[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
I'd have been more impressed if the answer was that we are a global and multilingual organisation, and there is a potentially huge overhead in translating multiple questions and answers into assorted languages of the movement. Limiting the amount of translation by only translating for languages where Wikimedians have requested it, and limiting the number of questions seems to me a very practical response. But it puts enormous power into the hands of the people who composite and choose the questions. As for the candidates, if they baulk at a few hours of answering relevant questions, do they have the time available to take on the role? WSC > > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 00:17:24 -0400 > From: Benjamin Lees > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Message-ID: > qteq0...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="636f6e05c680d18c" > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:18 AM Gerard Meijssen > > wrote: > > > You have to appreciate that fulfilling the role of a board member of the > > Wikimedia Foundations is very time consuming. The candidates that may be > > chosen from are all volunteers, they have a day job. The argument for > > having only eleven questions as given to us candidates was: there is a > > limit to the number of questions because otherwise it will require too > much > > of your time. > > > > Is this the right approach? If this is a time-consuming role, it doesn't > seem entirely unreasonable that the selection process would also be a > little bit time-consuming. I'm not saying the election needs to be an > endurance marathon, but the election should reflect the job. > > Being able to decide which questions are worth answering and which are best > ignored is an important skill. For that matter, so is being able to > reframe questions to address the points that you think are important, as > you have done here. > > It's important also for board candidates to be able to answer questions > that aren't the ones that are curated for them. The Foundation is the > board's main contact with the outside world, but it shouldn't be the only > one, as the Community Affairs Committee is a proper acknowledgment of. > Only listening to the people in the room with you leads to iceberg warnings > that go unheeded, as we've seen enough of lately. Even the very wise > cannot see all ends, and all that. > > Benjamin > -- next part -- > ___ 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/5CO6M77LFALXGAGB4RSYTWLOYUGE7DB6/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:18 AM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > You have to appreciate that fulfilling the role of a board member of the > Wikimedia Foundations is very time consuming. The candidates that may be > chosen from are all volunteers, they have a day job. The argument for > having only eleven questions as given to us candidates was: there is a > limit to the number of questions because otherwise it will require too much > of your time. > > Is this the right approach? If this is a time-consuming role, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that the selection process would also be a little bit time-consuming. I'm not saying the election needs to be an endurance marathon, but the election should reflect the job. Being able to decide which questions are worth answering and which are best ignored is an important skill. For that matter, so is being able to reframe questions to address the points that you think are important, as you have done here. It's important also for board candidates to be able to answer questions that aren't the ones that are curated for them. The Foundation is the board's main contact with the outside world, but it shouldn't be the only one, as the Community Affairs Committee is a proper acknowledgment of. Only listening to the people in the room with you leads to iceberg warnings that go unheeded, as we've seen enough of lately. Even the very wise cannot see all ends, and all that. Benjamin ___ 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/2BVOT3LUNKBVVHVQRFIXCDLHJWWKWZN5/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
While it may well be that other people in the WMF decide some of those issues, the 4 community-elected board members are the only people the community can elect in the WMF (afaik). We can't even elect the Committee that decides which questions we can ask to prospective board candidates. So really this is a bit like the questions asked to US presidential candidates. Many things are outside their control (eg fall upon Congress or the states), but people still ask questions about things that matter to them. Similarly, many of those questions matter to many members in the community. I think board candidates should answer some of them. Not necessarily all 52, but answering the at least ~10 most popular ones would seem reasonable. People want to know where candidates stand on those issues. The board passes an annual resolution for the budget, so I'd say Q47 is relevant. Even if the board won't be passing a resolution on mobile communications directly, they still decide the budget that goes towards such issues, and decides the CEO who will pick the staff that deal with more lower-level issues. After all, the board won't be passing a resolution on Wikispecies or Wikinews either, yet a question about that made it in. A common generic question on diversity is asked, but the more relevant, specific question about diversity concerns in the WMF staff team was omitted. I find it hard to understand any consistency in the questions picked. It may help me understand if the relevant Committee explained the process they used to choose. ___ 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/4VIDRDDMR4F6DNFRJV6OI6TMDEDE7R7N/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Since candidates are supposed to begin answering on July 7th, I would like to nudge the conversation towards a poll of candidates and interested community members, on an actionable proposal to use the longer list of questions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/Poll:_selecting_community_questions Maybe the Election Committee can help with this process? Kind regards, [[mw:User:Adamw]] On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:48 AM Lorenzo wrote: > As a candidate, I am of course not the one who decides what questions > get asked, but I will share my opinion on some of your points: > > On dom, 2021-07-04 at 12:50 +0100, Nosebagbear wrote: > > First and foremost, is that of the questions that received > > significant Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the > > Community felt so strongly those questions should be answered by any > > candidate should be grounds for presumptive inclusion. > > > > The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those > > presented. As a role that needs significant time, and in a process > > that lasts weeks, it seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is > > the most that can be answered in an election for the most "senior" > > community-selected positions in the movement. This is especially in > > comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA candidates who answer well over 20, > > on average. > > >From what I see, there are four questions that have received more than > two endorsements. One (about rebranding) has been included in the list, > one is basically a follow up to another question (commitment on not > taking paid positions), while the other two are: > * How should the Foundation treat foundation-run projects that incur a >high amount of on-wiki opposition? > * Should there be a waiting period between the time a Board member >leaves the Board, and they take on an employee, consultant, or other >paid role with the Foundation? > > I imagine that these are the questions you are referring to. They seem > to me meaningful questions, that could fit in the official list. > > Personally I have no objections to longer list of questions. I actually > expected it to be longer in the first place (say, 20 questions). > At the same time, I understand that the Election Committee wants to > have the same set of questions for everyone, and to keep the time > commitment under control. I wouldn't want my willingness to answer to > go against their efforts. > > Lorenzo > > ___ > 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/H3R432R72SOR4ONUPFJWV6TVAA3POBX5/ > 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/WVCBA3XWJM4RJTBGEWRHQSME4L67RAO5/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
As a candidate, I am of course not the one who decides what questions get asked, but I will share my opinion on some of your points: On dom, 2021-07-04 at 12:50 +0100, Nosebagbear wrote: > First and foremost, is that of the questions that received > significant Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the > Community felt so strongly those questions should be answered by any > candidate should be grounds for presumptive inclusion. > > The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those > presented. As a role that needs significant time, and in a process > that lasts weeks, it seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is > the most that can be answered in an election for the most "senior" > community-selected positions in the movement. This is especially in > comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA candidates who answer well over 20, > on average. >From what I see, there are four questions that have received more than two endorsements. One (about rebranding) has been included in the list, one is basically a follow up to another question (commitment on not taking paid positions), while the other two are: * How should the Foundation treat foundation-run projects that incur a high amount of on-wiki opposition? * Should there be a waiting period between the time a Board member leaves the Board, and they take on an employee, consultant, or other paid role with the Foundation? I imagine that these are the questions you are referring to. They seem to me meaningful questions, that could fit in the official list. Personally I have no objections to longer list of questions. I actually expected it to be longer in the first place (say, 20 questions). At the same time, I understand that the Election Committee wants to have the same set of questions for everyone, and to keep the time commitment under control. I wouldn't want my willingness to answer to go against their efforts. Lorenzo ___ 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/H3R432R72SOR4ONUPFJWV6TVAA3POBX5/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Hoi, Fae a few points..First board members are volunteers like you and all the things that are asked of a candidate represents a significant amount of time. In addition there are timelines and the notion of a process to improve questions is not really feasible. Also I said it before, many of the questions asked have nothing to do with the remit of a board member. Effectively, issues are put before the board and the board typically asks the WMF org for a proposal. As to autonomy of communities, they exist within boundaries. In the past projects have been put on notice, have been deleted and senior people from a project have been banned (most recently at the Croatian Wikipedia). Given that I am a member of the language committee, there are plans to do away with Incubator and have projects provisionally created. When the content of the project shows that it does not represent the language or other significant problems it will be removed. This ensures a much easier integration from the start for a starting project. NB a language will first have to be considered "eligible". After this, it will have the prospect of activation given the policies of the Language committee. As to funding of what you call external .. calling the paid-for API external is disingenuous. We already provide this service, it is part of our commitment to share in the sum of all knowledge. With this service we provide a better service to commercial entities that ask for a service level and are willing to pay for the additional service. This service improves quality all around. As to payments to external parties. I am all for it when it provides a real service to our movement. I would for instance make Wikicite a shared project with the Internet Archive because it would deduplicate services and the combination will improve services to us and to them. You call the process opaque. It is. It is because it is attempting to bring more engagement from all over the world, the way it is done is new and there is a difference between the operational reality and the expectations during the planning phase. This is not a community process even though the objective is very much to engage a wider public. Thanks, GerardM On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 08:18, Fæ wrote: > I'm surprised at how odd the "selected questions" read,[1] which will > probably result in off-topic or wooly answers by the candidates unless > they have "abstracts" somewhere to unpack the coded language. > > "What is your opinion on the claim of autonomy by Wikipedia > communities and the attempts of the Wikimedia Foundation to regulate > control over community?" > - No idea what issues this is attempting to cover, exactly which > claims about autonomy, is WMDE going to spin off to become a public > library, is the WMF going to get rid of project sysops and replace > them with contractors? The question could have been a lot more > specific. > > "How should the Wikimedia Foundation engage with emerging > WikiCommunities in the near future (next 2 to 3 years)?" > - What emerging communities, what is a WikiCommunity? Many (external) > communities exist that don't have specific Affiliate representation, > is this what it is implying. I don't know. > > "What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation using funds for > purposes not related to Wikimedia projects?" > - The WMF uses funds for all sorts of things unrelated to the specific > projects, for example, the Commercial paid-for API is an external > commercial service, it is not intended as a service to the projects > and the projects never asked for it. It's weird to have an 'official' > question that implies other stuff does not exist. > > Agree that the opaque process followed for choosing these questions, > then having no community process for improving them, is a missed > opportunity. > > Links > 1. > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A > > Thanks, > Fae > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > ___ > 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/6IMVPDSCBUP4KQGIVQAO54WI32UPVE5J/ > 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/U55RRSSDLG3SK7F6VG6JN62EGEQWIO6C/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Hoi, some reflections: You have to appreciate that fulfilling the role of a board member of the Wikimedia Foundations is very time consuming. The candidates that may be chosen from are all volunteers, they have a day job. The argument for having only eleven questions as given to us candidates was: there is a limit