Salam Thank you for your feedback, Josh.
This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated Board, nor is a developing world-dominated. A lack of diversity in current Board composition is of course a discomforting reality while we have a immensely growing and unimaginably potential community in the Global South. But the key issue here is the total lack of proper representation for the Global South community, or any possibility thereof. The issue is not about developing vs developed, white or brown, but it is about having a more proportional Board that would allow it to listen to a more diverse range of opinion when deciding important issues. A proportional Board I imagine here doesn't necessarily North-dominated, neither South-dominated. Developing countries will not take this regional seat for granted. They would still have same voting powers with their at-large and affiliates counterparts. The goal we collectively want to reach here is a balanced and adequately representative Board that can voice concerns of the global community, so a fairer and more diverse important consensus could be reached. Under this plan, anybody can bid and win the at-large Board seat. If you're afraid that the electorate will eventually elect five at-large Trustees from Northern Hemisphere, then I can presume that there's something wrong with the non-Northern candidates. The utmost purpose of this at-large category is to ensure that the community will still have right to elect trustees in an unified voice, as well as to prevent any possibility of "Balkanization" of the Board membership. I believe in the wisdom of the crowd, and I am sure that the crowd will elect someone with clear records and trustworthy credentials, not just because he's an European or Asian. Best, Ramzy *Ramzy Muliawan* Chief Editor, Majalah AKSI MAN 2 Model Pekanbaru <https://aksimagazinem2m.wordpress.com/> Editor, min.wikipedia <https://min.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangguno:Muhraz> | id.wikipedia <https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pengguna:Muhraz> | meta.wikimedia <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Muhraz> Pekanbaru, Indonesia On 24 February 2016 at 13:40, Josh Lim <jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com> wrote: > While my first impression of this proposed plan is fairly positive, I do > have one major concern. > > > Wiadomość napisana przez Ramzy Muliawan <ramzymuliawa...@gmail.com> w > dniu 24.02.2016, o godz. 11:47: > > > > - Six regional seats, popularly elected by the regional communities. The > > proposed "regional communities" would be North America, South and Central > > America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and > > Asia Pacific and Oceania. > > - Five at-large seats, or what we call today as community seats. Like the > > regional one, it will be popularly elected --- but by the whole > community. > > My concern with the "at-large" seats is that if we’ve looked at the > history of community Board elections, the electorate is overwhelmingly from > the developed world. The candidates are also overwhelmingly from the > developed world. We’ve already seen this in the current election, where > despite the presence of six fine developing world candidates, myself > included, the electorate settled on three white men (no offense to Dariusz, > Denny and James). > > Under this proposed plan, Europe and North America will get one seat > each. Let’s hypothesize that all the elected "at-large" seats went to > developed world candidates. And then the affiliate seats have also > traditionally gone to developed countries as well. Then we have Jimmy’s > seat. Under this plan, we run the risk of having eleven of the fifteen > seats dominated by developed countries. So does this mean that the > remaining four seats should simply be tokens for developing countries, but > to which we have no leverage because we can easily be outvoted by the other > members of the Board? > > Last year, I had spoken out against quotas for developing countries, since > it effectively puts our representation at the mercy of the Board. I am > still figuring out what would be the best way to approach this issue, > especially since voting for community Board seats is by language, not by > country, but I’m looking at a mixture of temporary quotas (and I stress > "temporary"), developing stronger mechanisms for getting developing country > Wikipedians involved in movement governance (through affiliates, stronger > consultation mechanisms when discussing movement-wide issues, etc.), and > weighted voting in favor of certain geographies if this is technologically > possible. > > Josh > > JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM > Bachelor of Arts in Political Science > Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University > Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines > > jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com <mailto:jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com> | +63 (977) > 831-7582 > Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor > http://about.me/josh.lim <http://about.me/josh.lim> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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 New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>