Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 2/2/12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: We're getting very off topic, but you are right that there is a problem with dormant chapters. I know nothing about the Russian chapter, but I do know how difficult it was to to get the first Wikimedia UK out of the way. Perhaps the WMF board should ask ChapCom to advise them on what chapters are inactive or insufficiently open. The board can then give them a year to improve or hold new, open elections and remove their chapter status if they don't. This was on the agenda of this weekend's Board meeting, and we plan to ask ChapCom for exactly this. This sort of feedback should be easy and frequent across the movement - not only chapters, but also the WMF, global committees, and other movement groups or major initiatives, would all benefit from regular self-assessment and feedback on their activity and transparency. Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:26, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/2/12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: We're getting very off topic, but you are right that there is a problem with dormant chapters. I know nothing about the Russian chapter, but I do know how difficult it was to to get the first Wikimedia UK out of the way. Perhaps the WMF board should ask ChapCom to advise them on what chapters are inactive or insufficiently open. The board can then give them a year to improve or hold new, open elections and remove their chapter status if they don't. This was on the agenda of this weekend's Board meeting, and we plan to ask ChapCom for exactly this. This sort of feedback should be easy and frequent across the movement - not only chapters, but also the WMF, global committees, and other movement groups or major initiatives, would all benefit from regular self-assessment and feedback on their activity and transparency. Note that the Board should discuss first with ChapCom about widening its scope. As ChapCom we never discussed about the level activity of *existing* chapters, as well as we don't gather such information. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 2/2/12 12:26 AM, Risker wrote: On 1 February 2012 18:17, Theo10011de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Riskerrisker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they require. The chapter-selected seats...nobody knows what criteria are being used, what specific expertise is being sought, what skill-set is being selected for. The end result, as best I can see from the first two rounds, is the same people who could easily have run for election, because they're well known and widely active in the community. Risker/Anne As in... Michael Snow ? Who is a fabulous guy, ran in community election, and was turned down ? Florence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
As in... Michael Snow ? Who is a fabulous guy, ran in community election, and was turned down ? Florence Domas? I do not think we respect him less because of that. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 2/3/12 11:15 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: As in... Michael Snow ? Who is a fabulous guy, ran in community election, and was turned down ? Florence Domas? I do not think we respect him less because of that. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Domas was not a chapter proposition :) Until now, chapter propositions have been Arne, Phoebe and Michael. Michael was turned down by community. Aware he would be a great asset, he was appointed by the board first, then proposed by chapters second to extend his time on the board. He was a great choice. I do not know if Phoebe would have been community elected or not. She did not try. I can only guess that if she were not chosen this year by chapters, she could very well be community elected in the future because she is obviously very involved and doing good stuff. Excellent secretary as well. As for Arne... I may be wrong but I think he would not have been willing to run for community elections. I also think he was a good choice. We may not have enough years of experience to be able to draw serious conclusions regarding chapter selections quality. But the two sessions draw good names. I think it makes sense to get board members selected by the community and board members selected by chapters because the focus is different. I'd love to see members selected by the community being active editors, involved on a regular basis on the project with editorial and soft development activities. And I also love seeing board members selected by the chapters being more involved with the organizational side of things (finances, legal, partnership and so on). Both sides are necessary. Chapters are not so good to identify good representants of the editorial community. And the community is not so good at selecting board members with specific expertise and knowledge on the organizational side of things. Both selections complement each other greatly. My regret though is that the community tend to reelect the same people over time, as long as they candidate again and WMF did not do anything outrageously wrong. The inconvenience of this is that board members are naturally pushed away from editorial activity (not enough time, fear of legal responsibilities etc.). And the outcome is that the board may be less and less in touch with the realities of the projects themselves. It may be one of the benefits from drawing candidates to the board from at least these 3 different pools (community, chapters, appointed) to balance the risk of a board getting too stable. I would not object if the current WMF board would restructure the system so that board members be selected from 4 different pools (such as community, chapters, appointed, groups of interest). I think it would add a diversity and a pinch of instability which may perhaps lack a little bit right now. Florence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 3 February 2012 12:57, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: I do not know if Phoebe would have been community elected or not. She did not try. I can only guess that if she were not chosen this year by chapters, she could very well be community elected in the future because she is obviously very involved and doing good stuff. Excellent secretary as well. It would be bizarre for the chapters to select any incumbent board member - these are the people who voted unanimously twice for the image filter, the second time in the face of the first time nearly causing a project fork. WM-DE in fact passed a resolution against an image filter. The chapters would be negligent in their duty if they were to ignore candidates' positions on such movement-splitting issues. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
I think it makes sense to get board members selected by the community and board members selected by chapters because the focus is different. I'd love to see members selected by the community being active editors, involved on a regular basis on the project with editorial and soft development activities. And I also love seeing board members selected by the chapters being more involved with the organizational side of things (finances, legal, partnership and so on). Both sides are necessary. Chapters are not so good to identify good representants of the editorial community. And the community is not so good at selecting board members with specific expertise and knowledge on the organizational side of things. Both selections complement each other greatly. Not that I disagree, but I think this invites us to think what actual role the chapters have. Indeed, my impression (which might be wrong since I have never performed any statistical analysis) is that the majority of the chapter board members (and, for this purpose, the majority of participants of this mailing list) are somewhat disentangled from the editing process - at least often I check their contribution on their home page I find a laughable amount of edits in the article namespace, for instance, a two-digit amount per year. (I know there are exceptions). I remember some time ago it was a discussion of the threshold for voters at the community Board elections with the main idea that it is sometimes difficult to people included in governance to have 50 edits in half a year, even if the edits made after the announcement are accepted. I understand that many chapter boards members are just busy with other things, I know they are often administrators and have a lot of contributions in the Wikipedia namespace for instance, I understand that the task of chapter boards is not writing articles, and I do not want to accuse anybody - but still, is this exactly what we had in mind when chapters were created? Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they require. The chapter-selected seats...nobody knows what criteria are being used, what specific expertise is being sought, what skill-set is being selected for. The end result, as best I can see from the first two rounds, is the same people who could easily have run for election, because they're well known and widely active in the community. Risker/Anne Do you mean that the selection by the community applies some neutral parameters? Do you mean that all users participating in the elections through the community use these neutral parameters to put their vote. Do you mean that the other seats are assigned with open and transparent process? I would know if your criticism is applied for the process of selection of all seats or only for the seats of the chapters because in this last case you miss something. And this something is exactly the neutral evaluation of the whole process. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Béria Lima wrote: On 1 February 2012 21:56, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Béria Lima wrote: Risker, there are SEVERAL documents in meta with the guidelines used to elect the Chapter seats. Say that nobody knows is a bit offensive. SEVERAL pages on Meta-Wiki? It's a wonder they haven't been memorized by all members of the Wikimedia community. It's fair to say that there are resources available regarding chapter seats on Meta-Wiki (and provide links!); it isn't really fair to suggest that anyone be familiar with the tangled mess that is Meta-Wiki. I've been editing there for quite some time and I still regularly discover pages and processes (or get frustrated with not being able to find them and create my own). I've always found the chapter seats poorly explained and often misunderstood. If there are resources on Meta-Wiki (or even wikimediafoundation.org) that can clarify some of this to me and others, I'd certainly appreciate links. :-) See 1st message in this thread MZ. You're referring to these links (repeating links isn't a terrible thing to do, particularly in longer threads): * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Nominate Sorry, I was a bit unclear, but neither of these were really what I was looking for. I think both of those pages are messy, very internal, and difficult to understand. I started improving https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees to be what I was looking for. :-) MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