to the number of questions because otherwise it will require too much of your time. When I read the unfiltered questions, there are questions, actually demands, on the time of board members question 52 is a good example. Members of the board have fiduciary duties in their role. It is reasonable to expect that more time will be required than what is advertised as the time commitment. When people expect that individual questions are answered in a specified timeframe, it becomes unrealistic given the number of communities and the number of members in those communities. There are also questions in there that are operational and will as a consequence not be considered by the board. Eg question 47, 50. Other questions are framed in a way that gives them a distinct American slant. Question 55 for instance is important but then consider this: we have a font for dyslexic people and never considered updating them with support for cyrillic scripts. The request for funding for fonts for SignWriting, the only font for sign languages was denied. My point is that yes, this might be considered but the way it works is that the board discusses proposals, maybe asks for proposals from the WMF org. The question is not effective because it points to laws but does not show how this is to be made practical. The questions reflect what members of the community are interested in. In my opinion, it should work the other way around as well. My objective as a member of the board will be to share more of the knowledge that is available to us. I want Commons to be searchable in any language, I want the public to easily find available books from Wikisource in the languages people know how to read. I want us to share information in lists that can be used on any projects that has an interest in them (eg all the heads of state, all the national ministers of all the countries of the world). What do you think? To give it teeth, I want our traffic to reflect the diversity of people and the language they know. When people suggest that the communities have the primacy in their projects. I respectively remind them of the projects that were closed, projects where significant people in the community were removed. We have policies, we have a strategy that binds us all. As a board member, we are expected to subscribe to both. Thanks, GerardM On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 17:55, Nosebagbear wrote: > Hello, > > I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the > questions selected by the Elections Committee < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A> > from the broader Community-created list < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate#Community_Questions_for_Candidates> > has not been well-chosen, on several grounds. > > First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant > Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so > strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be > grounds for presumptive inclusion. > > The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As > a role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it > seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be > answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions > in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA > candidates who answer well over 20, on average. > > A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions > on the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult ones > left off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it > is also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from > individually seeking answers from candidates. > > Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am > unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the > original Q talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given > for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list. > > There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I > look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a > section. > > Cheers, > > Nosebagbear > ___ > 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 >
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Really, there shouldn't be any "selection". All of the community questions should be put over, and the candidates then may choose to answer any or all of them. If a candidate does not answer a question, people can then take from that what they will. This is a community selection process. There is no valid reason for any question a member of the community has to be excluded. Todd On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:55 AM Nosebagbear wrote: > Hello, > > I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the > questions selected by the Elections Committee < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A> > from the broader Community-created list < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate#Community_Questions_for_Candidates> > has not been well-chosen, on several grounds. > > First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant > Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so > strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be > grounds for presumptive inclusion. > > The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As > a role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it > seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be > answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions > in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA > candidates who answer well over 20, on average. > > A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions > on the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult ones > left off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it > is also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from > individually seeking answers from candidates. > > Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am > unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the > original Q talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given > for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list. > > There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I > look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a > section. > > Cheers, > > Nosebagbear > ___ > 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/OQUL2MSPXBDUNHH7JI4IZFUHIBJ5ZNZS/ > 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/4FBIML4KJV24NQRXVRY7MA7Z7JFWXXKS/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Hi, On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 8:18 AM Fæ wrote: > > "What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation using funds for > purposes not related to Wikimedia projects?" > - The WMF uses funds for all sorts of things unrelated to the specific > projects, for example, the Commercial paid-for API is an external > commercial service, it is not intended as a service to the projects > and the projects never asked for it. It's weird to have an 'official' > question that implies other stuff does not exist. > Just pitching in here since I originally wrote that question. In retrospect, it could have been more clear. The question was not about structural costs, or any cost that cannot be attributed to a single project. I'm referring to things like awarding grants to organizations that are unrelated to Wikimedia projects for purposes that are also unrelated to Wikimedia projects. During the Wikimedia Strategy 2030 process there were quite some discussions about doing this in the future. Also the Knowledge Equity Fund could fall into this category, although it's still early to say if it actually will. Best, MarioGom ___ 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/PN7GRXNSH7JR6LZK2SDTNDO2NL2UUQD2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
