tldr: At this point, the requirements will not be changed for this election cycle. I recognize on one level this change seems as simple as changing the election Meta page, but as we realized in discussion, in execution, it requires a bit more than that. See my last thread for more information on why that decision was made. I believe, given our time constraints, that the right decision was made.
A few thoughts speaking for myself and not the committee. :) As a supporter of our affiliates, I empathize with wanting them to be included in all aspects of WMF governance. I agree that this discussion points out a flaw in our current setup, and that is why I support the notion of a standing elections committee. This year's committee has not yet discussed that topic, but it is on the agenda to discuss when we are able to do so. Ultimately, we had about 72 hours to decide on the many nuances of this issue, and even with this thread having taken place, it turned out that was not enough to do the topic justice. Practically speaking, the committee had to prioritize a lot of tasks and topics very quickly. Figuring out how to handle nominations, which was a part of our mandate and we felt had much broader implications (and so far I think has worked well) consumed much of that valuable time, and I think fairly so. I agree this is a flaw in our current process, but at this point, that was not an issue the committee is able to address. Having reviewed this discussion again, and based on some committee conversations, I think there are a few questions and tasks which would need to be addressed before the next election - and were not possible in the timeline this year's committee had to work with. - Affiliates, and many affiliate staff, are already able to engage in a board election. That was in part why including them in the community board election was not as urgent. However, that is not true for the FDC elections. Should the requirements be split for that reason? How much additional work would that require for the technical support staff? - There is existing precedent on what qualifies as WMF involved individuals - the staff, current and former board, as well as current and former advisors. That is not as easily applied to all affiliates. It is easier with chapters, but much harder with user groups. Should user groups therefore just be left out? That seems unfair. There are user groups with staff, and there are some currently more active than some chapters. So the arguments in segregating them for the purposes of this conversation, in my opinion, do not hold up. Which brings us to... - If affiliate staff are included, then following the WMF example, that implies other key leaders should be allowed to vote as well. That then raises the question of who is in and who is out. That is easy to define with WMF, we have clear lists available based on clear processes. However, when considering nearly 75 different affiliates, there are commonalities, but not universal terms and groups that can be easily applied to a requirement. Some have advisory bodies, some do not. Some have staffs, some do not. Some have governing boards, some do not. Some have designated leaders, some do not. - Many of the volunteer leaders are active editors, but as this election has shown, that is not always the case. There was a chapter board member that was ineligible, but may have qualified by all other practical measurements, but that would not really have been addressed even if affiliate staff were allowed to vote. If we had let in board members as well, what about affiliates without elected or structured boards? Are they just out of luck? So should affiliates then decide individually who qualifies and submit those lists to WMF before the elections? That was not possible this time, but is a possibility next time. And again, should some of this just apply to the FDC elections and not board elections? - How is WMF going to be able to verify "staff" and what does that include for affiliates? The term is clearly defined for WMF, but not as much for all 70 some affiliates spread across many countries with different legal definitions of staff. Is someone doing pro-bono work staff? Some would say yes, others no. So how will WMF go about verifying employment status of each affiliate staff member that requests a vote? Is there one easy method that is legal in every country an affiliate is based in? How up to date are the existing public lists? - Do we attempt to come up with a broad qualifying definition that then allows for case by case determinations of the Elections Committee? How would that work? Would there be an appeals process? How would that work? - Ideally, these issues would be discussed more in-depth by the committee, and a public RFC based on their initial findings would give the community a chance to weigh in. That simply was not possible this time. I recognize that is annoying given the issue came up months ago, but the group charged with addressing it was not created until days before the election process had to formally begin. That is not a problem we can address right now, and I think the solution rests with a standing elections committee. I personally feel that there are answers to each of these questions - I pose them not as a "this cannot be overcome" statement, but more to suggest that 72 hours was not enough time to hash out each of these details. I also offer them because I do not know who will be working on answering them - so figure I might as well "brain dump" while it is present in my mind. ;) -greg (User:Varnent) Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee (not speaking in that capacity, except in "tldr" - but obviously influenced by it) Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee (not speaking in that capacity on this thread - but partly why I give affiliate topics so much thought) On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:08 PM, James Alexander <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, James Alexander < > [email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Any response or input from the Election Committee? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think Greg said it relatively well earlier as the coordinator for the > > > committee (I am it's staff advisor). At this point the committee has > > > decided on the voting requirements and it is highly unlikely to change > > for > > > the current election cycle. They did have serious discussions about > > > everything mentioned in this thread both on their list and during the > > first > > > committee meeting but in the end decided that they did not believe > there > > > was a strong need for change right now. When this conversation came > back > > up > > > it was broached whether we wanted to revisit and no one said expressed > a > > > desire to. > > > > > > Also as Greg said I think this is a good topic for a permanent election > > > committee which I very much think should exist. > > > > > > James Alexander > > > Community Advocacy > > > Wikimedia Foundation > > > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur > > > > > > This is a weakness in the process. Itzik raised an issue and was told it > > was too early to discuss. He raised it again when the elections > approached, > > and is being told its too late. Obviously the "committee" conducted its > > deliberations on this question in secret, which is a strange approach > > considering there have been requests and a desire for open discussion > from > > the community. > > > > I agree, I also wish that the committee had more time to make the decision. > I had hoped to seat them in January and they would have had a lot of time > to discuss this both here and elsewhere. Sadly we were waiting for the > board on a couple things and were unable to seat them until recently and at > that point there was a time crunch and things needed to be decided quickly. > As both Greg and I said however, these arguments were in no way ignored, > when I introduced the topic (in one of the very first emails to the > committee) I listed all of the questions here about staff voting, chapter > staff/board, edit requirements etc and then backed off. The committee > discussed all of those and decided, in the end, that this was the right > decision. > > > > > It's also worth pointing out that many of the people in this discussion > > agreed that the community requirements are so low that there should be no > > reason any interested employee (of the WMF or elsewhere) can't qualify > > under other criteria, eliminating the need for a special franchise for > WMF > > employees. > > > > On a completely personal level I actually think the requirements could be > lowered. We already had at least 1 individual who I think was a perfect fit > for the FDC for example but was unable to run and had to move himself to > ineligible because of the edit requirements (he may have had over 150 edits > this year and be very active in the movement as a whole but he did not have > the 20 edits in the past 6 months required). However the committee decided > not to do so and that is their prerogative. > > Unfortunately it appears that anyone interested in adjusting the criteria > > will need perfecting timing while broaching this subject next year. > > > This is why Greg (and myself. and the election committee from last > year who made > a proposal <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Standing_Election_Committee>, > and from what I've seen the election committee from this year) want to > have the board create a standing committee. That standing committee would > be empowered to have this discussion at any point and to discuss the > positives and negatives both themselves and with the community and make a > decision. They are much less likely to run into the problem that a one off > committee has where decisions need to be discussed and made and quickly so > that they can get other logistics in place. > > James Alexander > Community Advocacy > Wikimedia Foundation > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
