Hi James, is there any good reason to keep the exception? Imo it is a wrong signal we send out. At the end of the day all good governance rules suggest to minimize administrative tasks. And by definition everything which a "client " does not see, I.e Content or software, is administrative.
Rupert On Apr 28, 2015 9:08 PM, "James Alexander" <jalexan...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, James Alexander < > jalexan...@wikimedia.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel < > > > it...@wikimedia.org.il> 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 > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