MZ if you understand the process enough to create another page, I don't think you need my help. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 3 February 2012 21:56, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Béria Lima wrote: On 1 February 2012 21:56, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Béria Lima wrote: Risker, there are SEVERAL documents in meta with the guidelines used to elect the Chapter seats. Say that nobody knows is a bit offensive. SEVERAL pages on Meta-Wiki? It's a wonder they haven't been memorized by all members of the Wikimedia community. It's fair to say that there are resources available regarding chapter seats on Meta-Wiki (and provide links!); it isn't really fair to suggest that anyone be familiar with the tangled mess that is Meta-Wiki. I've been editing there for quite some time and I still regularly discover pages and processes (or get frustrated with not being able to find them and create my own). I've always found the chapter seats poorly explained and often misunderstood. If there are resources on Meta-Wiki (or even wikimediafoundation.org) that can clarify some of this to me and others, I'd certainly appreciate links. :-) See 1st message in this thread MZ. You're referring to these links (repeating links isn't a terrible thing to do, particularly in longer threads): * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Nominate Sorry, I was a bit unclear, but neither of these were really what I was looking for. I think both of those pages are messy, very internal, and difficult to understand. I started improving https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees to be what I was looking for. :-) MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Theo10011, 02/02/2012 00:36: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Risker wrote: The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they require. Do you know what any of those criteria are? I'm interested in the answer to this question, too. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
*It is difficult to get involved in chapters when, like me, you live in Africa, and the only approved chapter for the entire continent is 8,000 kilometres away.* Create one in your country! :D That is basicaly what we are doing in IberoCoop - help groups from all over Latin World with guidance and help. And IF they want to became a chapter, we help them (talk with ChapCom members, each month we have a new request from a Latin Chapter ;) ) I know isn't easy in Africa, but isn't easy either in Latin America, and we are doing it. Would you please also comment on Russia which has a chapter consisting of I believe seven (or nine?) members, which does not accept new members and maintains an invitation-only mailing list (which is open not only to chapter members, but one still needs to apply and give an explanation why he/she wants to be on the list, or be invited by a chapter member)? Everyone can be involved in the activities organized by the chapter (which are admittedly not so many), but what about elections and representation? Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
My conclusion was that for even relatively big languages like Catalan it is impossible to get representation in community elections unless you start writing in English Wikipedia. Well, if I remember correctly, at some point we elected an Italian board member in the community elections. (I do not even mention a French member and a German/Chinese member, since it is easy to argue that these are major languages). It all very much depends on the candidates individually and on the set of the candidates. This does not invalidate your point (and I personally believe that we need other avenues of elections that the direct community elections), but is intended to put the argument in a good perspective. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Feb 2, 2012 8:22 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: Would you please also comment on Russia which has a chapter consisting of I believe seven (or nine?) members, which does not accept new members and maintains an invitation-only mailing list (which is open not only to chapter members, but one still needs to apply and give an explanation why he/she wants to be on the list, or be invited by a chapter member)? Everyone can be involved in the activities organized by the chapter (which are admittedly not so many), but what about elections and representation? We're getting very off topic, but you are right that there is a problem with dormant chapters. I know nothing about the Russian chapter, but I do know how difficult it was to to get the first Wikimedia UK out of the way. Perhaps the WMF board should ask ChapCom to advise them on what chapters are inactive or insufficiently open. The board can then give them a year to improve or hold new, open elections and remove their chapter status if they don't. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. Jeebus, if that was the goal, it signally failed. I never saw so much equivocation, pussy-footing and politicing in my life... I am a grown up man and it takes a lot to reduce me to tears, but this pretty much takes the cake, to riff on Christopher Hitchens... It was felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does). To be free and frank, I don't see how that relates to any past, present or future real life fact on the ground. Firstly, the candidates were pretty much the usual suspects that would have been up for community seats. Secondly as past practise has shown, we really don't want thin-skinned people on the board. That leads to escalation of drama, not reduction of it. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes grueling election process. There is a very noted cognitive dissonance here. I don't see how it would be more grueling to be frankly and freely discussed in private, than being so discussed in public. If that was what was genuinely happening. In practise what appeared to be the thing that needed to be shielded from the public gaze was the process, not the candidates or any speech about them. I am sorry, but I have call them as I see them. -- -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups. On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? * The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the candidate has no problem with that. I'm sorry, I have a problem with that. All other candidates for Board seats must publicly disclose their real name in their candidate presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of Trustees anonymously or under a pseudonym). Heh, indeed. Whether the candidates are public outside the chapters or not, if you are not ok with your real name being plastered all over the place (fame! infamy! occasional random emails!) then being on the board is probably not for you. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Heh, indeed. Whether the candidates are public outside the chapters or not, if you are not ok with your real name being plastered all over the place (fame! infamy! occasional random emails!) then being on the board is probably not for you. -- phoebe I would even say that for the chapter candidates (in distinction to the community candidates, who nominate themselves using their account) BOTH the real name and the WM account (if it exists) should be made public before the nomination is accepted. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 04:28, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for letting us all know about this, Beria. So...a few questions. Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion? Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians) be considered? It's about cabal, obviously. To be honest, I think that the process is broken, too, but that's the deal between the chapters and there was not enough of will to change it. Because, at the end, it produces decision, which is the goal of the process. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 03:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? * The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the candidate has no problem with that. Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does). Was it a conscious decision by the chapters to change that approach? I was under the impression that you had decided to stick with the same process we used last time. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
I'm interested in answers to the procedural questions, too. It's seems like a quixotic process, as laid out on the meta page. The board members are to be selected by completely unstructured discussion, with consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems to allow for the discussion to reach its conclusion in person, with no permanent records, at the Chapters Meeting. If the discussion reaches no consensus, or the consensus determination of the moderators is challenged, a vote will be held - in public, on a wiki page. Other than confidentiality, no guidance is provided to the chapters on how to select their preferred candidate - nor on which chapter representatives can participate in the discussion on the chapters-wiki. If any chapter member can participate, doesn't that unduly advantage native English speakers and their chapters? If only some, how are they to be selected? Additionally, Beria Lima says that chapters-wiki is mirrored on meta - but the process page[1] refers to chapters-wiki as confidential, and says that discussion of candidates' real names should be restricted to that wiki so that only members can see it. This whole thing seems pretty ad hoc and amateurish for an organization that is trying to be more robust and modern about its practices. Is there a background check? Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board might refuse to certify the results? Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner? [1]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Hello, I will (try to) answer everyone - so I will send several mails in a row... please stick with me during the process. *Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the discussion on Meta, why not just have it there in the first place?* Because not all the discussion will be in meta. Some parts are confidential and will not be disclose in Meta. I know you people might start scream: CABAL! but that is a chapters decision, not a community one. We do need to give them a safe space to work and get a consensus. And some people might feel better asking some questions in a private wiki. *I assume that all candidates must identify with the WMF before their candidacy is accepted, is that correct? * According with the meta page ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Process) : *All candidate statements will have to supply the following information: * 1. *The name of the nominee* 2. *The name of the nominating chapter (if applicable)* 3. *A statement from the chapter in support of the nominee (if applicable)* 4. *A statement from the nominee in support of themselves, accompanied by a short CV and confirming they are willing and eligible to take a seat on the WMF board. Any candidates with Chapters wiki accounts will have those accounts disabled for the duration of the selection process.