Hi Dariusz, Many thanks for your reply. I wasn't really interested in having you confirm a commitment to conduct future (s)elections in any particular way – I was only interested in having you confirm the *absence* of any commitment to conduct a free community election in 2024, along the lines of the one conducted in 2021.
You have indeed confirmed that there is no such commitment to holding a free community election in 2024. Best, Andreas On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:44 PM Dariusz Jemielniak < djemieln...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > a quick and short response: we do not provide a response on a thing that > has not been collectively discussed. That's a standard that should be kept, > and the organization of elections is definitely something that needs > discussing every time they happen (the procedure involves several months of > work of the governance committee, before going to the board discussion). > > In no way the "reluctance" should be read as a commitment to organize the > future elections in some specific way. > > Our approach to this particular, upcoming elections of 2 seats was > straightforward: we recognized the fact that the community input was > missing for seats historically reserved for affiliate-only nomination. Two > of these seats are upcoming for re-election, and we focused on optimizing > the process for these two seats, with no specific intent for the community > elections in the future. > > I realize it is difficult not to assume that we're secretly plotting to > take over the world, but the mundane reality is that much as we would love > to, we lack the bandwidth and to a large extent focus on things as they > come. > > best, > > Dariusz > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:41 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Dariusz and all, >> >> Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple >> locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly >> community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community >> members will be given a free vote. >> >> This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for >> Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where >> mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has >> clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the >> answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other, >> Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."* >> >> I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you think >> about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing community-selected >> seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new category, "Community- >> and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if you do intend to abolish >> community voting. After all, these were the very words, "community voting", >> that were removed from the bylaws. >> >> So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024 >> selection process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of >> the 2021 vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024 >> procedure to be similar to this year, i.e.: >> >> – either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by >> the affiliates, >> – or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the >> community. >> >> Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because >> the community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022 >> (as was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the >> affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024. >> >> But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing >> community influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of >> community influence on the board, because either way, the community vote >> will always be filtered through affiliate preferences. >> >> I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued >> strenuously against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was >> concurrently talk of removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia >> Weekly Faceboook group[3] (my emphases): >> >> *It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that I >> should.* >> >> *As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or >> the dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the >> encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a >> community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that >> we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means >> safety for all these values in the long run.* >> >> *In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it >> increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of >> professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and >> control. I am a steadfast proponent of that - you can speak to James >> Heilman for more details (I've not consulted with him in advance but I'm >> sure he'll tell you about my concerns about the "professional" board >> members who don't seem to have our values at heart.)* >> >> *I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest proposals >> from some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control >> - in the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board >> members" language that might mean anything or nothing - is not negotiable.* >> >> *I believe that we need to be moving in a mildly different direction with >> the board expansion. I don't want to make a specific proposal but I will >> say this: rather than an expansion that keeps community in a slight +1 >> position, I think we need an expansion that gives the community an >> absolutely dominant role.* >> >> *I've not spoken yet about my personal role, because I want us to focus >> on the long run. But my preference is not to step aside until I am sure >> that the "professional" appointed seats are absolutely always in service to >> the community, by making sure that their numbers are - relative to the >> community numbers - reduced.* >> >> *Removing my voting seat - yes, it's a good idea in the long run, as I am >> just one person and not that important in the grand scheme of things. But >> for now, I feel that my role is to represent the moral conscience of the >> movement and to prevent takeover by outside interests who do not understand >> our values. So for those who ask when, I would say: when we are safe. And I >> don't think that's true just yet.