[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming the first round of grants from the Equity Fund

2021-09-11 Thread rupert THURNER
congratulations lisa! ii must admit i somehow like the cause, but i find it
a little challenging to see who gets the money.  lets take the example of
borealisphilantrophy.org . in their last annual report [1]. they state an
income of 50 mio USD. they give out 29 mio USD grants to 390 grantees. they
save 14 mio for the future and burn 7 mio USD to so. this means 18''000 USD
cost for a single grantee. borealisphilantropy is 6 years old and has given
78 USD grants in total.

borealis racial equity in journalism fund gave 2.4 mio to 27 grantees. so
the wikimedia contribution of  250'000 USD is 10% of it, for simplicity
lets dvide their total 27 grantees by 10 to get 3 grantees supported by
wikimedia. borealis cost to select these 3 grantees is 18'000*3 = 50'000
USD, so 200'000 go are left for organisations. these organisations are like
qcitymetro.com [2]. donating there leads to glennoaks media LLC [], with a
couple of employees.

am i doing this right, and it is intended that the money ends up in such
organisations?

[1]
https://borealisphilanthropy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BP_AnnualReport_202.pdf
[2] https://qcitymetro.com/about-qcitymetro/
[3] https://www.manta.com/c/mtth022/glennoaks-media-llc

rupert


On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 10:54 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Broadly agreeing with Gergő — our central challenge in this arena is that
> the Foundation's total investment in things outside of staffing its own
> growing org has historically been quite small — even though we recognize
> that WP itself needed well under $1M to take off, and that we need a wide
> range of innovative ideas - and recognition for the most creative community
> efforts - to have a chance of repeating that in other arenas. The amount we
> invest in new outside projects and regional affiliates was modest a decade
> ago, and since then has grown more slowly the internal budget.
>
> So I was glad to see these funds earmarked last year, and the results seem
> healthy; at the same time the Foundation seems to be increasing
> community-overseen grantmaking, which is essential. The two are not
> mutually exclusive.
>
> S.
>
> 
>
> On Sat., Sep. 11, 2021, 3:14 p.m. Gergő Tisza,  wrote:
>
>> One can argue about whether it was a good idea to give 15% of the
>> Foundation's annual grant budget to largely-unrelated charities as a snap
>> reaction to a wave of US political protests. But assuming it was - this
>> happened in the middle of the pandemic, with the WMF operating on extremely
>> restricted resources (with many staff working half-time, see [1]), and was
>> trying to react to an unexpected event quickly, so I doubt it could have
>> been done in a significantly more transparent or participatory manner. And
>> the community was also stretched pretty thin, there were constant
>> complaints of being consulted about too many things at the same time, with
>> the movement strategy discussions, board election discussions, code of
>> conduct discussions, branding discussions etc. going on, while people's
>> personal lives were in disarray due to the lockdowns and other
>> virus-related disruptions; some consultations had to be delayed, even the
>> board elections had to be delayed. So I doubt the community would have had
>> the capacity to practice oversight, had it been invited to.
>>
>> That's not to say those we shouldn't ask for more transparency and
>> participation *going forward*, as those circumstances are now largely
>> behind us (at least in the Global North; not sure about community capacity
>> in the countries which would be the most logical beneficiaries of an equity
>> fund). But we should acknowledge the severe constraints the WMF was under a
>> year ago.
>>
>> (disclaimer: I work at the WMF, in a non-grantmaking-related position.
>> All of the above is my personal opinion as a long-time community member.)
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-coronavirus-response-people-first-8bd99ea6214b
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:21 PM Yair Rand  wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't yet had time to look over the grantee organizations, and the
>>> general issue of funding non-Wikimedia efforts has been fairly well-covered
>>> by statements from all four recently-elected trustees, so I'm just going to
>>> take a moment to bring up some points about the specific process used here:
>>> * This was not participatory. Neither the community nor any
>>> community-elected group were invited to look these over even to give
>>> advance feedback, much less make a decision.
>>> * This was not transparent. Even after the fact, no notes were given on
>>> what the WMF used to judge the options; no metrics, no pros-and-cons
>>> analysis of each, no general review. Nor was a list of rejected applicants
>>> made public, as far as I can see.
>>> * COI concerns: Given the lack of any mentioned standards about this (I
>>> haven't seen anything resembling the FDC's COI rules, and the WMF's general
>>> COI policy seems quite 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming the first round of grants from the Equity Fund