* So, no, they don't need to send their document to Phillipe. * As well, will candidates who are chapter executive members be required to take a leave of absence or to resign from their executive position during their Board candidacy? * Another question already answered in a document, this time in the Resolution ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure): *Chapter-selected Trustees must resign from any chapter-board, governance, chapter-paid, or Foundation-paid position for the duration of their terms as Trustees, but may continue to serve chapters in informal or advisory capacities.* *One more question, this time about who will actually be doing the voting. Can you clarify exactly who will be voting in this selection process? Will it be one representative for each of the 38 chapters, or will more than one representative be participating?* Who will vote? Everyone here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Chapters Each chapter has a vote, and how they decide their candidates is up to them. Some held a internal vote, some decide in General Assembly, some have an internal discussion in ML... you would need to ask each one of the 38 to know the exact process. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 03:49, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups. On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Risker. let's go by question. *Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion? * Everthing that is in Chapters wiki is replicated in meta. All the links in the Call for Candidates (CfC) are from meta. Everyone can read the discussion. So far the only discussion in chapters wiki was the election for moderators, and the review of the CfC wording. We are not trying to exclude the community - by the contrary - we would be glad to have the community involved in the process, not only with questions, but also as candidates. Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the discussion on Meta, why not just have it there in the first place? * * * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? * The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the candidate has no problem with that. I'm sorry, I have a problem with that. All other candidates for Board seats must publicly disclose their real name in their candidate presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of Trustees anonymously or under a pseudonym). I assume that all candidates must identify with the WMF before their candidacy is accepted, is that correct? As well, will candidates who are chapter executive members be required to take a leave of absence or to resign from their executive position during their Board candidacy? *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians) be considered?* With questions and suggestions, of course will. But
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does). FWIW, as I think back to Board conversations in 2008 (it was my first meeting), Thomas's comments are quite close to Board's rationale in creating the chapter seats in 2008. The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes grueling election process. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
*Was it a conscious decision by the chapters to change that approach? I was under the impression that you had decided to stick with the same process we used last time.* We didn't change the process, Thomas. Last time the Call for Candidates was also public and in meta, and the timeline and process. All the voting (if we get to that) will be held in chapters wiki (wich is private) and not in meta. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 10:12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2012 03:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? * The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the candidate has no problem with that. Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does). Was it a conscious decision by the chapters to change that approach? I was under the impression that you had decided to stick with the same process we used last time. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
*The board members are to be selected by completely unstructured discussion, with consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems to allow for the discussion to reach its conclusion in person, with no permanent records, at the Chapters Meeting. If the discussion reaches no consensus, or the consensus determination of the moderators is challenged, a vote will be held - in public, on a wiki page. * Before all - as I said before - the vote will be held in a *private* wiki, not a public one. Yes, we do allow people to reach consensus first. Vote is only the last resource. Why? Because that is how we do things in Wikimedia Projects. In a community seat might be impossible, but in this case are only 38 opinions (remember that aren't people we are discussing here, but chapters) and I do believe that we can reach a consensus. *Other than confidentiality, no guidance is provided to the chapters on how to select their preferred candidate - nor on which chapter representatives can participate in the discussion on the chapters-wiki. If any chapter member can participate, doesn't that unduly advantage native English speakers and their chapters? If only some, how are they to be selected?* Any chapter person can participate in the discussion held in chapters wiki. How the chapters select who (or how many people) will speak for them - again - is up to them. I know that might sound scary to process-lovers but is how we work on this. *Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board might refuse to certify the results? * I do really LOVE when you people ask questions that has already been answered by a document, but let's quote again (again from http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure): * Chapter-selected members must meet the requirements of applicable state or federal law for Board membership. In the event that a candidate is selected who does not meet the requirements of Subsection (A) or other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal law, the Board will (i) not approve the selected candidate, (ii) declare a vacancy on the Board, and (iii) request that the chapters select a new Trustee to fill the resulting vacancy, subject to this section and to Section 6 below.* *Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner?* We are representing *Chapters* here, not the community (always good to remember) and yes, there is enough people in chapters to make that a representative election. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 12:14, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm interested in answers to the procedural questions, too. It's seems like a quixotic process, as laid out on the meta page. The board members are to be selected by completely unstructured discussion, with consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems to allow for the discussion to reach its conclusion in person, with no permanent records, at the Chapters Meeting. If the discussion reaches no consensus, or the consensus determination of the moderators is challenged, a vote will be held - in public, on a wiki page. Other than confidentiality, no guidance is provided to the chapters on how to select their preferred candidate - nor on which chapter representatives can participate in the discussion on the chapters-wiki. If any chapter member can participate, doesn't that unduly advantage native English speakers and their chapters? If only some, how are they to be selected? Additionally, Beria Lima says that chapters-wiki is mirrored on meta - but the process page[1] refers to chapters-wiki as confidential, and says that discussion of candidates' real names should be restricted to that wiki so that only members can see it. This whole thing seems pretty ad hoc and amateurish for an organization that is trying to be more robust and modern about its practices. Is there a background check? Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board might refuse to certify the results? Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner? [1]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Like I said Stuart, we didn't changed the process. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 13:23, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does). FWIW, as I think back to Board conversations in 2008 (it was my first meeting), Thomas's comments are quite close to Board's rationale in creating the chapter seats in 2008. The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes grueling election process. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: *Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board might refuse to certify the results? * I do really LOVE when you people ask questions that has already been answered by a document, but let's quote again (again from http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure ): * Chapter-selected members must meet the requirements of applicable state or federal law for Board membership. In the event that a candidate is selected who does not meet the requirements of Subsection (A) or other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal law, the Board will (i) not approve the selected candidate, (ii) declare a vacancy on the Board, and (iii) request that the chapters select a new Trustee to fill the resulting vacancy, subject to this section and to Section 6 below.* I appreciate your always helpful tone. In this case, I didn't ask what would happen if someone not legally qualified to be a Board member was selected by the chapters. I asked a different question, linked a prior one - if not all chapters participate, or if the discussion is dominated by a few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the selection forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters, is there any thought to refusing to certify under these circumstances? *Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner?* We are representing *Chapters* here, not the community (always good to remember) and yes, there is enough people in chapters to make that a representative election. Board members, however they are selected, represent the Wikimedia Foundation and the whole community or movement. My question is - if the 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia, and their selections are being made in such a way (and concerns ridiculed, by the way, as the product of process-lovers), is it really appropriate for Chapters to continue to have a role in filling Board seats? This isn't really a process question, per se, so I understand if you (Beria) decline to weigh in directly. