On 6 June 2015 at 14:58, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm happy with S/N/O and with the election winners, but concerned about the
> diversity of the Board. I wonder if rethinking the entire board structure
> is in order, for example we could have:
> 1. One seat per continent, elected by the whole voting community
> 2. Two affiliate seats chosen by all affiliates including user groups.
> 3. Two appointed seats with non-renewable terms.
> Thoughts?
How many continents will get to have candidates?  Six? Seven? Eight?  There
was some pretty significant discussion in the current election that Europe
isn't really a unified continent, and that Eastern or Eastern/Central
Europe shouldn't be considered the same thing as Western Europe. And I'm
pretty sure we don't have anyone currently resident in Antarctica who would
meet even minimal requirements for election and who would willingly be a

I've never really heard a good argument for the existence of the chapter
seats, which are essentially community seats elected by representatives of
less than 10% of the active community.

And I do not understand why appointed seats should not be renewable,
although I agree that term limits should apply to all seats.  These may be
the only way to ensure some diversity.

Illario mentioned before that there was only one new woman candidate for
any of these elected positions, and the only two women candidates for the
board were the incumbents.  The strong push for candidates outside of the
"traditional" areas may play a role here. Several women I approached to
consider candidacies said quite bluntly that the activities they were
working on or were planning to work on were more likely to make a
difference in the movement than having a seat on the board would have, and
certainly would be making more difference than being on the FDC would
have.  I think there's a fair amount of truth in that.

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

Reply via email to