Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


berialima at gmail

Jan 31, 2012, 4:05 PM

Post #1 of 75 (1420 views)
Permalink
Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees

The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the
Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July
2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future
direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project are
constructed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers worldwide, supported by
a growing number of staff and an international network of chapters. Board
membership is unpaid.

The chapters wish to appoint two excellent board members and believe this
can best be achieved by selecting from a large number of varied and skilled
candidates. Therefore, the chapters call for nominations by everyone who
believes they or someone they know would be suitable. The chapters ask that
this call for candidates be distributed as widely as possible through such
forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs.

The successful candidates will be committed to the Wikimedia mission and
willing and able to engage constructively with the stakeholders of the
movement, including the volunteers and the chapters that provide it with
essential support. The successful candidates will have:

- The ability to provide expertise to the board in its goal of
implementing a coherent vision on how the projects’ communities, the
foundation, the chapters, and other affiliated groups work together;


- Sensitivity to complex issues surrounding the multiplicity of
languages, cultures, and jurisdictions served by the foundation’s projects;


- Knowledge and understanding of the governance of international
non-profit organizations, balancing autonomy and subsidiarity;


- The ability to think strategically and to work both as part of a team
and independently;


- A good standard of written and oral English (fluency in additional
language would be well regarded);


- Sufficient time to devote to the role of board member, and the ability
and willingness to travel.

Increasing the geographical diversity of current board membership would be
an advantage.

The selection process is set out
here:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats

Nominations must be sent to the moderator Béria Lima (Wikimedia Portugal)
and deputy moderators Milos Rancic (Wikimedia Serbia) and Mardetanha
(Wikimedia steward from Iran) by 23:59 UTC, 29 February. If you would like
to nominate yourself or someone else, please see the instructions here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Nominate

*Béria Lima*,
Moderator
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


risker.wp at gmail

Jan 31, 2012, 7:28 PM

Post #2 of 75 (1384 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

Thanks for letting us all know about this, Beria.

So...a few questions.

Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?

Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
community to see? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97%
of Wikimedians) be considered?

Thanks,


Risker/Anne



On 31 January 2012 19:05, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:

> The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the
> Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July
> 2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future
> direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project are
> constructed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers worldwide, supported by
> a growing number of staff and an international network of chapters. Board
> membership is unpaid.
>
> The chapters wish to appoint two excellent board members and believe this
> can best be achieved by selecting from a large number of varied and skilled
> candidates. Therefore, the chapters call for nominations by everyone who
> believes they or someone they know would be suitable. The chapters ask that
> this call for candidates be distributed as widely as possible through such
> forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs.
>
> The successful candidates will be committed to the Wikimedia mission and
> willing and able to engage constructively with the stakeholders of the
> movement, including the volunteers and the chapters that provide it with
> essential support. The successful candidates will have:
>
> - The ability to provide expertise to the board in its goal of
> implementing a coherent vision on how the projects’ communities, the
> foundation, the chapters, and other affiliated groups work together;
>
>
> - Sensitivity to complex issues surrounding the multiplicity of
> languages, cultures, and jurisdictions served by the foundation’s
> projects;
>
>
> - Knowledge and understanding of the governance of international
> non-profit organizations, balancing autonomy and subsidiarity;
>
>
> - The ability to think strategically and to work both as part of a team
> and independently;
>
>
> - A good standard of written and oral English (fluency in additional
> language would be well regarded);
>
>
> - Sufficient time to devote to the role of board member, and the ability
> and willingness to travel.
>
> Increasing the geographical diversity of current board membership would be
> an advantage.
>
> The selection process is set out
> here:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats
>
> Nominations must be sent to the moderator Béria Lima (Wikimedia Portugal)
> and deputy moderators Milos Rancic (Wikimedia Serbia) and Mardetanha
> (Wikimedia steward from Iran) by 23:59 UTC, 29 February. If you would like
> to nominate yourself or someone else, please see the instructions here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Nominate
>
> *Béria Lima*,
> Moderator
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


berialima at gmail

Jan 31, 2012, 7:43 PM

Post #3 of 75 (1395 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

Hi Risker. let's go by question.

*Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
> place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?
> *


Everthing that is in Chapters wiki is replicated in meta. All the links in
the Call for Candidates (CfC) are from meta. Everyone can read the
discussion. So far the only discussion in chapters wiki was the election
for moderators, and the review of the CfC wording. We are not trying to
exclude the community - by the contrary - we would be glad to have the
community involved in the process, not only with questions, but also as
candidates.
*
*
>
> * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
> community to see? *


The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
candidate has no problem with that.


> *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians)
> be considered?*
>

With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No. There
are a vote for elect the community members of the Board, that happened last
year and will occur again next year. This vote is decided only by the
chapters according with WMF bylaws itself. Quoting: "Be*ginning in July
2008, two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered years*"[1].


The result will of course be public as soon as we have one.

Thanks for your questions,

[1]:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 1 February 2012 01:28, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:

> Thanks for letting us all know about this, Beria.
>
> So...a few questions.
>
> Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
> place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?
>
> Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
> community to see? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97%
> of Wikimedians) be considered?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
> On 31 January 2012 19:05, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on
> the
> > Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July
> > 2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future
> > direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project
> are
> > constructed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers worldwide, supported
> by
> > a growing number of staff and an international network of chapters. Board
> > membership is unpaid.
> >
> > The chapters wish to appoint two excellent board members and believe this
> > can best be achieved by selecting from a large number of varied and
> skilled
> > candidates. Therefore, the chapters call for nominations by everyone who
> > believes they or someone they know would be suitable. The chapters ask
> that
> > this call for candidates be distributed as widely as possible through
> such
> > forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs.
> >
> > The successful candidates will be committed to the Wikimedia mission and
> > willing and able to engage constructively with the stakeholders of the
> > movement, including the volunteers and the chapters that provide it with
> > essential support. The successful candidates will have:
> >
> > - The ability to provide expertise to the board in its goal of
> > implementing a coherent vision on how the projects’ communities, the
> > foundation, the chapters, and other affiliated groups work together;
> >
> >
> > - Sensitivity to complex issues surrounding the multiplicity of
> > languages, cultures, and jurisdictions served by the foundation’s
> > projects;
> >
> >
> > - Knowledge and understanding of the governance of international
> > non-profit organizations, balancing autonomy and subsidiarity;
> >
> >
> > - The ability to think strategically and to work both as part of a team
> > and independently;
> >
> >
> > - A good standard of written and oral English (fluency in additional
> > language would be well regarded);
> >
> >
> > - Sufficient time to devote to the role of board member, and the
> ability
> > and willingness to travel.
> >
> > Increasing the geographical diversity of current board membership would
> be
> > an advantage.
> >
> > The selection process is set out
> > here:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats
> >
> > Nominations must be sent to the moderator Béria Lima (Wikimedia Portugal)
> > and deputy moderators Milos Rancic (Wikimedia Serbia) and Mardetanha
> > (Wikimedia steward from Iran) by 23:59 UTC, 29 February. If you would
> like
> > to nominate yourself or someone else, please see the instructions here:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Nominate
> >
> > *Béria Lima*,
> > Moderator
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


risker.wp at gmail

Jan 31, 2012, 9:49 PM

Post #4 of 75 (1394 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups.

On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:

> Hi Risker. let's go by question.
>
> *Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
> > place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?
> > *
>
>
> Everthing that is in Chapters wiki is replicated in meta. All the links in
> the Call for Candidates (CfC) are from meta. Everyone can read the
> discussion. So far the only discussion in chapters wiki was the election
> for moderators, and the review of the CfC wording. We are not trying to
> exclude the community - by the contrary - we would be glad to have the
> community involved in the process, not only with questions, but also as
> candidates.
>

Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more
transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the
discussion on Meta, why not just have it there in the first place?



> *
> *
> >
> > * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
> > community to see? *
>
>
> The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
> candidate has no problem with that.
>


I'm sorry, I have a problem with that. All other candidates for Board
seats must publicly disclose their real name in their candidate
presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of
public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of
Trustees anonymously or under a pseudonym).

I assume that all candidates must identify with the WMF before their
candidacy is accepted, is that correct?

As well, will candidates who are chapter executive members be required to
take a leave of absence or to resign from their executive position during
their Board candidacy?