2021-09-11 Thread Samuel Klein
Broadly agreeing with Gergő — our central challenge in this arena is that
the Foundation's total investment in things outside of staffing its own
growing org has historically been quite small — even though we recognize
that WP itself needed well under $1M to take off, and that we need a wide
range of innovative ideas - and recognition for the most creative community
efforts - to have a chance of repeating that in other arenas. The amount we
invest in new outside projects and regional affiliates was modest a decade
ago, and since then has grown more slowly the internal budget.

So I was glad to see these funds earmarked last year, and the results seem
healthy; at the same time the Foundation seems to be increasing
community-overseen grantmaking, which is essential. The two are not
mutually exclusive.

S.



On Sat., Sep. 11, 2021, 3:14 p.m. Gergő Tisza,  wrote:

> One can argue about whether it was a good idea to give 15% of the
> Foundation's annual grant budget to largely-unrelated charities as a snap
> reaction to a wave of US political protests. But assuming it was - this
> happened in the middle of the pandemic, with the WMF operating on extremely
> restricted resources (with many staff working half-time, see [1]), and was
> trying to react to an unexpected event quickly, so I doubt it could have
> been done in a significantly more transparent or participatory manner. And
> the community was also stretched pretty thin, there were constant
> complaints of being consulted about too many things at the same time, with
> the movement strategy discussions, board election discussions, code of
> conduct discussions, branding discussions etc. going on, while people's
> personal lives were in disarray due to the lockdowns and other
> virus-related disruptions; some consultations had to be delayed, even the
> board elections had to be delayed. So I doubt the community would have had
> the capacity to practice oversight, had it been invited to.
>
> That's not to say those we shouldn't ask for more transparency and
> participation *going forward*, as those circumstances are now largely
> behind us (at least in the Global North; not sure about community capacity
> in the countries which would be the most logical beneficiaries of an equity
> fund). But we should acknowledge the severe constraints the WMF was under a
> year ago.
>
> (disclaimer: I work at the WMF, in a non-grantmaking-related position. All
> of the above is my personal opinion as a long-time community member.)
>
> [1]:
> https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-coronavirus-response-people-first-8bd99ea6214b
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:21 PM Yair Rand  wrote:
>
>> I haven't yet had time to look over the grantee organizations, and the
>> general issue of funding non-Wikimedia efforts has been fairly well-covered
>> by statements from all four recently-elected trustees, so I'm just going to
>> take a moment to bring up some points about the specific process used here:
>> * This was not participatory. Neither the community nor any
>> community-elected group were invited to look these over even to give
>> advance feedback, much less make a decision.
>> * This was not transparent. Even after the fact, no notes were given on
>> what the WMF used to judge the options; no metrics, no pros-and-cons
>> analysis of each, no general review. Nor was a list of rejected applicants
>> made public, as far as I can see.
>> * COI concerns: Given the lack of any mentioned standards about this (I
>> haven't seen anything resembling the FDC's COI rules, and the WMF's general
>> COI policy seems quite lacking for something like this), and given the
>> problematic history this Fund in particular has in this area, I must ask:
>> Did any staff, trustees, or committee members involved in this process have
>> any personal associations to any of the grantee organizations, and if so,
>> were they (/would they have been) required to recuse themselves from the
>> relevant decisions?
>> * The Committee appears to have committed to sharing "terms of each grant
>> and updates on their progress" on Meta, per the FAQ. I don't see any links
>> to the grant terms. Should we still expect these things?
>>
>> (A few excerpts from answers given by the recently elected, at the Q on
>> the topic of funding non-Wikimedia efforts in general:
>> "I don’t think WF has any money to spare for any other causes
>> irrespective of their worth. There’s an NGO or 100 for any cause, and WF
>> cause is exclusively Wikimedia movement support." - Victoria
>> "At this time, I'd be reluctant to start funding projects entirely
>> unrelated to Wikimedia projects." - Pundit
>> "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to support and empower the
>> communities of the Wikimedia projects and the projects themselves. Among
>> the many worthy goals that one can set, we choose to pursue this one. [...]
>> The Wikimedia Foundation looks relatively big and well-resourced (in terms
>> of 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming the first round of grants from the Equity Fund

