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 realize it.

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 of view".

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).


Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to