity is more striking.

--Michael Snow