2021-09-11 Thread Gergő Tisza
One can argue about whether it was a good idea to give 15% of the
Foundation's annual grant budget to largely-unrelated charities as a snap
reaction to a wave of US political protests. But assuming it was - this
happened in the middle of the pandemic, with the WMF operating on extremely
restricted resources (with many staff working half-time, see [1]), and was
trying to react to an unexpected event quickly, so I doubt it could have
been done in a significantly more transparent or participatory manner. And
the community was also stretched pretty thin, there were constant
complaints of being consulted about too many things at the same time, with
the movement strategy discussions, board election discussions, code of
conduct discussions, branding discussions etc. going on, while people's
personal lives were in disarray due to the lockdowns and other
virus-related disruptions; some consultations had to be delayed, even the
board elections had to be delayed. So I doubt the community would have had
the capacity to practice oversight, had it been invited to.

That's not to say those we shouldn't ask for more transparency and
participation *going forward*, as those circumstances are now largely
behind us (at least in the Global North; not sure about community capacity
in the countries which would be the most logical beneficiaries of an equity
fund). But we should acknowledge the severe constraints the WMF was under a
year ago.

(disclaimer: I work at the WMF, in a non-grantmaking-related position. All
of the above is my personal opinion as a long-time community member.)

[1]:
https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/wikimedia-coronavirus-response-people-first-8bd99ea6214b

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:21 PM Yair Rand  wrote:

> I haven't yet had time to look over the grantee organizations, and the
> general issue of funding non-Wikimedia efforts has been fairly well-covered
> by statements from all four recently-elected trustees, so I'm just going to
> take a moment to bring up some points about the specific process used here:
> * This was not participatory. Neither the community nor any
> community-elected group were invited to look these over even to give
> advance feedback, much less make a decision.
> * This was not transparent. Even after the fact, no notes were given on
> what the WMF used to judge the options; no metrics, no pros-and-cons
> analysis of each, no general review. Nor was a list of rejected applicants
> made public, as far as I can see.
> * COI concerns: Given the lack of any mentioned standards about this (I
> haven't seen anything resembling the FDC's COI rules, and the WMF's general
> COI policy seems quite lacking for something like this), and given the
> problematic history this Fund in particular has in this area, I must ask:
> Did any staff, trustees, or committee members involved in this process have
> any personal associations to any of the grantee organizations, and if so,
> were they (/would they have been) required to recuse themselves from the
> relevant decisions?
> * The Committee appears to have committed to sharing "terms of each grant
> and updates on their progress" on Meta, per the FAQ. I don't see any links
> to the grant terms. Should we still expect these things?
>
> (A few excerpts from answers given by the recently elected, at the Q on
> the topic of funding non-Wikimedia efforts in general:
> "I don’t think WF has any money to spare for any other causes irrespective
> of their worth. There’s an NGO or 100 for any cause, and WF cause is
> exclusively Wikimedia movement support." - Victoria
> "At this time, I'd be reluctant to start funding projects entirely
> unrelated to Wikimedia projects." - Pundit
> "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to support and empower the
> communities of the Wikimedia projects and the projects themselves. Among
> the many worthy goals that one can set, we choose to pursue this one. [...]
> The Wikimedia Foundation looks relatively big and well-resourced (in terms
> of money, people, etc.), and it is tempting to use some of them for other
> purposes. However, the truth is that the Wikimedia Foundation is not so
> big, and the resources are very limited. If we scatter them in too many
> different places, we will end up achieving nothing - and the Wikimedia
> projects will be the first to pay the price." - Laurentius
> I'm not going to try to clip Rosiestep's answer because I feel like a
> clipped version would risk being misrepresentative of her position. I
> recommend reading the full versions of all four (quite interesting and
> nuanced) answers at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A/Question11
> )
>
> (There are, of course, more fundamental problems with the Fund, but let's
> leave that for another time.)
>
> Thank you.
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 8 בספט׳ 2021 ב-10:09 מאת ‪Lisa Gruwell‬‏ <‪
> lgruw...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We are 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

2021-09-11 Thread Andy Mabbett
On Sat, 11 Sept 2021 at 16:45, Leo Z  wrote:

> Hope this clear some of your confusion.

