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: 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>