>
>
> > *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians)
> > be considered?*
> >
>
> With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No. There
> are a vote for elect the community members of the Board, that happened last
> year and will occur again next year. This vote is decided only by the
> chapters according with WMF bylaws itself. Quoting: "Be*ginning in July
> 2008, two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered
> years*"[1].
>
>
I am pleased to hear that questions and suggestions from the majority of
Wikimedians will be accepted.

One more question, this time about who will actually be doing the voting. Can
you clarify exactly who will be voting in this selection process? Will it
be one representative for each of the 38 chapters, or will more than one
representative be participating?

Thanks again,

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


phoebe.wiki at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 12:41 AM

Post #5 of 75 (1384 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:
> Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria.  I have a few follow-ups.
>
> On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:

>> >
>> > * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
>> > community to see?  *
>>
>>
>> The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
>> candidate has no problem with that.
>>
>
>
> I'm sorry, I have a problem with that.  All other candidates for Board
> seats must publicly disclose their real name in their candidate
> presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of
> public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of
> Trustees anonymously or under a pseudonym).

Heh, indeed. Whether the candidates are public outside the chapters or
not, if you are not ok with your real name being plastered all over
the place (fame! infamy! occasional random emails!) then being on the
board is probably not for you.

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


putevod at mccme

Feb 1, 2012, 12:51 AM

Post #6 of 75 (1395 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

> Heh, indeed. Whether the candidates are public outside the chapters or
> not, if you are not ok with your real name being plastered all over
> the place (fame! infamy! occasional random emails!) then being on the
> board is probably not for you.
>
> -- phoebe
>

I would even say that for the chapter candidates (in distinction to the
community candidates, who nominate themselves using their account) BOTH the
real name and the WM account (if it exists) should be made public before
the nomination is accepted.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


millosh at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 1:17 AM

Post #7 of 75 (1390 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 04:28, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:
> Thanks for letting us all know about this, Beria.
>
> So...a few questions.
>
> Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
> place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?
>
> Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
> community to see?  Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97%
> of Wikimedians) be considered?

It's about cabal, obviously.

To be honest, I think that the process is broken, too, but that's the
deal between the chapters and there was not enough of will to change
it. Because, at the end, it produces decision, which is the goal of
the process.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


thomas.dalton at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 4:12 AM

Post #8 of 75 (1410 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On 1 February 2012 03:43, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
>> * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
>> community to see?  *
>
>
> The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
> candidate has no problem with that.

Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential
in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was
felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in
contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community
elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than
would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't
want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have
happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater
intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does).

Was it a conscious decision by the chapters to change that approach? I
was under the impression that you had decided to stick with the same
process we used last time.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nawrich at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 6:14 AM

Post #9 of 75 (1388 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

I'm interested in answers to the procedural questions, too.

It's seems like a quixotic process, as laid out on the meta page. The board
members are to be selected by completely unstructured discussion, with
consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems to allow for the
discussion to reach its conclusion in person, with no permanent records, at
the Chapters Meeting. If the discussion reaches no consensus, or the
consensus determination of the moderators is challenged, a "vote" will be
held - in public, on a wiki page.

Other than confidentiality, no guidance is provided to the chapters on how
to select their preferred candidate - nor on which chapter representatives
can participate in the discussion on the chapters-wiki. If any chapter
member can participate, doesn't that unduly advantage native English
speakers and their chapters? If only some, how are they to be selected?

Additionally, Beria Lima says that chapters-wiki is mirrored on meta - but
the process page[1] refers to chapters-wiki as confidential, and says that
discussion of candidates' real names should be restricted to that wiki so
that only members can see it.

This whole thing seems pretty ad hoc and amateurish for an organization
that is trying to be more robust and modern about its practices. Is there a
background check? Is there some threshold for participation beneath which
the current Board might refuse to certify the results? Are we really sure
that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to merit two seats on the
Board selected in such an opaque manner?

[1]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


berialima at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 7:21 AM

Post #10 of 75 (1399 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

Hello, I will (try to) answer everyone - so I will send several mails in a
row... please stick with me during the process.

*Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more
> transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the
> discussion on Meta, why not just have it there in the first place?*
>

Because not all the discussion will be in meta. Some parts are confidential
and will not be disclose in Meta. I know you people might start scream:
"CABAL!" but that is a chapters decision, not a community one. We do need
to give them a safe space to work and get a consensus. And some people
might feel better asking some questions in a private wiki.