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Nathan, Is REALLY frustrating when you spend days making a text with a lot of links to relevant documents and people simply ignore and ask you again the same thing that is already there. I have enough things to do, answer things that has already a document to answer isn't one of them. But let answer you again: *if not all chapters participate, or if the discussion is dominated by a few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the selection forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters, is there any thought to refusing to certify under these circumstances? * If only a handful of chapters participate in the discussion, there is no consensus among chapters and therefore we will have a vote.If not enough chapters vote in the determined time, we will prorogue the vote until they do... and only them we will tell the Board we have a result. We all know how to identify a consensus, don't worry. *Board members, however they are selected, represent the Wikimedia Foundation and the whole community or movement. My question is - if the 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia... * I'm sorry but last Chapters Seat Election had more participants than the Community seats election... if you want to compare, we should get rid of Community election seats, not the chapters one. *Is it really appropriate for Chapters to continue to have a role in filling Board seats? This isn't really a process question, per se, so I understand if you (Beria) decline to weigh in directly. * Change WMF bylaws and the way they select Board members, and you can get rid of Chapters seats. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 13:47, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: *Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board might refuse to certify the results? * I do really LOVE when you people ask questions that has already been answered by a document, but let's quote again (again from http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure ): * Chapter-selected members must meet the requirements of applicable state or federal law for Board membership. In the event that a candidate is selected who does not meet the requirements of Subsection (A) or other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal law, the Board will (i) not approve the selected candidate, (ii) declare a vacancy on the Board, and (iii) request that the chapters select a new Trustee to fill the resulting vacancy, subject to this section and to Section 6 below.* I appreciate your always helpful tone. In this case, I didn't ask what would happen if someone not legally qualified to be a Board member was selected by the chapters. I asked a different question, linked a prior one - if not all chapters participate, or if the discussion is dominated by a few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the selection forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters, is there any thought to refusing to certify under these circumstances? *Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner?* We are representing *Chapters* here, not the community (always good to remember) and yes, there is enough people in chapters to make that a representative election. Board members, however they are selected, represent the Wikimedia Foundation and the whole community or movement. My question is - if the 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia, and their selections are being made in such a way (and concerns ridiculed, by the way, as the product of process-lovers), is it really appropriate for Chapters to continue to have a role in filling Board seats? This isn't really a process question, per se, so I understand if you (Beria) decline to weigh in directly. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Nathan wrote: My question is - if the 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia...is it really appropriate for Chapters to continue to have a role in filling Board seats? I think this is a valuable discussion to have, and it ties in neatly to the movement roles discussions about recognition of other associations/entities in our movement. I shared some thoughts on my blog a month ago and asked for comments: http://wikistu.org/2012/01/rfc-geography-and-wikimedia/ (text reproduced below) We will be discussing this at length in our board meeting starting this Friday. I'd really appreciate some comments on this issue, preferably on the blog because of improved threading in comments. -s RfC: Geography and Wikimedia Posted on January 4, 2012 Ahead of our scheduled WMF Board meeting in early February, I’ve been thinking through a really hard and thorny movement-wide issue. Last time I was dealing with a similarly hard issue, I put some rough notes/questions up here and asked for your thoughts and help thinking through the issue. I’d like to try another Request for Comments with a related but bigger issue. Let me set this up as a thought experiment. Imagine that we can all go back to the beginning of our movement. Imagine that we have a clean slate and can start fresh. But also imagine that we have the benefit of the past 10 years of experience, and with it all the lessons we’ve learned about ourselves and our strengths and weaknesses as a community. Let’s say our objective is to define the basic structure of a movement that will most effectively help our community pursue our vision over the next 100, 200 or even 500 years. Long-term impact is the primary objective. If we could start over, how would we organize our movement? In particular I’d love input on three questions: • Are current political/legal boundaries the best primary organization model for our movement? Or instead would we choose to build things a different way, say around each of our projects, or languages, or some of the passions among our community (e.g. a GLAM Chapter), or other special interests and topics (e.g. arbcom, comcom, translate-l)? • Should we give special rights to certain kinds of movement entities (e.g. special rights to pick board seats outside of elections, exclusive access to things like the trademarks, preferred access to donor funds)? • Are legal entities worth the effort on a large scale? Our current chapters model is leading us to having a hundred or more legal entities globally. Is this worth all the overhead involved? Or would informal associations and affiliations be fine in many cases? Below are some notes that I’ve kept as I try to think through the issue. They aren’t intended to be comprehensive. Feel free to review or ignore as you think through and respond to the above questions. Thanks. -s Background notes The different kinds of affiliation in our movement: – Many editors/contributors have no organizational association. They work on their own, editing articles and making contributions without a great deal of interaction with others in the community. – We have many loose, informal affiliations. Talk pages provide a place for editors with a shared interest in a particular article. WikiProjects bring together editors into cross-article collaboration. Village pumps provide another project-based way to build community. Other affiliations include interest groups such as GLAM, projects like Wiki Loves Monuments, and the many groups of volunteers brought together by mailing lists like comcom and translate-l. – We have a global Wikimedia Foundation entrusted with the trademarks and with the responsibility to operate the websites and technical/legal infrastructure behind the projects. – Finally, we have country-based chapters which receive significant special rights. We started with geographic chapters in 2003. The model has developed so that these geographic organizations now receive rights unique in our movement including a) exclusive geographic right to use the trademark, b) preferred access to donor funds from the annual fundraiser, and c) the right to appoint two of the ten Trustees on the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. We’ve had one chapter grow into a large organization (Wikimedia Deutschland), and few others hire small numbers of professional staff, and others in varying degrees of development. A number of chapters appear to be defunct, with minimal or no programmatic activity. There has never been a clear definition of success for a geographic chapter. I ask most chapter members and chapter leaders I meet what their organizational objectives are and I get widely varying answers. Few say they have a role representing or serving the editing community. So it’s not a surprise that when I ask
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Finding people not well known to editors: great. Finding people shy of 'grueling' public election process: ok... How does either lead to hiding candidate names? not doing background checks? Not publishing what kinds of questions are asked? As others said, this feels very strange. On 2/1/12, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes grueling election process. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
I am highly perplexed why we have a *public call for candidates* when the rest of the process remains so private. Alex 2012/2/1 Chessie derby_...@yahoo.com Finding people not well known to editors: great. Finding people shy of 'grueling' public election process: ok... How does either lead to hiding candidate names? not doing background checks? Not publishing what kinds of questions are asked? As others said, this feels very strange. On 2/1/12, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes grueling election process. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
*if not all chapters participate, or if the discussion is dominated by a few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the selection forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters, is there any thought to refusing to certify under these circumstances? * If only a handful of chapters participate in the discussion, there is no consensus among chapters and therefore we will have a vote.If not enough chapters vote in the determined time, we will prorogue the vote until they do... and only them we will tell the Board we have a result. We all know how to identify a consensus, don't worry. I'm not sure you've answered the question being asked; which is - will the current board be able to scrutineer the selection process and ultimately veto the recommendation the moderators pass along? He's not asking about how the moderators decision is made. This is important because all elections of this form - particularly private ones should be scrutineered. *Board members, however they are selected, represent the Wikimedia Foundation and the whole community or movement. My question is - if the 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia... * I'm sorry but last Chapters Seat Election had more participants than the Community seats election... if you want to compare, we should get rid of Community election seats, not the chapters one. Umm; I recall there were more than 38 participants in the discussion and overall process. ;) And one would imagine that individual chapter board members would have a unified approach (based on their chapters decision) meaning there are 38 opinions to consider. However, this whole process is a bit confusing for me because it seems that those with access to chapters wiki have the ability to discuss candidates. And only limited information about those candidates can be passed to the wider chapter. Essentially, then, this is a chapter board member discussion. Fine, I have nothing against my own chapters board members and I am sure they will act fairly and with clarity. But it is hard to act on behalf of the chapter when we can't even see the process, full candidate information and discussion... Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes grueling election process. How is this different from the rationale for the expertise seats? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 16:44, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: I'll give my personal view on the question, and invite others on the board to jump in. I think the difference between the specific expertise seats and the appointed seats is subtle but important. My sense is that the WMF Board specific expertise seats are more focused on board operations and governance. so the Board might do a self-assessment and identify that it needs someone with financial/audit oversight experience to serve as Board Treasurer, and then go out and find it. That's me. It's also reactive and designed to fill in the gaps. So we as Board decided a few years ago that we lacked sufficient insight and perspective from outside North America and Europe, so we sought out and were incredibly luck to find Bishakha. The opportunity for the two seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters is broader. Many more people are involved in identifying and surfacing potential candidates, so it has the potential to cast a wider and more thoughtful net. And there is less constraint to meet specific governance needs, which frees up the process to focus on the people and perspectives that can have the most positive impact on our movement's pursuit of the mission. - This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the chapter seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the chapter seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. I didn't get that impression at all. The board doesn't just need to be representative of the community. It also needs to be capable of running the WMF as well as possible. We need to balance those two goals. Having a couple of chapter-selected seats is a good way of doing that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 17:22, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the chapter seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. I didn't get that impression at all. The board doesn't just need to be representative of the community. It also needs to be capable of running the WMF as well as possible. We need to balance those two goals. Having a couple of chapter-selected seats is a good way of doing that. _ In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. I would think that direct appointment of those with specific skill sets would be how the board ensure it is capable of running the WMF as well as possible. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Risker wrote: it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. Anne, my personal view is that elections capture the input of a certain subset of our community: those editors who are fairly active and who are interested in governance issues. That subset of our editors is an important part of our community. Having seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters offers a chance to involve of another subset of our community: those who are interested enough in governance issues to get involved in the leadership / decision-making of movement organizations. That's also an important subset of our community. But, to your point, neither of these two subsets alone nor the combination of the two fully represents our movement. Many groups are excluded. For example, the silent majority of 75,000+ active editors who haven't historically voted in elections. Or our 475 million readers. etc., etc., etc. Governance and suffrage in an online community is really, really hard. I don't think we have the perfect system. Our current board structure was put in place less than 4 years ago. The one thing I know is that it will change as we try new things to make it better. I want us to continue improving it. And I for one am open to absolutely any suggestion for how we can do that. -s ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2012 16:44, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: I'll give my personal view on the question, and invite others on the board to jump in. I think the difference between the specific expertise seats and the appointed seats is subtle but important. My sense is that the WMF Board specific expertise seats are more focused on board operations and governance. so the Board might do a self-assessment and identify that it needs someone with financial/audit oversight experience to serve as Board Treasurer, and then go out and find it. That's me. It's also reactive and designed to fill in the gaps. So we as Board decided a few years ago that we lacked sufficient insight and perspective from outside North America and Europe, so we sought out and were incredibly luck to find Bishakha. The opportunity for the two seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters is broader. Many more people are involved in identifying and surfacing potential candidates, so it has the potential to cast a wider and more thoughtful net. And there is less constraint to meet specific governance needs, which frees up the process to focus on the people and perspectives that can have the most positive impact on our movement's pursuit of the mission. - This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the chapter seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. In the 2011 community board election, less than 3400 users voted.[1] In the 2012 chapter board election, 39 chapters consisting of more than 4000 identified people will be voting.[2] Unfortunately neither process captures a large percentage of the active Wikimedian community. 1. see bottom of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/Results/en 2. see members column of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 22:36, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Chapter board members, since they serve on boards themselves, are obviously going to know more about what the board needs than the general community. They also have long and detailed discussions about who to select, rather than just having a simple vote. Additionally, having chapter-selected seats helps the WMF and chapters work better together. I would think that direct appointment of those with specific skill sets would be how the board ensure it is capable of running the WMF as well as possible. Of course, but that wouldn't be at all representative and would make the existing board too powerful. It's all about balance. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 22:38, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: In the 2011 community board election, less than 3400 users voted.[1] In the 2012 chapter board election, 39 chapters consisting of more than 4000 identified people will be voting.[2] Those 4000 people won't be voting, though. The chapter boards who they elected will be voting on their behalf. That's not the same thing. (It was said above that some chapters might let their membership decide how the chapter will vote, but if the chapters really are using the same process as last time that isn't an option because the list of candidates is confidential - you can't vote if you don't know who the options are.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
(personal opinion); no, 39 chapter people voted. Hands up everyone who voted for their chapter's trustees because they trusted their judgment in appointing members of the WMF Board? The rhetoric is most certainly not like that in the UK. Trustee elections tend to be scoped as and this is what [candidate] plans to do to extend the wikimedia movement in the UK; how they feel about wider governance issues, last time, at least, didn't come into it. It is incredibly risky to say that just because a group of individuals is trusted to run GLAM events in a nation, we trust them to vote on board members - or we appointed them* *for that reason. On 1 February 2012 22:38, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2012 16:44, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: I'll give my personal view on the question, and invite others on the board to jump in. I think the difference between the specific expertise seats and the appointed seats is subtle but important. My sense is that the WMF Board specific expertise seats are more focused on board operations and governance. so the Board might do a self-assessment and identify that it needs someone with financial/audit oversight experience to serve as Board Treasurer, and then go out and find it. That's me. It's also reactive and designed to fill in the gaps. So we as Board decided a few years ago that we lacked sufficient insight and perspective from outside North America and Europe, so we sought out and were incredibly luck to find Bishakha. The opportunity for the two seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters is broader. Many more people are involved in identifying and surfacing potential candidates, so it has the potential to cast a wider and more thoughtful net. And there is less constraint to meet specific governance needs, which frees up the process to focus on the people and perspectives that can have the most positive impact on our movement's pursuit of the mission. - This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the chapter seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. In the 2011 community board election, less than 3400 users voted.[1] In the 2012 chapter board election, 39 chapters consisting of more than 4000 identified people will be voting.[2] Unfortunately neither process captures a large percentage of the active Wikimedian community. 1. see bottom of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/Results/en 2. see members column of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 17:38, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Risker wrote: it gives the impression that the current three elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of the movement It concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter members seem to not be considered part of the movement. Anne, my personal view is that elections capture the input of a certain subset of our community: those editors who are fairly active and who are interested in governance issues. That subset of our editors is an important part of our community. Having seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters offers a chance to involve of another subset of our community: those who are interested enough in governance issues to get involved in the leadership / decision-making of movement organizations. That's also an important subset of our community. But, to your point, neither of these two subsets alone nor the combination of the two fully represents our movement. Many groups are excluded. For example, the silent majority of 75,000+ active editors who haven't historically voted in elections. Or our 475 million readers. etc., etc., etc. Governance and suffrage in an online community is really, really hard. I don't think we have the perfect system. Our current board structure was put in place less than 4 years ago. The one thing I know is that it will change as we try new things to make it better. I want us to continue improving it. And I for one am open to absolutely any suggestion for how we can do that. I do agree that governance and suffrage is hard; however, it shouldn't intentionally be designed to give a disproportionate representation (and essentially double suffrage) to one subset of the community over another. Chapter members have the opportunity to influence five seats on the Board; those who are unable (for many variations of unable) to be chapter members are only able to influence three seats. