What should be noted is that a personal declaration of COI cannot be
sufficient. Probably an evaluation of potential conflits done by a
committee as neutral body can help the candidates to better evaluate the
candidacy and to manage them better.

Kind regards
Il 09 Apr 2016 8:26 AM, "Anders Wennersten" <m...@anderswennersten.se> ha
scritto:

> I, as all others, has full sympathy for Danny and find that he in his mail
> made an excellent explanation on how the situation made the option to
> resign the only reasonable way forward
>
> BUT this is the second community selected that has left the Board within a
> year after being appointed, and before any future election (either a snap
> byelection soon, or the ordinary in a years time) I believe we should look
> into if anything can be learnt. And if there are things, primary in the
> election process, that can be done to ensure the appointed community
> selected members of the Board staying on the whole term.
>
> For Danny my interpretation is that he is very operational role in
> ordinary work leads to many interaction with WMF etc and where COI
> consideration hampers his day-to-days activities. And that his major
> strength, "Wikidata", is hard to make use of in the Board as any
> influencing of decision re this also puts him in a COI situation, and that
> he outside this competence finds he has limited "value" for the board work.
>
> But all of these facts was known before the election (but not necessary
> the ramification). Would a more elaborate (tedious long?) description of
> requirements of serving in the Board helped Danny to understand the
> challenge before he entered his candidacy? Would some type of (lightweight)
> "vetting" by the Election committee by all candidates have identified this
> risk (which then could have been feedbacked to the candidate)? Should for
> future election the election committee not only be facilitator of the
> election, but also help he voters in complementing the data given by each
> candidate by some type of comments? For example last time the requirement
> from the board was non western (non English natives) persons and priority
> for nonmale. but 2 out of 3 was just his. Could some mark on the candidate
> statement made by the EC (he/she is/is not fulfilling the Board criteria)
> had helped?
>
> The setup up of a Standing Election Committee is under formation but it
> will probably still be some month before it is established. Any changes in
> the election process has to await this formation, but I believe a
> discussion of learnings can start independently.
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to