Which confusion would that be?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VAZYKQXFUITEZVELVJCMYFJVM7ZBYATL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org


[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

2021-09-11 Thread Leo Z
Wikimedia Foundation is not a membership-based organization, you don’t pay a 
membership dues like those of many professional organizations. Henceforth, it 
is theoretically cannot be an election which would not be legally enforceable 
without registered voting members, that’s paying members with verified 
identity. The community wide voting is structured to function like an election, 
and I have no doubt the board of trustee will follow established convention on 
this matter.

Hope this clear some of your confusion.

Best,
Leo
On Sep 11, 2021, 11:25 PM +0800, Andy Mabbett , 
wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia 
> > Foundation.
>
> AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be.
> The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my
> **emphasis**):
>
> (iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated**
> through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other
> provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected
> who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or
> other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal
> law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a
> vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to
> this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below.
>
> while Article IV, Section 3(A) says:
>
> (i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of
> talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best
> fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by
> the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and
> inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of
> its work.
>
> Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that
> the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse
> set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to
> reject one or more of them.
>
> Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of
> the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates
> to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for
> the Board to consider.
>
> I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am?
>
>
> [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GLOFABTMEAK2PJCBKPC4AAZZKFZ344L2/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VE5QRABLGRTIODP3Z3ONAHOHDHQYAQ2J/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

2021-09-11 Thread Lucas Werkmeister
Wasn’t this mentioned in the results announcement [1]?

> == Waiting for the Board’s appointment ==
>
> While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote,
> they are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need
> to pass a successful background check and meet the qualifications
> outlined in the Bylaws. This process can be longer depending on the
> country of residence of the candidates. The Board has set a tentative
> date to appoint new trustees at the end of this month. The Board also
> has approved a short extension to the terms of the exiting trustees to
> allow a smooth transition.

Cheers,
Lucas

[1]:
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2021/09/07/results-for-the-most-contended-wikimedia-foundation-board-of-trustees-election/

On 11.09.21 17:23, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta  wrote:
> 
>> My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia 
>> Foundation.
> 
> AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be.
> The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my
> **emphasis**):
> 
>(iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated**
> through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other
> provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected
> who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or
> other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal
> law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a
> vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to
> this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below.
> 
> while Article IV, Section 3(A) says:
> 
>(i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of
> talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best
> fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by
> the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and
> inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of
> its work.
> 
> Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that
> the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse
> set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to
> reject one or more of them.
> 
> Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of
> the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates
> to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for
> the Board to consider.
> 
> I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am?
> 
> 
> [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws
> 
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/2P7KTCIHQWPODG3O4SGTFTISJULLKJXI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

2021-09-11 Thread Andy Mabbett
On Tue, 7 Sept 2021 at 19:16, Tito Dutta  wrote:

> My good wishes to all the newly selected board members of Wikimedia 
> Foundation.

AIUI, they are not yet board members, nor are they guaranteed to be.
The Trust's bylaws[1] state, at Article IV, Section 3(C) (my
**emphasis**):

   (iii) The Board will appoint candidates who are **nominated**
through this process, subject to Article IV, Section 3(A), and other
provisions of these Bylaws. In the event that a candidate is selected
who does not meet the requirements of Article IV, Section 3(A) or
other requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal
law, the Board will (a) **not appoint the candidate**, (b) declare a
vacancy on the Board, and (c) fill the resulting vacancy, subject to
this Section 3 and to Article IV, Section 6 below.

while Article IV, Section 3(A) says:

   (i) The Board shall be composed of Trustees with a diverse set of
talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies that will best
fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation, **as determined by
the Board**. The Board is committed to promoting diversity and
inclusion both in terms of trustee composition and in other aspects of
its work.

Together, these seem to give the Board the option to "determine" that
the "nominated" individuals would not create a board with "a diverse
set of talents, experience, backgrounds, and competencies" and to
reject one or more of them.

Furthermore, it seems to make a lie of the claim [2] that "Members of
the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to elect four candidates
to a three-year term.", if, in fact, we merely "nominate" people for
the Board to consider.

I'd like to think I'm wrong. Can anyone show me how I am?