*I assume that all candidates must identify with the WMF before their
> candidacy is accepted, is that correct?
> *


According with the meta page (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Process)
:

*All candidate statements will have to supply the following information: *

1. *The name of the nominee*
2. *The name of the nominating chapter (if applicable)*
3. *A statement from the chapter in support of the nominee (if
applicable)*
4. *A statement from the nominee in support of themselves, accompanied
by a short CV and confirming they are willing and eligible to take a seat
on the WMF board. Any candidates with Chapters wiki accounts will have
those accounts disabled for the duration of the selection process.*

So, no, they don't need to send their document to Phillipe.

* As well, will candidates who are chapter executive members be required to
> take a leave of absence or to resign from their executive position during
> their Board candidacy?
> *


Another question already answered in a document, this time in the
Resolution (
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure):


*Chapter-selected Trustees must resign from any chapter-board, governance,
chapter-paid, or Foundation-paid position for the duration of their terms
as Trustees, but may continue to serve chapters in informal or advisory
capacities.*

*One more question, this time about who will actually be doing the voting.
> Can you clarify exactly who will be voting in this selection process? Will
> it be one representative for each of the 38 chapters, or will more than one
> representative be participating?*
>

Who will vote? Everyone here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Chapters

Each chapter has a vote, and how they decide their candidates is up to
them. Some held a internal vote, some decide in General Assembly, some have
an internal discussion in ML... you would need to ask each one of the 38 to
know the exact process.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 1 February 2012 03:49, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:

> Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups.
>
> On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > Hi Risker. let's go by question.
> >
> > *Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
> > > place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?
> > > *
> >
> >
> > Everthing that is in Chapters wiki is replicated in meta. All the links
> in
> > the Call for Candidates (CfC) are from meta. Everyone can read the
> > discussion. So far the only discussion in chapters wiki was the election
> > for moderators, and the review of the CfC wording. We are not trying to
> > exclude the community - by the contrary - we would be glad to have the
> > community involved in the process, not only with questions, but also as
> > candidates.
> >
>
> Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more
> transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the
> discussion on Meta, why not just have it there in the first place?
>
>
>
> > *
> > *
> > >
> > > * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire
> Wikimedia
> > > community to see? *
> >
> >
> > The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
> > candidate has no problem with that.
> >
>
>
> I'm sorry, I have a problem with that. All other candidates for Board
> seats must publicly disclose their real name in their candidate
> presentation (because the identities of Board members are a matter of
> public record, it is not possible to hold a position on the Board of
> Trustees anonymously or under a pseudonym).
>
> I assume that all candidates must identify with the WMF before their
> candidacy is accepted, is that correct?
>
> As well, will candidates who are chapter executive members be required to
> take a leave of absence or to resign from their executive position during
> their Board candidacy?
>
>
> >
> >
> > > *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of
> Wikimedians)
> > > be considered?*
> > >
> >
> > With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No. There
> > are a vote for elect the community members of the Board, that happened
> last
> > year and will occur again next year. This vote is decided only by the
> > chapters according with WMF bylaws itself. Quoting: "Be*ginning in July
> > 2008, two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered
> > years*"[1].
> >
> >
> I am pleased to hear that questions and suggestions from the majority of
> Wikimedians will be accepted.
>
> One more question, this time about who will actually be doing the voting.
> Can
> you clarify exactly who will be voting in this selection process? Will it
> be one representative for each of the 38 chapters, or will more than one
> representative be participating?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


stuwest at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 7:23 AM

Post #11 of 75 (1392 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential
> in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was
> felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in
> contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community
> elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than
> would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't
> want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have
> happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater
> intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does).

FWIW, as I think back to Board conversations in 2008 (it was my first meeting), Thomas's comments are quite close to Board's rationale in creating the chapter seats in 2008.