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager, selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance. (personal opinion, etc) On 1 February 2012 23:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 18:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they require. The chapter-selected seats...nobody knows what criteria are being used, what specific expertise is being sought, what skill-set is being selected for. The end result, as best I can see from the first two rounds, is the same people who could easily have run for election, because they're well known and widely active in the community. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Yo are right but those figures tell us that chapters are in a very strong position if they where able to mobilize their 4000 affiliates in the community board elections. I wonder how many of the 3400 participants in the community elections were also affiliated to some chapter. * * *John Vandenberg* jayvdb at gmail.com foundation-l%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BFoundation-l%5D%20Call%20for%20nominations%3A%20chapter-appointed%20seats%20on%0A%20the%20WMF%20Board%20of%20TrusteesIn-Reply-To=%3CCAO9U_Z56154XQMhH4PO1SEmq6Yv1y6P_c3L0rVU%2BcXsc3X5rUA%40mail.gmail.com%3E *Wed Feb 1 22:38:29 UTC 2012* In the 2011 community board election, less than 3400 users voted.[1] In the 2012 chapter board election, 39 chapters consisting of more than 4000 identified people will be voting.[2] Unfortunately neither process captures a large percentage of the active Wikimedian community. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
that is a bit OT but... *It is difficult to get involved in chapters when, like me, you live in Africa, and the only approved chapter for the entire continent is 8,000 kilometres away.* Create one in your country! :D That is basicaly what we are doing in IberoCoop - help groups from all over Latin World with guidance and help. And IF they want to became a chapter, we help them (talk with ChapCom members, each month we have a new request from a Latin Chapter ;) ) I know isn't easy in Africa, but isn't easy either in Latin America, and we are doing it. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 20:59, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com wrote: Having seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters offers a chance to involve of another subset of our community: those who are interested enough in governance issues to get involved in the leadership / decision-making of movement organizations. That's also an important subset of our community. The existing chapter presence is a barrier to entry. It is difficult to get involved in chapters when, like me, you live in Africa, and the only approved chapter for the entire continent is 8,000 kilometres away. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Risker, there are SEVERAL documents in meta with the guidelines used to elect the Chapter seats. Say that nobody knows is a bit offensive. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 21:26, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 February 2012 18:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they require. The chapter-selected seats...nobody knows what criteria are being used, what specific expertise is being sought, what skill-set is being selected for. The end result, as best I can see from the first two rounds, is the same people who could easily have run for election, because they're well known and widely active in the community. Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they require. Do you know what any of those criteria are? The voted members also have certain expertise and skill-sets, and then they go through a voting process. The chapter-selected seats...nobody knows what criteria are being used, what specific expertise is being sought, what skill-set is being selected for. The end result, as best I can see from the first two rounds, is the same people who could easily have run for election, because they're well known and widely active in the community. Again, I can't speak on the specifics of the election process. Beyond that, the chapter elected members, give their presentation, are nominated by a chapter, and most of their expertise, are known to the individuals voting for them. This seems similar to community elected members. I can not speak about the need for privacy, ideally as much as can be public, should be. I can understand requests to have certain amount of information made public, but there also needs to be a safe place to discuss these issues. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager, selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance. What? Chapters by definition have to have a board, and be open to membership. The decision taken by the board and representatives, is usually vetted internally, it is representative of the entire chapter; as much as the community elected members are representative of the entire community, beyond just the individuals that voted. The community elected members aren't called, the community-who-voted board members. Regards Theo (personal opinion, etc) On 1 February 2012 23:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
You're misunderstanding; I'm saying the Board of Trustees nominations happening on the chapters wiki is open merely to the representatives of chapters, not to the thousands of members apparently taking part. Please do list those chapters who have an internal vote of the membership before voting on the Chapter Representatives for the Board of Trustees; I would imagine it's going to be *rather* small, particularly if you're not actually allowed to tell your members who is running or anything about them. On 1 February 2012 23:40, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager, selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance. What? Chapters by definition have to have a board, and be open to membership. The decision taken by the board and representatives, is usually vetted internally, it is representative of the entire chapter; as much as the community elected members are representative of the entire community, beyond just the individuals that voted. The community elected members aren't called, the community-who-voted board members. Regards Theo (personal opinion, etc) On 1 February 2012 23:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager, selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance. I'll take your wager :P Chapter board members are *constantly* swimming in both local and wider movement governance issues. The members of chapters should be looking for board members who are able to effectively represent them in those waters. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010 elections. I know WMFR, WMUK and WMAR do the same, and the list can go on... _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 21:42, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: You're misunderstanding; I'm saying the Board of Trustees nominations happening on the chapters wiki is open merely to the representatives of chapters, not to the thousands of members apparently taking part. Please do list those chapters who have an internal vote of the membership before voting on the Chapter Representatives for the Board of Trustees; I would imagine it's going to be *rather* small, particularly if you're not actually allowed to tell your members who is running or anything about them. On 1 February 2012 23:40, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager, selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance. What? Chapters by definition have to have a board, and be open to membership. The decision taken by the board and representatives, is usually vetted internally, it is representative of the entire chapter; as much as the community elected members are representative of the entire community, beyond just the individuals that voted. The community elected members aren't called, the community-who-voted board members. Regards Theo (personal opinion, etc) On 1 February 2012 23:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Oh, agreed. But what I'm interested in is not should be, but whether the rhetoric in internal chapter elections is usually dominated by, or even includes, mention of the wider governance issues. I think chapters have a crucial role to play in movement governance, and that trustees of each chapter should be at the forefront of that. But are they selected with that role in mind? On 1 February 2012 23:44, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager, selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance. I'll take your wager :P Chapter board members are *constantly* swimming in both local and wider movement governance issues. The members of chapters should be looking for board members who are able to effectively represent them in those waters. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
And how will that work this year if, as I am understanding it, virtually all the information about the candidates will be hidden? On 1 February 2012 23:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010 elections. I know WMFR, WMUK and WMAR do the same, and the list can go on... _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 21:42, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: You're misunderstanding; I'm saying the Board of Trustees nominations happening on the chapters wiki is open merely to the representatives of chapters, not to the thousands of members apparently taking part. Please do list those chapters who have an internal vote of the membership before voting on the Chapter Representatives for the Board of Trustees; I would imagine it's going to be *rather* small, particularly if you're not actually allowed to tell your members who is running or anything about them. On 1 February 2012 23:40, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager, selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance. What? Chapters by definition have to have a board, and be open to membership. The decision taken by the board and representatives, is usually vetted internally, it is representative of the entire chapter; as much as the community elected members are representative of the entire community, beyond just the individuals that voted. The community elected members aren't called, the community-who-voted board members. Regards Theo (personal opinion, etc) On 1 February 2012 23:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF, Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than would community-elected Wikimedians. Risker, you know the point applies to appointed members of the board as well. They are selected through even a more private process for seemingly unlimited terms, they make up the other half of the board. I am surprised why questions about their interest and representation aren't raised on every new appointment? The chapter selected member, at least go through a vetting and a voting process that is open to several chapters and thousand of members. Regards Theo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote: Oh, agreed. But what I'm interested in is not should be, but whether the rhetoric in internal chapter elections is usually dominated by, or even includes, mention of the wider governance issues. I think chapters have a crucial role to play in movement governance, and that trustees of each chapter should be at the forefront of that. But are they selected with that role in mind? In my experience, yes the chapter boards are comprised of people who are suitable for making these decisions. Some individuals on some chapter boards may not be, but each board is a group of people, and each chapter has rules which ensure that their decisions are a majority of their board. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 1 February 2012 23:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010 elections. I know WMFR, WMUK and WMAR do the same, and the list can go on... Really? If I had known WMPT had breached confidentiality like that at the time, I would have voided your vote... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