* >> >> He had said earlier[4] that he would "personally only support a final >> revision which explicitly includes community voting and I believe it is >> abundantly clear to everyone on the board that this is mandatory." >> Unfortunately he was mistaken on both counts; in the end, community voting >> was struck from the bylaws by a unanimous board resolution, supported by >> both James and Jimmy.[5] >> >> Of course, if I am entirely wrong about all of this, and the board has no >> intention whatsoever of making the 2024 vote for the four former >> community-selected seats anything other than a free community vote, all it >> takes is an email to this mailing list to commit to this now – that the >> 2024 selection process will be a free and open community vote – to put such >> speculation to rest. >> >> And the absence of such an email will speak volumes as well. >> >> Best wishes, >> Andreas >> >> [1] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/BXIB6EYTOJEKVLVUFGXUPNKUQB7GJILQ/#BXIB6EYTOJEKVLVUFGXUPNKUQB7GJILQ >> [2] >> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws&diff=123603&oldid=123339 >> [3] >> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/3448296538551486/?comment_id=3448469991867474 >> >> [4] >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2020_-_Proposed_Bylaws_changes#"Community_Nomination_Process"; >> Diff: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2020_-_Proposed_Bylaws_changes&diff=20521513&oldid=20521233 >> [5] >> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Amended_Bylaws_Articles_IV_%26_V_(2020) >> >> P.S. Just for clarity, my brief comment earlier about the 5th and >> 6th-placed in last year's board selection vote was intended to indicate >> that the community is quite capable of selecting diverse candidates. If the >> two seats the WMF is looking to fill this year had been filled last year, >> along with the 4 seats that resulted from the 2021 community vote, we would >> have had, based on the reported results of that community vote:[6] >> >> 1. An American woman >> 2. A woman from Belarus currently living in the UK >> 3. A Polish man splitting his time between Poland and the US >> 4. An Italian man >> 5. A woman from Ivory Coast >> 6. A British man living in the Spanish island of Tenerife off the coast >> of Africa >> >> There are gaps here (Asia, foremost), but it's clearly not true that left >> to its own devices, the community only votes for white men living in the >> West. >> >> [6] >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 3:13 PM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < >> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: >> >>> Last year the community voted that way putting diverse candidates at 5th >>> and 6th position because the election method could not work properly, even >>> assuming (as it was) a general attempt of diverse choice by the electorate. >>> The main issue was in the low threshold for the candidatures. As soon as I >>> figured out with a simple set of simulations I tried to warn and I was >>> semi-harassed on the telegram chat. One person told me to shut up because I >>> did not understand how STV worked, another one accused me of being in bad >>> taste. >>> >>> However, my analysis was probably right. I expected the output to be >>> gender balanced but not geographically balanced because of dispersion among >>> candidates. Unfortunately people were probably too ideologically oriented >>> by how good STV system was and how great was to have so many candidates. >>> Just to be clear, I don't dislike STV, but at least I understand how to >>> simulate an election. If you want to use STV for a diverse output, put a >>> clear selection of candidates after studying how people usually vote. >>> >>> In general, this community has no literacy on electoral process but more >>> importantly, it does not want it. That's why discussing this topic seems >>> almost useless. People could mix up everything together, sometimes they >>> just take a concept and put it to the extreme. >>> >>> The direct elections was poor because of the lack of understanding of >>> the voting behavior. I am sure even now somebody thinks we have elected so >>> many "white people" because of the "racist" (or more nuanced adjective) >>> electorate, but it would have happened with an honest attempt of diversity >>> by voters, which I think it actually occurred. >>> >>> As for this issue, these other seats with this system. in the end it >>> looks that the power of the generic users might have increased, we are >>> switching probably from a totally affiliate-oriented election to an >>> election where the community in one step of the process cast a vote in a >>> open at-large election which is generally good. If you have a good >>> selections of candidates, the result might be balanced. >>> >>> The ASBS2019 election was already an improvement enlarging the electoral >>> base, it was more transparent and public the previous elections of >>> affiliates seats, but it still had to face some issues. One is that some >>> affiliates cast the actual vote among few people with no real participation >>> of their members (even suggesting them to at least inform their members >>> they were casting a vote was "too much"), the other one that a small >>> fraction of active users could be more involved in the process in two or >>> more UGs. >>> >>> Giving a power of selecting candidates and not final votes to affiliates >>> force them to care more about that step, producing convincing figures while >>> the at-large election still has some issues but it's more democratic for >>> the final choice. It might work, if correctly calibrated. >>> One issue of the at-large elections is the threshold for candidates, >>> but delegating to the affiliates might lead to both strong and diverse >>> options, without excessive dispersion. >>> >>> Another issue of the at-large elections are the votes of institutional >>> account that are not properly handled. Usually people here make some weird >>> comparison about civil servants voting but it has nothing to do with it. >>> You just expect people to reach voting right by