The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes grueling election process.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


berialima at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 7:25 AM

Post #12 of 75 (1392 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

>
> *Was it a conscious decision by the chapters to change that approach? I
> was under the impression that you had decided to stick with the same
> process we used last time.*
>

We didn't change the process, Thomas. Last time the Call for Candidates was
also public and in meta, and the timeline and process. All the voting (if
we get to that) will be held in chapters wiki (wich is private) and not in
meta.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 1 February 2012 10:12, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 1 February 2012 03:43, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
> >> community to see? *
> >
> >
> > The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
> > candidate has no problem with that.
>
> Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential
> in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was
> felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in
> contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community
> elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than
> would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't
> want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have
> happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater
> intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does).
>
> Was it a conscious decision by the chapters to change that approach? I
> was under the impression that you had decided to stick with the same
> process we used last time.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


berialima at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 7:36 AM

Post #13 of 75 (1394 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

>
> *The board members are to be selected by completely unstructured
> discussion, with consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems
> to allow for the discussion to reach its conclusion in person, with no
> permanent records, at the Chapters Meeting. If the discussion reaches no
> consensus, or the consensus determination of the moderators is challenged,
> a "vote" will be held - in public, on a wiki page.
> *


Before all - as I said before - the vote will be held in a *private* wiki,
not a public one.

Yes, we do allow people to reach consensus first. Vote is only the last
resource. Why? Because that is how we do things in Wikimedia Projects. In a
community seat might be impossible, but in this case are only 38 opinions
(remember that aren't people we are discussing here, but chapters) and I do
believe that we can reach a consensus.

*Other than confidentiality, no guidance is provided to the chapters on how
> to select their preferred candidate - nor on which chapter representatives
> can participate in the discussion on the chapters-wiki. If any chapter
> member can participate, doesn't that unduly advantage native English
> speakers and their chapters? If only some, how are they to be selected?*
>

Any chapter person can participate in the discussion held in chapters wiki.
How the chapters select who (or how many people) will speak for them -
again - is up to them. I know that might sound scary to "process-lovers"
but is how we work on this.

*Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board
> might refuse to certify the results? *


I do really LOVE when you people ask questions that has already been
answered by a document, but let's quote again (again from
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure):


* Chapter-selected members must meet the requirements of applicable state
or federal law for Board membership. In the event that a candidate is
selected who does not meet the requirements of Subsection (A) or other
requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal law, the
Board will (i) not approve the selected candidate, (ii) declare a vacancy
on the Board, and (iii) request that the chapters select a new Trustee to
fill the resulting vacancy, subject to this section and to Section 6 below.*



> *Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to
> merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner?*
>

We are representing *Chapters* here, not the community (always good to
remember) and yes, there is enough people in chapters to make that a
representative election.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 1 February 2012 12:14, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> I'm interested in answers to the procedural questions, too.
>
> It's seems like a quixotic process, as laid out on the meta page. The board
> members are to be selected by completely unstructured discussion, with
> consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems to allow for the
> discussion to reach its conclusion in person, with no permanent records, at
> the Chapters Meeting. If the discussion reaches no consensus, or the
> consensus determination of the moderators is challenged, a "vote" will be
> held - in public, on a wiki page.
>
> Other than confidentiality, no guidance is provided to the chapters on how
> to select their preferred candidate - nor on which chapter representatives
> can participate in the discussion on the chapters-wiki. If any chapter
> member can participate, doesn't that unduly advantage native English
> speakers and their chapters? If only some, how are they to be selected?
>
> Additionally, Beria Lima says that chapters-wiki is mirrored on meta - but
> the process page[1] refers to chapters-wiki as confidential, and says that
> discussion of candidates' real names should be restricted to that wiki so
> that only members can see it.
>
> This whole thing seems pretty ad hoc and amateurish for an organization
> that is trying to be more robust and modern about its practices. Is there a
> background check? Is there some threshold for participation beneath which
> the current Board might refuse to certify the results? Are we really sure
> that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to merit two seats on the
> Board selected in such an opaque manner?
>
> [1]: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


berialima at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 7:38 AM

Post #14 of 75 (1386 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

Like I said Stuart, we didn't changed the process.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 1 February 2012 13:23, Stuart West <stuwest [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential
> > in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was
> > felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in
> > contrast to the public ones that are associated with the community
> > elected seats, because that might attract different candidates than
> > would stand for the community elected seats (ie. candidates that don't
> > want lots of discussion about every good and bad quality they have
> > happening in public - the selection process can involve a much greater
> > intrusion on privacy than actually serving on the board does).
>
> FWIW, as I think back to Board conversations in 2008 (it was my first
> meeting), Thomas's comments are quite close to Board's rationale in
> creating the chapter seats in 2008.
>
> The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of
> value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT
> typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't
> well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas
> mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes
> grueling election process.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nawrich at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 7:47 AM

