On 06.06.2015 12:19, Chris Keating wrote:
2) There is nothing in the process to produce any diversity in the result.
Say that there was a 2/3 to 1/3 split in the electorate on some important
issue. The right answer would surely be that you elect 2 people with one
view and 1 with the other. However, in this voting system you would likely
end up electing 3 people from the majority point of view. Because the
Wikimedia movement is much more complex than this it is difficult to
conclude that there was any particular issue like this that would have
affected the result, but still, the point applies. The voting system builds
in homogeneity not diversity.
My congratulations too.
I know some of the elected board members and they can do a good job.
My approach is always the same: everyone has a good potential, the best
is to give him (I would say also her) the opportunity and the time to
Anyway I agree a lot in the point 2 of Chris but not as a criticism but
mainly as measure of the efficacy of the current governance. This
morning I had the idea to write the same opinion, Chris gave me the
opportunity to agree.
Even if we would push a lot the diversity, the effective realization is
at the moment only a project and may be "a long time strategy", but can
be effective only if it is associated with a "short time strategy" more
realistic because the biggest "stakeholder" of Wikimedia remains at the
moment represented by an homogeneity of type of users. This is a real
point to evaluate.
When someone starts to write a strategy, the very first point is to
identify the stakeholders. In this case this election identifies clearly
who are the main ones.
I agree with Chris that this model of voting is an expression of the
community but in a democracy also the minorities should have the
possibility to be represented and, most important, should have the
possibility to bring the precious contribution called "different point
I hope that the same FDC will considerate it while evaluation annual
programs, strategies and projects of the applicants. There is a short
time strategy and a long time strategy and the objectives may not be the
same in order to don't be "out of the context" (there is an elected
board member who has been also president of the FDC, I think that he
will surely agree).
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: