Thank you Jackie for the update.
I hope (and assume) that you will be able to include this in a list of
decisions to take by the Elections Committee before the next selection
process(es). The level of expected transparency might be a useful standard
decision item anyway?
Warmly,
Lodewijk
On
Hi all,
Thanks for discussing this topic. It is clear the publication of this
information is important to some community members. The Elections Committee
and Board Selection Task Force approved publishing a complete list of which
affiliate organizations voted in a table
Of course it's like that Ilario,sometimes some usergroups are "userpersons".
and as person involved in the previous ASBS election I politely hinted that
aspect as much as possible in the past. Also, sometimes even some chapters are
mostly few key persons when relationship with WMF is involved,
I think that there is a very sensible point here.
Sometimes behind some usergroups there is not a specific community but only
few people and sometimes some usergroups are "userpersons".
Being more transparent helps to demonstrate that the whole process has been
conducted appropriately but also
>
> I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need
> to protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members,
This is not some functionary volunteer role, nor is it a scholarship to
attend some event. The affiliate and the members of the Board of Trustees
I don't think there's anything blithe in pointing out that an
after-the-fact promise of secrecy serves no one. Affiliates had to decide
whether to vote without knowing whether the list would be published (but
hopefully realizing that the username of their voter would be published,
although I'm
I am disturbed to see some community members blithely dismissing the need
to protect the well-being of potentially vulnerable community members,
especially in a community that usually prides itself on the ability to
participate anonymously.
That said, perhaps we could publish the names of
> This has been a question those of us on the team supporting the election
asked ourselves: do we publish the participants publicly, or no?
This is the sort of question, analysis, decision, and communication that I
would very much like to see handled by a community-led election committee,
I appreciate that there are some concerns for the wellbeing of individuals
and affiliates. I'm sure there are always all kind of accusations about
engaging with foreign organizations, and if that would hold us back, we
could equally not allow ourselves to publish annual reports to the
movement, or
Considering this list, there is no sense to don't make public which
affiliated has voted.
Kind regards
On Thu, 21 Jul 2022, 16:09 Jan Ainali, wrote:
> I think that what was requested was which affiliates that voted, not which
> individuals.
>
> But we should note, that the list of users who
I think that what was requested was which affiliates that voted, not which
individuals.
But we should note, that the list of users who represented the affiliations
and voted is already public here:
https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/1350
/Jan Ainali
Den tors 21 juli 2022 kl
Hi
We are seeing alot of these
> ''making the list of participants more obvious is not something that we
> wish to do so we can protect the people in our communities who are
> vulnerable to just how political participating in free knowledge still is
> in much of the world.''
type comments.
For transparency purposes there is no question to ask. Surely the list must
be public.
Is WMF a transparent organization?
Kind regards
On Thu, 21 Jul 2022, 06:14 Jackie Koerner, wrote:
> Hi Alice and Adamw,
>
> Thanks for this question. This has been a question those of us on the team
>
Hi Alice and Adamw,
Thanks for this question. This has been a question those of us on the team
supporting the election asked ourselves: do we publish the participants
publicly, or no?
Movement Strategy and Governance is made up of facilitators from around the
world. We all have a broad
+1 to this question, and whether we can make the list of voting
affiliates public in the same way that we publicize the voting rolls for
individuals participating in Community [S]elections. The results page
[1] shows that 112 affiliate organizations each cast one vote.
Regards,
Hi Jackie,
Thanks for sharing the result. Where can we find information about how many
chapters/thematic organizations and usergroups have casted their votes?
Alice.
> Am 19.07.2022 um 19:32 schrieb Jackie Koerner :
>
> You can find this message translated into additional languages on
16 matches
Mail list logo