Post #15 of 75 (1390 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:

>
> *Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board
> > might refuse to certify the results? *
>



> I do really LOVE when you people ask questions that has already been
> answered by a document, but let's quote again (again from
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure
> ):
>
>
> * Chapter-selected members must meet the requirements of applicable state
> or federal law for Board membership. In the event that a candidate is
> selected who does not meet the requirements of Subsection (A) or other
> requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal law, the
> Board will (i) not approve the selected candidate, (ii) declare a vacancy
> on the Board, and (iii) request that the chapters select a new Trustee to
> fill the resulting vacancy, subject to this section and to Section 6
> below.*
>
>
>
I appreciate your always helpful tone. In this case, I didn't ask what
would happen if someone not legally qualified to be a Board member was
selected by the chapters. I asked a different question, linked a prior one
- if not all chapters participate, or if the "discussion" is dominated by a
few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the selection
forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters,
is there any thought to refusing to certify under these circumstances?



>
> > *Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to
> > merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner?*
> >
>
> We are representing *Chapters* here, not the community (always good to
> remember) and yes, there is enough people in chapters to make that a
> representative election.
>

Board members, however they are selected, represent the Wikimedia
Foundation and the whole "community" or movement. My question is - if the
38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia, and
their selections are being made in such a way (and concerns ridiculed, by
the way, as the product of "process-lovers"), is it really appropriate for
Chapters to continue to have a role in filling Board seats? This isn't
really a process question, per se, so I understand if you (Beria) decline
to weigh in directly.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


berialima at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 8:23 AM

Post #16 of 75 (1391 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

Nathan, Is REALLY frustrating when you spend days making a text with a lot
of links to relevant documents and people simply ignore and ask you again
the same thing that is already there. I have enough things to do, answer
things that has already a document to answer isn't one of them.

But let answer you again:

*if not all chapters participate, or if the "discussion" is dominated by a
> few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the selection
> forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters,
> is there any thought to refusing to certify under these circumstances?
> *


If only a handful of chapters participate in the discussion, there is no
"consensus among chapters" and therefore we will have a vote.If not enough
chapters vote in the determined time, we will prorogue the vote until they
do... and only them we will tell the Board we have a result. We all know
how to identify a consensus, don't worry.

*Board members, however they are selected, represent the Wikimedia
> Foundation and the whole "community" or movement. My question is - if the
> 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia...
> *


I'm sorry but last Chapters Seat Election had more participants than the
Community seats election... if you want to compare, we should get rid of
Community election seats, not the chapters one.

*Is it really appropriate for Chapters to continue to have a role in
> filling Board seats? This isn't really a process question, per se, so I
> understand if you (Beria) decline to weigh in directly.
> *


Change WMF bylaws and the way they select Board members, and you can get
rid of Chapters seats.
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*


On 1 February 2012 13:47, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Béria Lima <berialima [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> >
> > *Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current
> Board
> > > might refuse to certify the results? *
> >
>
>
>
> > I do really LOVE when you people ask questions that has already been
> > answered by a document, but let's quote again (again from
> >
> >
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure
> > ):
> >
> >
> > * Chapter-selected members must meet the requirements of applicable state
> > or federal law for Board membership. In the event that a candidate is
> > selected who does not meet the requirements of Subsection (A) or other
> > requirements of these Bylaws, or of applicable state or federal law, the
> > Board will (i) not approve the selected candidate, (ii) declare a vacancy
> > on the Board, and (iii) request that the chapters select a new Trustee to
> > fill the resulting vacancy, subject to this section and to Section 6
> > below.*
> >
> >
> >
> I appreciate your always helpful tone. In this case, I didn't ask what
> would happen if someone not legally qualified to be a Board member was
> selected by the chapters. I asked a different question, linked a prior one
> - if not all chapters participate, or if the "discussion" is dominated by a
> few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the selection
> forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters,
> is there any thought to refusing to certify under these circumstances?
>
>
>
> >
> > > *Are we really sure that the chapters represent enough Wikimedians to
> > > merit two seats on the Board selected in such an opaque manner?*
> > >
> >
> > We are representing *Chapters* here, not the community (always good to
> > remember) and yes, there is enough people in chapters to make that a
> > representative election.
> >
>
> Board members, however they are selected, represent the Wikimedia
> Foundation and the whole "community" or movement. My question is - if the
> 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia, and
> their selections are being made in such a way (and concerns ridiculed, by
> the way, as the product of "process-lovers"), is it really appropriate for
> Chapters to continue to have a role in filling Board seats? This isn't
> really a process question, per se, so I understand if you (Beria) decline
> to weigh in directly.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