[1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bylaws

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
https://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GLOFABTMEAK2PJCBKPC4AAZZKFZ344L2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org


[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

2021-09-11 Thread Adam Wight
It's remarkable that we elected 2/4 women and 3/4 people whose mother
tongue is not English, given the dominance of male and English-speaking
wiki contributors in surveys.  It's even more surprising that we
accomplished this given that only 4 of the 20 nominated candidates are
women, the odds of this happening randomly are low.

Also I'd like to point out that Dariusz shared his class background of
growing up with few economic means in a so-called developing country under
a communist government, and it's unfair of us to simply throw him into this
problematic "Global North" category.  Victoria is from Belarus, and
although we don't know her economic background this is certainly not a
country of great privileges.

I think we should give our voters credit for responding to the known
problem of a content and participant gender gap by electing women to the
WMF Board.  We have a bootstrapping challenge, but the discussion on this
thread and the outcome of the election shows that we might be able to
collectively find ways to balance democratic governance with better global
representation.

As others have pointed out, the Global Council might be an even more
important target for these ideas.

Two things that I didn't see during this cycle were anyone campaigning on
behalf of their preferred candidate, or creation of a slate of candidates
with common platform goals.  It seems like we should be more clear ahead of
time about which candidates might give us the outcomes we hope for.  If you
want to see us represented by a woman from a Global South country, amplify
her voice.  If you want to see a concept like devolution of decision-making
embraced by the Board, then mobilize to make it widely understood why this
is desirable, and make it clear which candidates support the policy.  It's
likely that I'm just out of touch and this  mobilization is already
happening—please share examples if so!

Congratulations to the new Board and the voters who chose them, and thank
you for a great discussion so far.
—[[mw:User:Adamw]]

On Sat 11. Sep 2021 at 04:37, Ashwin Baindur - User AshLin <
ashwin.bain...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The voting system (single transferable vote) chosen reflects the
> electorate's choice fairly. In this case, the primarily Global North
> electorate prefers to elect Global North candidates, so the election system
> has faithfully expressed the voting outcome of that behaviour. So, I do not
> blame the election system for doing it's job. The issue is essentially
> about human behaviour and choice.
>
> What is unrealistic is to allow fully unfettered election but to  expect
> that the fully unfettered outcome of that election would faithfully provide
> the outcome of the Board's desire for a diverse set of elected candidates.
>
> In the absence of any kind of constraint, when presented with a field of
> candidates from all parts of the World, the primarily Global North
> electorate elected a completely Global North lineup in line with their
> views about what a suitable candidate should be like.
>
> So obviously, the WMF expressing a desire to have a diverse board is
> futile if no specific allocation or reservation for the unrepresented
> region is made.
>
> The same could happen for the next year's Board of Trustees election as
> well unless there is specific provision for diversity.
>
> On Sat, 11 Sep, 2021, 6:55 am Butch Bustria,  wrote:
>
>> We better set a new criteria that board candidates for 2022 and 2023 must
>> reside outside the 28th parallel north and 42nd meridian east.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Butch Bustria
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021, 7:22 pm Mario Gómez,  wrote:
>>
>>> Fully agree with Mike.
>>>
>>> Also, rather than focusing on how different voting schemes would have
>>> affected some candidates to be one position up or down, wider diversity and
>>> representativity could be achieved by just electing 8 seats from community
>>> elections.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 7:47 PM Mike Peel  wrote:
>>>
 I don't get these kinds of arguments.

 I'm pretty much equally very active on enwiki + Wikidata + Commons -
 which should I chose as my 'resident' project? Most bytes (Commons),
 most edits (Wikidata), longest editing time (enwiki) - or something
 else? Or language for that matter - most of my editing right now is
 multilingual.

 I've lived in UK + Brazil + Spain (islands - off the coast of Africa) -
 am I global north or south?

 I've worked with two small affiliates: Wikimedia UK (back when it was
 founded), and Wiki Movimento Brasil - does that count as developed or
 emerging?

 What happens to others that fall on both sides of these arbitrary lines?

 Obrigado,
 Mike
 P.S., huge congrats to Rosie, Victoria, Dariusz and Lorenzo, who I know
 will do great jobs!

 On 8/9/21 05:36:41, Anupam Dutta wrote:
 > Congratulations to the winners and the participants also !
 >
 > Further to the ongoing