[Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Michael Snow]

On 4/30/2013 3:54 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
>> I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
>> (those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
>> or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
>> *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
>> should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
>> Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
>> in Berlin!
>>
>> (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
>> course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
>> elections)
> I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members).
I also agree that it would be best to treat all staff the same in this 
regard, whether they technically work for a chapter or the global 
foundation. I think that's particularly true because the technical 
employment arrangements don't necessarily line up with true function, 
and could lead to rather odd results in specific cases. As we've seen or 
could easily imagine, staff might be designated as temporary 
contractors, be delegated to work at another organization, or have their 
salary paid by one entity while working for another. All of these things 
could happen for perfectly good reasons in operational terms, but have 
no bearing on whether that person should be able to participate in these 
elections.
> BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.
This is a valid consideration, but I'd like to offer a counterargument, 
which is (at least in my mind) an important reason the rotation of board 
seats was set up the way it is now. As we've seen, the process of 
organizing and conducting these elections is a significant burden, 
especially on the volunteers doing the work but also for the candidates 
who choose to participate. I would suggest that it also imposes costs on 
the community at large in terms of the attention and energy directed to 
the election. I consider those costs well worth paying overall, but 
believe that it's also better not to run them up too often. I'm not sure 
that the benefits of this change warrant effectively doubling the load 
the process creates.

--Michael Snow