Hoi, I am the last one to say that multi-linguality is not important. However, given that the affiliates board is selected by an organisation that NEEDS to communicate in English, I disagree.
It is vital for people of the affiliates to have a reasonable understanding of English and when they do not, this is not the place to start remedying it. Thanks, GerardM On 6 March 2016 at 08:36, attolippip <attolip...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > As you are (probably) aware, the 2016 affiliate-selected Board seats > process has started already. And I do think that the process is broken > somewhere . The democracy principles even in my country, though it is > far from being a role model for transparency and governance, state that > people are equal and they have rights and responsibilities. But the process > at the moment is not fair and equal footing is not provided for. It is > great to have dedicated friends across the Movement that can translate your > statement into German or Chinese, but as long as not all statements are > translated into the languages used in all affiliates eligible to vote, I > deem the process broken. > > Thus I formally request that WMF spend enough resources to have all > nominations pages translated into all languages requested by the affiliates > eligible to vote   and all languages used already by the nominees. I > am sure that the three facilitators cannot provide it. And there are limits > to what volunteers can do  or how fast. If WMF refuses, I am going to > use my own money , it costs 150 UAH (around 6 USD) to have a page > translated into Swedish, for example :) I can manage 7 pages translated > into as many languages as my personal budget will allow, but I shall do it > fairly at least, so we won’t have Susanna’s statement only in English and > Spanish, while Osmar’s is also in German, Catalan and French. WMF spends > considerable resources (mostly in staff time) on supporting the three > "community-elected" seats, but these two seats are not lesser board seats > than the three "community" ones. > > The nominees write their statement in English. Nothing wrong with that, of > course. But for a tiny little (and big) thing: not everybody understands it > well enough to make an informed choice. But even among seven board members > of Wikimedia Ukraine, two DO NOT SPEAK English, so they can read the > statements only if they [the statements] are translated into Ukrainian. > They have no choice, actually. In discussing whether to endorse my > candidacy, they either have to believe the rest of the Board members that I > am the most wonderful candidate and the others are just not as wonderful > and that’s it, or they are to ignore the Board meeting where this decision > is to be made. They can spend time editing Wikipedia or reading instead. > > And beyond the language issue, there is the informing and participation > issue: I am not sure how this process is organised in other affiliates, and > how you make your decisions to vote for this or that possibility (in terms > of this, I believe that there are seven possibilities presented at the > moment, by us, as nominees. So you can accept or decline what we seven > offer). You (actually) do not know us and if we are going to be great or > poor as Board members of WMF, and if we are the right-for-the-moment > choice, but you are going to choose. Are you really going to choose just > based on your personal contacts? Remember, in most cases administrators are > chosen more objectively, as it is almost impossible to get to know them > first personally. They are ‘judged’ by their deeds before, during and > after… Were you going to ask your communities what they think about the > candidates? And the members of your affiliate? If not, please consider this > option. We do have a sad example of an appointed Board member being not > accepted by us, as the Community. > > I am sorry for the long letter. I do believe I have a right to request (and > suggest) this. I was a part of a team that made sure that the Ukrainian > community REALLY knows about the elections so the eligible users on UKWP > have voted   And we really worked to make that happen. As you can > see, Board elections may be of great importance to the whole community. So > (at least) informing your own members is important, I believe. > > Best regards, > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv > > Wikimedia Ukraine > >  There is a question about the ‘turnout in this selection process’ > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions#Turnout_in_this_selection_process > so you’d think that people care. But do they? Really? >  I think that contacting each affiliate eligible to vote and asking them > if they need help to translate the statements and if yes, what languages > are required by memberships/affiliates’ leadership to read the statements. > By doing this we also make sure that they are aware of the upcoming > elections and are engaged > >  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters > >  Because they just may be not willing to do it > >  well, I was going to translate into Ukrainian all statement anyway, > translating is the best way to read the statement thoughtfully :) >  https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-May/077966.html >  > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Stats > _______________________________________________ > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>