I think this is dancing around the perceived problem. You can either have
open, democratic, and fair elections with a result that represents the will
of the electorate, or you can have a group of people who are diverse in
terms of nationality, gender, ethnicity, etcetera. Not both. And I don't
think that tinkering with the formula for election and board composition is
really going to do anything to address that.
Seeing the candidates that stood, I think that the real problem is the lack
of female candidates for us to elect. And that is a cultural problem,
exacerbated by the fact that unfortunately Wikimedia projects can be quite
a hostile place for women, and understandably many women don't want to make
themselves targets for harassment. Once there is a more even number of men
and women running, I think that this particular problem will take care of
itself.
Cheers,
Craig
On 7 June 2015 at 04:58, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm happy with S/N/O and with the election
winners, but concerned about the
diversity of the Board. I wonder if rethinking the entire board structure
is in order, for example we could have:
1. One seat per continent, elected by the whole voting community
2. Two affiliate seats chosen by all affiliates including user groups.
3. Two appointed seats with non-renewable terms.
Thoughts?
Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>