Sue writes:

"Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had
> been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be
> surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify
> under the edit count requirement anyway.
> "Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count
> requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required
> so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify.
> If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower
> the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of
> most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense?"

It makes sense to me. I think many thoughtful people recognize that the
edit-count requirement is a fairly weak metric of engagement in the
Wikimedia community. I also think the exemptions actually have reflected
the same recognition -- that someone who is not a dedicated editor may be a
committed and contributing member of the community in other ways than
super-numerous recent edits.

That there should be some threshold of engagement I think is necessary to
prevent capture of WMF board, but I'm not sure it needs to be as high as it
is right now.

FWIW, when I was on staff I did not vote for WMF board positions, even
though I could, because I thought it was important in the role I was
playing to recuse myself from engagement in the elections. I don't think
that reasoning would apply to all staff members, but it felt applicable in
my particular case.

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Reply via email to