Gabe: great first logo! Let's use it. Florence: I do not have access to the chapter wiki. We were just all added to a mailing list, and invited to appoint 2 people from each user group to join the list. Then I believe the list will together come up with a proposed mechanism for nomination, which will be reviewed by the WMF Board within 2 weeks. Would you like to be added to that list?
I will forward the last email on the topic that I've gotten. I am willing to be the other person from WOW, but this is a busy month so I would also be glad to see another person step up. Warmly, SJ On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:15 AM Florence Devouard <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello > Le 04/03/2019 à 20:30, Samuel Klein a écrit : > > For group contacts + reports : It would be good to have an annual > nomination thread, and short wiki vote, a few months before our annual > report? (*August* each year) > > Ok. So we could put that back on the table around May ? > > > That way we can use the same energy to summarize what's been happening; > those involved in active projects should feel welcome to be liaisons; and > we keep the meta pages up to date. > > On board voting: > > For information, the signpost (well, Bluerasberry) has published this that > is worth reading: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/In_focus > > > + Arranging private votes has been a perennial weakness for the movement. > Would others be interested in public discussion of pros/cons of different > candidates? > > For information : > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats > > Ok, vote is one thing. Nomination is another. > > So to start with, I am not sure what is currently the process for > nominating candidates... > Apparently, voting takes care on the ChapterWiki, which is a private wiki > (I suppose that Sam has access to it... do you Sam ?) > I presume that nomination process also takes place on the ChapterWiki ? > Can you tell us if that is the case Sam ? > > > + I respect the concerns around voting multiple times: we want people to > be comfortable joining many groups while only voting once. Is there any > proposal yet re: how to do this? > > Unclear > > + Say that, per Nemo, only incorporated groups vote in the final > selection. Perhaps we could share formal recommendations with that group, > before their vote (and sort those out on Meta). > > > As said previously, ALL groups can vote. It is not restricted to > incorporated groups. > But indeed, we can also simply choose to NOT vote. But if so, this is > something we should explicitely decide. > > I vaguely feel that what we should do is > 1) participate in the nomination process (IF we have a name to propose and > IF it is not in the current list - if list there is... so first thing would > be to figure out where the nomination list would actually be...) > 2) not participate in the vote (because it is unclear who our membership > is and it is likely many of us are in other groups) > > What about starting by polling our "members" on a wiki page about how they > feel about the offline group actually trying to vote for someone ? > > > Florence > > > > SJ > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks for raising the point. >> >> Florence Devouard, 27/02/19 14:17: >> > Yet... an WMF affiliate has some obligations... so how should we deal >> > with that in the least time-consuming, least-bureaucratic, >> > least-expensive way, yet playing our role in representing, recruting >> and >> > promoting offline in the mouvement ? >> >> From my point of view as a supporter of offline projects, the ideal >> solution is that all affiliates agree that only incorporated entities >> will have a formal vote (whatever its weight) in the final phase of the >> selection of 2 board seats, to avoid creating new unwanted work about >> internal governance. >> >> Alternatively, a simple method might be to decide that all user groups >> will have a discussion/vote on a certain wiki page where all their >> members can join (Meta-Wiki may be enough if it can be public), so that >> it's easy to identify unwanted patterns. (And establish a quorum or >> whatever other criteria is decided.) >> >> Federico >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Offline-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l >> > > > -- > Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 > > -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
