effeietsanders at gmail
May 1, 2008, 4:00 AM
Post #2 of 140
(244 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: Chapter-selected Board seats - brainstorming
[In reply to]
|
|
If we consider the chapter seats to be semi-community seats, I think
it makes sense to bring in some kind of relation with either the
number of members, or even better (but harder to regulate) the
activity of a chapter. There are a lot of chapters, and I think it
makes sense that only "active" chapters should have a say in this.
Otherwise that would only attract people to get a chapter just to be
able to vote. I think that is something to consider.
If the voting procedure would be motivating towards activities, that
would be great. It might even stimulate chapters to do things, which
is at the end good for the movement as a whole. Also do I feel that
active chapters have a better idea of what is going on and what is
needed in the board. They have in general a better view on which
problems are ongoing, and need expertise (or certain community skills)
to be solved.
For instance, if the active chapters feel that there is a need for
some technical development on the software, they could choose to pick
a mediawiki developer as their candidate, or at least someone who
advocates the development of software. If they feel that the relations
with the chapters and the WMF are going wrong, they could choose
someone who favors the chapter idea. After all, Board Membership is
besides trust also a lot about setting priorities. Where does the
Movement spend it's limited resources (not only money, but also - not
exclusively - volunteer man power, knowledge of local culture,
enthusiasm and staff time) on and how are the considerations being
made. What type of organization (movement) do we want? All very
important questions to consider when choosing a Board Member.
With that in mind, I feel that it is better to let the more
experienced and active chapters have a bigger say relatively. Of
course all chapters should be talking, but there should be some kind
of balance. To keep things easy, one could choose to give a chapter 1
vote per 100 members. Or 50. Or whatever we want.
I know this is not a precise measure for activity, but it's something.
Does anyone have a better idea to measure activity of an organization
objectively in this context?
BR, Lodewijk
2008/5/1, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher[at]gmail.com>:
> Hello,
>
> I created a page on meta, where we can brainstorm about ways the
> chapters can determine their method for selecting Board seats.
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats>
>
> This is going to happen, so let us work together to get the best of all ideas.
>
> I put two sections, 1) "how to gather candidates" and 2) "how to
> select among candidates".
>
> I guess the traditional view goes like this:
> Community elected: 1) nominations from the community, 2) votes from
> the community (1p=1vote)
> Board appointed: 2) nominations and 1) votes from the Board (this has
> the inefficiency, that the Board may like to appoint someone who is
> not willing to serve)
>
> I find it interesting to consider mixing these up:
> a) Nominations from the community + votes from the chapters
> b) Nominations from the chapters + votes from the community
>
> Of course, for "the chapters", there are multiple possibilities - all
> members? comm members? one 'vote' per chapter? (each chapter has to
> reach a decision internally) all chapter 'votes' equal? proportional
> to membership? something else?
>
> I look forward to seeing what ideas others have.
>
> cheers,
> Brianna
>
> --
> They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
> http://modernthings.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
|
1