I'm surprised at how odd the "selected questions" read,[1] which will probably result in off-topic or wooly answers by the candidates unless they have "abstracts" somewhere to unpack the coded language. "What is your opinion on the claim of autonomy by Wikipedia communities and the attempts of the Wikimedia Foundation to regulate control over community?" - No idea what issues this is attempting to cover, exactly which claims about autonomy, is WMDE going to spin off to become a public library, is the WMF going to get rid of project sysops and replace them with contractors? The question could have been a lot more specific. "How should the Wikimedia Foundation engage with emerging WikiCommunities in the near future (next 2 to 3 years)?" - What emerging communities, what is a WikiCommunity? Many (external) communities exist that don't have specific Affiliate representation, is this what it is implying. I don't know. "What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation using funds for purposes not related to Wikimedia projects?" - The WMF uses funds for all sorts of things unrelated to the specific projects, for example, the Commercial paid-for API is an external commercial service, it is not intended as a service to the projects and the projects never asked for it. It's weird to have an 'official' question that implies other stuff does not exist. Agree that the opaque process followed for choosing these questions, then having no community process for improving them, is a missed opportunity. Links 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ 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/6IMVPDSCBUP4KQGIVQAO54WI32UPVE5J/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
I also want to note something about question 10. It's incredibly amusing that, on a list of questions for arguably the most senior position the community has any say in, names for Wikimedia projects (and referring to Wikimedia projects as a whole) are written incorrectly. The bit: "WikiSpecies, WikiNews, Wikiversity and other smaller Wikiprojects" No. It's Wikispecies, not WikiSpecies. Wikinews, not WikiNews. And "Wikiprojects" generally refers to groups of collaborating editors on specific projects, not the projects themselves; use "Wikimedia projects". Best, Verm On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 7:56 PM Adam Wight wrote: > As a candidate, I would be happy to work with the full list of questions, > and to choose which ones I want to answer. Whether we each prioritize the > harder or easier questions could be useful information for the electors. > Potential drawbacks are that our responses might be harder to compare if > the questions are less standardized, and that some might feel obliged to > answer the full set, which would be a heavy burden. > > Regards, > [[mw:User:Adamw]] > > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 8:55 AM Nosebagbear wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the >> questions selected by the Elections Committee < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A> >> from the broader Community-created list < >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate#Community_Questions_for_Candidates> >> has not been well-chosen, on several grounds. >> >> First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant >> Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so >> strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be >> grounds for presumptive inclusion. >> >> The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As >> a role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it >> seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be >> answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions >> in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA >> candidates who answer well over 20, on average. >> >> A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions >> on the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult ones >> left off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it >> is also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from >> individually seeking answers from candidates. >> >> Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am >> unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the >> original Q talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given >> for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list. >> >> There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I >> look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a >> section. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Nosebagbear >> ___ >> 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/OQUL2MSPXBDUNHH7JI4IZFUHIBJ5ZNZS/ >> 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/FUWCYEI5K7AEX4YDR7HHD4XXHCIVARNK/ > 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/2PHRG3DFXWULYZZDBOVITIM3HDCV6INX/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
As a candidate, I would be happy to work with the full list of questions, and to choose which ones I want to answer. Whether we each prioritize the harder or easier questions could be useful information for the electors. Potential drawbacks are that our responses might be harder to compare if the questions are less standardized, and that some might feel obliged to answer the full set, which would be a heavy burden. Regards, [[mw:User:Adamw]] On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 8:55 AM Nosebagbear wrote: > Hello, > > I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the > questions selected by the Elections Committee < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A> > from the broader Community-created list < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate#Community_Questions_for_Candidates> > has not been well-chosen, on several grounds. > > First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant > Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so > strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be > grounds for presumptive inclusion. > > The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As > a role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it > seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be > answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions > in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA > candidates who answer well over 20, on average. > > A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions > on the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult ones > left off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it > is also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from > individually seeking answers from candidates. > > Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am > unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the > original Q talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given > for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list. > > There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I > look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a > section. > > Cheers, > > Nosebagbear > ___ > 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/OQUL2MSPXBDUNHH7JI4IZFUHIBJ5ZNZS/ > 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/FUWCYEI5K7AEX4YDR7HHD4XXHCIVARNK/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