2012/2/2 Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org: Oh, agreed. But what I'm interested in is not should be, but whether the rhetoric in internal chapter elections is usually dominated by, or even includes, mention of the wider governance issues. I think chapters have a crucial role to play in movement governance, and that trustees of each chapter should be at the forefront of that. But are they selected with that role in mind? Well, for WM-IT all assemblies are open to public and we always tried to have them at least audio-streamed if we technically could (but that would be in Italian, though). Anyway, from the results of the least chapter and community seats election my opinion is that the former are *wyyy* more en.wiki-centered than the first. I am surely highly biased, but I think people in the chapters having to confront with their local reality (here included local legislation), with the WMF and the communities of the projects (for events, meetups, etc.) have more opportunities to gain a global governance perspective than others. Both in the sense of the whole Wikimedia world from editors up to the WMF staff and the WMF Board, but also in the sense of a better perception of the diversity of the conditions and characteristics of the different parts of the Wikimedia movement around the world. Cristian WM-IT ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 2 February 2012 00:06, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, from the results of the least chapter and community seats election my opinion is that the former are *wyyy* more en.wiki-centered than the first. Really? How do you work that out? The current occupants of the chapter seats are one English Wikipedian and one German Wikipedians (50% en.wiki), the community seats are two English Wikipedians and one German/Chinese Wikipedian (67% en.wiki). (Judging by their biographies at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees ) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
See 1st message in this thread MZ. _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 21:56, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Béria Lima wrote: Risker, there are SEVERAL documents in meta with the guidelines used to elect the Chapter seats. Say that nobody knows is a bit offensive. SEVERAL pages on Meta-Wiki? It's a wonder they haven't been memorized by all members of the Wikimedia community. It's fair to say that there are resources available regarding chapter seats on Meta-Wiki (and provide links!); it isn't really fair to suggest that anyone be familiar with the tangled mess that is Meta-Wiki. I've been editing there for quite some time and I still regularly discover pages and processes (or get frustrated with not being able to find them and create my own). I've always found the chapter seats poorly explained and often misunderstood. If there are resources on Meta-Wiki (or even wikimediafoundation.org) that can clarify some of this to me and others, I'd certainly appreciate links. :-) MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
2012/2/1 Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com that is a bit OT but... Not at all, it is a statement of fact. The continent of Africa is scarcely represented in terms of Chapters, despite being the world's largest geographically and second most populous geographically. *It is difficult to get involved in chapters when, like me, you live in Africa, and the only approved chapter for the entire continent is 8,000 kilometres away.* Create one in your country! :D That is basicaly what we are doing in IberoCoop - help groups from all over Latin World with guidance and help. And IF they want to became a chapter, we help them (talk with ChapCom members, each month we have a new request from a Latin Chapter ;) ) I rather expected you to say that. Currently the number of people on Meta who have expressed an interest (two to three years ago) does not excede 10. I daresay with help from ChapCom something could be done, though. Notwithstanding, that would leave another 54 unrepresented countries. My point is that African residents are disenfranchised virtually totally from the selection. That's nearly 15% of the world's population (though not of its readers/editors). I know isn't easy in Africa, but isn't easy either in Latin America, and we are doing it. I am sure it is not easy to create a Chapter anywhere, and that Latin America presents its own challenges. I suspect Africa is particularly demanding with regards to languages spoken, compared to Latin America. On 1 February 2012 20:59, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com wrote: Having seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters offers a chance to involve of another subset of our community: those who are interested enough in governance issues to get involved in the leadership / decision-making of movement organizations. That's also an important subset of our community. The existing chapter presence is a barrier to entry. It is difficult to get involved in chapters when, like me, you live in Africa, and the only approved chapter for the entire continent is 8,000 kilometres away. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: On 2 February 2012 00:06, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: Anyway, from the results of the least chapter and community seats election my opinion is that the former are *wyyy* more en.wiki-centered than the first. Really? How do you work that out? The current occupants of the chapter seats are one English Wikipedian and one German Wikipedians (50% en.wiki), the community seats are two English Wikipedians and one German/Chinese Wikipedian (67% en.wiki). (Judging by their biographies at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees ) He was talking about the election, not necessarily the result. But in any case, that is still a 33% difference. I think the community elections are sometimes perceived as en.wikipedia centric, even if the actual voter turnout could suggest otherwise. (I haven't been able to find voter statistics per project, so the perception might actually be correct even if the people who win are at least partially international.) Anyhow, the nice chart at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_of_Trustees does suggest that editors of the English Wikipedia or people of an Anglo-Saxon background tend to occupy around half of the elected seats at any time; while the majority of the appointed seats seem to be held by people who fit this category. At least this is a general perception, of course many of them edit other projects, live in different countries and speak languages, but you can't help if people have a perception that the chapter selected seats might not be as en.wiki centric (although, there is a good chance that we simply continue the pattern of choosing an English and a non-English native speaker trustee). Best regards, Bence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:42 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/2/1 Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com that is a bit OT but... Not at all, it is a statement of fact. The continent of Africa is scarcely represented in terms of Chapters, despite being the world's largest geographically and second most populous geographically. *It is difficult to get involved in chapters when, like me, you live in Africa, and the only approved chapter for the entire continent is 8,000 kilometres away.* Create one in your country! :D That is basicaly what we are doing in IberoCoop - help groups from all over Latin World with guidance and help. And IF they want to became a chapter, we help them (talk with ChapCom members, each month we have a new request from a Latin Chapter ;) ) I rather expected you to say that. Currently the number of people on Meta who have expressed an interest (two to three years ago) does not excede 10. I daresay with help from ChapCom something could be done, though. Notwithstanding, that would leave another 54 unrepresented countries. My point is that African residents are disenfranchised virtually totally from the selection. That's nearly 15% of the world's population (though not of its readers/editors). Unfortunately, readers and editors from Africa represent only 1% and 0.6% respectively of the total traffic to Wikimedia sites ( http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerCountryOverview.htm ; http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageViewsPerCountryTrends.htm ). However, it is good news that we have a chapter in South Africa (technically still working on being incorporated) and one in Kenya (to be approved by the Board soon). Together they could represent 5% of the votes for chapter selected seats if they finish their founding process on time. Best regards, Bence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read the 50 mails yet, but how should the candidate be chosen? By community vote? By chapter's members ? (do you need registering ?). Will the WMF chose among them? Sorry if I missed the relevant docs, I'm new to this. Also, can I present myself as a candidate? Can I vote? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
