[Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 79, Issue 65
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Thu Oct 21 12:52:11 UTC 2010
The fact that nobody informed the "losers" that they had lost wins
definitely not the price for best practices. I know for a fact that the
person involved in the election process has been suggested to do so. People
do appreciate a word of thanks for being a candidate and a good loser.
As far as I know only winners have been announced. It is not clear even to
participants in the election how many votes they got. A thick veil of
secrecy hung over this election. I was warned that by posting my candidacy I
might no longer be eligible ...
So yes, there is room for improvement in the procedure. In the end good
people were elected. People with a long track record in our movement. As far
as I am concerned all is well that ends well. <grin> it could have been
On 21 October 2010 13:48, Joan Goma <jrgoma at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you are very generous saying “chapter selection process is not very
> transparent”, saying "absolutely opaque outside the chapters" perhaps is a
> bit more realistic.
> I have to say that according to the rules of the call in last election I
> presented a candidate to the chapter’s board selected members.
> He devoted his time to write the candidacy and answer the questions made by
> the chapters.
> The process is so opaque that nobody contacted him after the elections.
> Officially he doesn’t know yet if he has been elected or not.
> Of course nobody has thanked him his effort for participating in the
> We don’t know neither who else participated in the process nor the answers
> given by the other participants.
> I have done my proposals at movement roles page but it seems to me that it
> is difficult to understand why this information is not publicly available.
> By the way, I have to say thanks to you, Phoebe. You published your
> candidacy and your answers which honours you.
> Message: 8
> > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:52:46 -0700
> > From: phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [Foundation-l] chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter
> > Damian)
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> > <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > <AANLkTinKYDzBsOuims+4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz at mail.gmail.com<AANLkTinKYDzBsOuims%2B4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz at mail.gmail.com>
> <AANLkTinKYDzBsOuims%2B4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz at mail.gmail.com<AANLkTinKYDzBsOuims%252B4dW2s9Cd3M1vmxJECSJTAA1Sz at mail.gmail.com>
> > >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia <shipmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that
> > the
> > >> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in
> > >> > bylaws
> > >> > to indicate that.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee
> > >> positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be
> > >> selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
> > >>
> > >> I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the
> > >> community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as
> > broad
> > >> as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that
> > still
> > >> means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the
> > chapters
> > >> are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board
> > >> majority.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community
> > > large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct
> > > responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the
> > to
> > > revoke their representation.
> > >
> > > Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
> > > representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election
> > is
> > > very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many
> > people
> > > belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would
> > otherwise
> > > meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely
> > > that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet
> > the
> > > definition of "community member") are members of chapters. ?I have a
> > > time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> > > community. ?They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away
> > from the original subject of moderation....
> > As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump
> > :)
> > I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or
> > very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and
> > could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the
> > second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was
> > our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to
> > improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next,
> > will be better. That's something we all want to see.
> > Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale
> > behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation --
> > to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely
> > dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of
> > voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller
> > language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name
> > recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder.
> > Additionally, the chapters *are* a part of the greater Wikimedia
> > movement, and selecting seats via chapters helps ensure that those
> > chapters get a place at the table. In the U.S. there has not been a
> > chapter presence until WM-NYC was founded, but that's not true in
> > other places -- Wikimedia Deutschland was of course founded before the
> > WMF itself was founded, and many of the other chapters are well
> > established too.
> > Now, you could certainly ask, given all that, why in the world the
> > chapters would have selected me -- yet another American English
> > Wikipedian -- to be on the board. And that's a perfectly valid
> > question! It's important to realize however that I am not a
> > "representative" of the chapters. On the board itself, I am identified
> > as a board member or sometimes as a community board member, but not as
> > someone who is there specifically to advance chapter interests or be
> > more involved with chapters than anyone else (there are currently
> > three board members on the chapcom, for instance: one is
> > chapter-selected, one is community-elected, and one is appointed). I
> > am honored that the chapters thought that I would be a good board
> > member *in general*, to work on all of the issues that the WMF faces
> > -- and hopefully that is why they selected me :)
> > As for community accountability, I certainly feel accountable to the
> > community. I also feel accountable to the long-term survival and
> > health of the Wikimedia projects, and will do my utmost to help make
> > decisions that will both help ensure this survival and that also
> > represent community interests and needs. I have been around for long
> > enough, and thought hard enough about the community, to realize the
> > obvious -- that there is no single "community" for a trustee to
> > represent. There are editors of all different types and interests,
> > there are chapter members, there are even readers... but I do think
> > that we have some important shared values, of openness and freedom and
> > knowledge-sharing, and those values underpin my decisions.
> > As for knowing what it is the board does -- yes by all means if you
> > care about this topic go to the movement roles meeting (I have a work
> > conflict, sadly). I also hope to start having more open IRC community
> > meetings, as I mentioned a month or so ago at the IRC meeting with
> > Bishakha -- I just haven't had time to schedule them yet is all. Soon
> > :) And please ask questions anytime.
> > -- phoebe
> > --
> > * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
> > <at> gmail.com *
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
More information about the foundation-l