themselves and not as a >>> result of c.o.i paid activity, and you should be more careful about it in >>> the case of close results. If the internal process of affiliates select the >>> candidates, than that would be a good moment to decide the weigh of this >>> type of votes at the next step if it's an at large election. Again, you >>> probably don't want to deal with this problem with a close call. >>> >>> In any case, again, electoral literacy is hard, while taking one concept >>> and enlarging it for a "soapbox moment" is easy. just to clear I have >>> nothing against one position or another per se. For example I disagree with >>> the merge of the two types of seats because it might lead to some >>> functional results if correctly handled but for sure with the strong >>> ideological positions we face, it can only lead to more chaos. So far, I >>> might say that both processes might end up to more open globally than in >>> the past. Although they could have been much better. >>> >>> Like everything, we will deal with the data at the end for those who >>> want to care. >>> >>> Alessandro >>> >>> >>> Il domenica 24 aprile 2022, 14:58:23 CEST, Andreas Kolbe < >>> jayen...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Chris Keating < >>> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate >>> trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board >>> member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1] >>> >>> What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining >>> "community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "*implemented >>> on a trial basis for the 2022 election*". >>> >>> >>> I don't think it follows that the Board intends to use this model for >>> the following (2024?) election of the four seats elected last year. Indeed, >>> I am virtually certain they won't, given the significance of the movement >>> governance changes that are going on, and the level of change we have seen >>> in WMF board elections in the last few years. >>> >>> >>> >>> You don't say you "trial" something if you're planning to do it only >>> this once. >>> >>> This whole change in process goes back to a "Call for feedback" that was >>> put out on December 23, 2021, i.e. one day before Christmas Eve.[1] >>> >>> There is hardly a worse working day in the year to make such an >>> announcement, for most people in our movement, if the intent truly is to >>> attract widespread attention. Why not wait until the New Year, and make >>> such an announcement once people are back at their desks, undistracted by >>> holiday preparations? >>> >>> (Announcing potentially contentious items or U-turns this close to >>> Christmas should really be forbidden. A similar thing was done in the >>> Abstract Wikipedia licensing discussion.[2]) >>> >>> Subsequently this "Call for feedback" process seems to have consisted >>> almost exclusively of four calls or meetings between the WMF and a number >>> of affiliates.[3] The description of these meetings on Meta includes the >>> following item: >>> >>> *"By Victoria: Currently, there are a range of options for affiliates to >>> be involved; e.g. the same way as before (ASBS) or; the affiliates could >>> select among the candidates, and the community votes on those candidates, >>> or swap it around, to have the community vote on a shortlist for the >>> affiliates to vote on."* >>> >>> I assume that "Victoria" refers to WMF Board Member Victoria Doronina. >>> If that is so, then it is somewhat obfuscatory – although not altogether >>> incorrect, of course – to say on the page on Meta summarising these >>> discussions:[4] >>> >>> *"One member of the community suggested that diversity (regional, >>> gender, expertise and others) could be ensured if the election process was >>> modified to allow the affiliates to choose a shortlist of 10-15 candidates. >>> This is in a way similar to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee >>> selection process. The community would later vote and select their >>> representatives from that shortlist."* >>> >>> Of course Victoria is a longstanding community member, but she is also >>> presently a WMF Board Member. If a WMF Board Member suggests changes to the >>> way the WMF Board will be constituted in future, then I think it would be >>> proper to identify this suggestion as originating from within the Board >>> itself. If another Victoria was meant, then this point is moot. >>> >>> As for the question in your other mail, Chris, the two seats in question >>> are not affiliate seats. For better or worse, they are now >>> community-and-affiliate-selected seats.[3] They should be selected by a >>> method that is equitable. The method Dariusz announced is not. >>> >>> A couple of people on the Kurier Diskussion page in de:WP and on Meta >>> have made comments to the effect that volunteers always end up voting for >>> white men living in the West. It's worth noting that the people placed 5th >>> and 6th in last year's community vote were a woman from Ivory Coast (who >>> lost out by the slimmest of margins) and a Brit living on Tenerife, a >>> Spanish island off the coast of Africa. >>> >>> Andreas >>> >>> [1] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/ZJZQDVRN6KARSVYJJAJIQ4S2ED5IG3YP/ >>> [2] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing_discussion#Decision >>> [3] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Affiliations_Consultation >>> >>> [4] >>> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Reports#First_question >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DFPXDHE6VVCI3BFDJPZNBFUPSGLD7UZ7/ >>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/M3BL5MMKEQHRQJOUYMHUQV4TTWVSCM2O/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MLAR6JQ65PNIDX4BWYVDUY76UT2H6K46/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > -- > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________ > *Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark > dariusz.jemieln...@fulbrightmail.org > <dariusz.jemieln...@fulbrightmail.org> as a more permanent contact > address. * > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DTYOJ26JVXKYFGCSS7HK5YU7SMKS7G3G/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UB3FANTBBRS6QY3DUTMXEWRKT2V5OQVL/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