On 2 February 2012 01:53, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read the 50 mails yet, but how should the candidate be chosen? By community vote? By chapter's members ? (do you need registering ?). Will the WMF chose among them? Sorry if I missed the relevant docs, I'm new to this. Also, can I present myself as a candidate? Can I vote? You should at least read the first email... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Cross posting _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 31 January 2012 22:05, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July 2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project are constructed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers worldwide, supported by a growing number of staff and an international network of chapters. Board membership is unpaid. The chapters wish to appoint two excellent board members and believe this can best be achieved by selecting from a large number of varied and skilled candidates. Therefore, the chapters call for nominations by everyone who believes they or someone they know would be suitable. The chapters ask that this call for candidates be distributed as widely as possible through such forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs. The successful candidates will be committed to the Wikimedia mission and willing and able to engage constructively with the stakeholders of the movement, including the volunteers and the chapters that provide it with essential support. The successful candidates will have: - The ability to provide expertise to the board in its goal of implementing a coherent vision on how the projects’ communities, the foundation, the chapters, and other affiliated groups work together; - Sensitivity to complex issues surrounding the multiplicity of languages, cultures, and jurisdictions served by the foundation’s projects; - Knowledge and understanding of the governance of international non-profit organizations, balancing autonomy and subsidiarity; - The ability to think strategically and to work both as part of a team and independently; - A good standard of written and oral English (fluency in additional language would be well regarded); - Sufficient time to devote to the role of board member, and the ability and willingness to travel. Increasing the geographical diversity of current board membership would be an advantage. The selection process is set out here:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats Nominations must be sent to the moderator Béria Lima (Wikimedia Portugal) and deputy moderators Milos Rancic (Wikimedia Serbia) and Mardetanha (Wikimedia steward from Iran) by 23:59 UTC, 29 February. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please see the instructions here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Nominate *Béria Lima*, Moderator ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Thanks for letting us all know about this, Beria. So...a few questions. Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion? Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians) be considered? Thanks, Risker/Anne On 31 January 2012 19:05, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July 2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project are constructed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers worldwide, supported by a growing number of staff and an international network of chapters. Board membership is unpaid. The chapters wish to appoint two excellent board members and believe this can best be achieved by selecting from a large number of varied and skilled candidates. Therefore, the chapters call for nominations by everyone who believes they or someone they know would be suitable. The chapters ask that this call for candidates be distributed as widely as possible through such forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs. The successful candidates will be committed to the Wikimedia mission and willing and able to engage constructively with the stakeholders of the movement, including the volunteers and the chapters that provide it with essential support. The successful candidates will have: - The ability to provide expertise to the board in its goal of implementing a coherent vision on how the projects’ communities, the foundation, the chapters, and other affiliated groups work together; - Sensitivity to complex issues surrounding the multiplicity of languages, cultures, and jurisdictions served by the foundation’s projects; - Knowledge and understanding of the governance of international non-profit organizations, balancing autonomy and subsidiarity; - The ability to think strategically and to work both as part of a team and independently; - A good standard of written and oral English (fluency in additional language would be well regarded); - Sufficient time to devote to the role of board member, and the ability and willingness to travel. Increasing the geographical diversity of current board membership would be an advantage. The selection process is set out here:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats Nominations must be sent to the moderator Béria Lima (Wikimedia Portugal) and deputy moderators Milos Rancic (Wikimedia Serbia) and Mardetanha (Wikimedia steward from Iran) by 23:59 UTC, 29 February. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please see the instructions here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Nominate *Béria Lima*, Moderator ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Hi Risker. let's go by question. *Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion? * Everthing that is in Chapters wiki is replicated in meta. All the links in the Call for Candidates (CfC) are from meta. Everyone can read the discussion. So far the only discussion in chapters wiki was the election for moderators, and the review of the CfC wording. We are not trying to exclude the community - by the contrary - we would be glad to have the community involved in the process, not only with questions, but also as candidates. * * * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? * The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the candidate has no problem with that. *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians) be considered?* With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No. There are a vote for elect the community members of the Board, that happened last year and will occur again next year. This vote is decided only by the chapters according with WMF bylaws itself. Quoting: Be*ginning in July 2008, two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered years*[1]. The result will of course be public as soon as we have one. Thanks for your questions, [1]: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure _ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 1 February 2012 01:28, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for letting us all know about this, Beria. So...a few questions. Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion? Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians) be considered? Thanks, Risker/Anne On 31 January 2012 19:05, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July 2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project are constructed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers worldwide, supported by a growing number of staff and an international network of chapters. Board membership is unpaid. The chapters wish to appoint two excellent board members and believe this can best be achieved by selecting from a large number of varied and skilled candidates. Therefore, the chapters call for nominations by everyone who believes they or someone they know would be suitable. The chapters ask that this call for candidates be distributed as widely as possible through such forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs. The successful candidates will be committed to the Wikimedia mission and willing and able to engage constructively with the stakeholders of the movement, including the volunteers and the chapters that provide it with essential support. The successful candidates will have: - The ability to provide expertise to the board in its goal of implementing a coherent vision on how the projects’ communities, the foundation, the chapters, and other affiliated groups work together; - Sensitivity to complex issues surrounding the multiplicity of languages, cultures, and jurisdictions served by the foundation’s projects; - Knowledge and understanding of the governance of international non-profit organizations, balancing autonomy and subsidiarity; - The ability to think strategically and to work both as part of a team and independently; - A good standard of written and oral English (fluency in additional language would be well regarded); - Sufficient time to devote to the role of board member, and the ability and willingness to travel. Increasing the geographical diversity of current board membership would be an advantage. The selection process is set out here:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats Nominations must be sent to the moderator Béria Lima (Wikimedia Portugal) and deputy moderators Milos Rancic (Wikimedia Serbia) and Mardetanha (Wikimedia steward from Iran) by 23:59 UTC, 29 February. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please see the instructions here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Nominate *Béria Lima*, Moderator ___ foundation-l mailing
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees
Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups. On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Risker. let's go by question. *Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion? * Everthing that is in Chapters wiki is replicated in meta. All the links in the Call for Candidates (CfC) are from meta. Everyone can read the discussion. So far the only discussion in chapters wiki was the election for moderators, and the review of the CfC wording. We are not trying to exclude the community - by the contrary - we would be glad to have the community involved in the process, not only with questions, but also as candidates. Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the discussion on Meta, why not just have it there in the first place? * * * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia community to see? * The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the candidate has no problem with that. I'm sorry, I have a problem with that. All other candidates for Board seats must publicly disclose their real name in their candidate presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of Trustees anonymously or under a pseudonym). I assume that all candidates must identify with the WMF before their candidacy is accepted, is that correct? As well, will candidates who are chapter executive members be required to take a leave of absence or to resign from their executive position during their Board candidacy? *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians) be considered?* With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No. There are a vote for elect the community members of the Board, that happened last year and will occur again next year. This vote is decided only by the chapters according with WMF bylaws itself. Quoting: Be*ginning in July 2008, two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered years*[1]. I am pleased to hear that questions and suggestions from the majority of Wikimedians will be accepted. One more question, this time about who will actually be doing the voting. Can you clarify exactly who will be voting in this selection process? Will it be one representative for each of the 38 chapters, or will more than one representative be participating? Thanks again, Risker/Anne ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