stuwest at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 8:28 AM

Post #17 of 75 (1381 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Nathan wrote:

> My question is - if the 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia...is it really appropriate for Chapters to continue to have a role in filling Board seats?

I think this is a valuable discussion to have, and it ties in neatly to the movement roles discussions about recognition of other associations/entities in our movement. I shared some thoughts on my blog a month ago and asked for comments:

http://wikistu.org/2012/01/rfc-geography-and-wikimedia/
(text reproduced below)

We will be discussing this at length in our board meeting starting this Friday. I'd really appreciate some comments on this issue, preferably on the blog because of improved threading in comments.

-s


> RfC: Geography and Wikimedia
> Posted on January 4, 2012
>
> Ahead of our scheduled WMF Board meeting in early February, I’ve been thinking through a really hard and thorny movement-wide issue. Last time I was dealing with a similarly hard issue, I put some rough notes/questions up here and asked for your thoughts and help thinking through the issue. I’d like to try another Request for Comments with a related but bigger issue.
>
> Let me set this up as a thought experiment. Imagine that we can all go back to the beginning of our movement. Imagine that we have a clean slate and can start fresh. But also imagine that we have the benefit of the past 10 years of experience, and with it all the lessons we’ve learned about ourselves and our strengths and weaknesses as a community.
>
> Let’s say our objective is to define the basic structure of a movement that will most effectively help our community pursue our vision over the next 100, 200 or even 500 years. Long-term impact is the primary objective.
>
> If we could start over, how would we organize our movement? In particular I’d love input on three questions:
>
> • Are current political/legal boundaries the best primary organization model for our movement? Or instead would we choose to build things a different way, say around each of our projects, or languages, or some of the passions among our community (e.g. a GLAM Chapter), or other special interests and topics (e.g. arbcom, comcom, translate-l)?
> • Should we give special rights to certain kinds of movement entities (e.g. special rights to pick board seats outside of elections, exclusive access to things like the trademarks, preferred access to donor funds)?
> • Are legal entities worth the effort on a large scale? Our current chapters model is leading us to having a hundred or more legal entities globally. Is this worth all the overhead involved? Or would informal associations and affiliations be fine in many cases?
> Below are some notes that I’ve kept as I try to think through the issue. They aren’t intended to be comprehensive. Feel free to review or ignore as you think through and respond to the above questions.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -s
>
> Background notes
>
> The different kinds of affiliation in our movement:
> – Many editors/contributors have no organizational association. They work on their own, editing articles and making contributions without a great deal of interaction with others in the community.
> – We have many loose, informal affiliations. Talk pages provide a place for editors with a shared interest in a particular article. WikiProjects bring together editors into cross-article collaboration. Village pumps provide another project-based way to build community. Other affiliations include interest groups such as GLAM, projects like Wiki Loves Monuments, and the many groups of volunteers brought together by mailing lists like comcom and translate-l.
> – We have a global Wikimedia Foundation entrusted with the trademarks and with the responsibility to operate the websites and technical/legal infrastructure behind the projects.
> – Finally, we have country-based chapters which receive significant special rights.
>
> We started with geographic chapters in 2003. The model has developed so that these geographic organizations now receive rights unique in our movement including a) exclusive geographic right to use the trademark, b) preferred access to donor funds from the annual fundraiser, and c) the right to appoint two of the ten Trustees on the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> We’ve had one chapter grow into a large organization (Wikimedia Deutschland), and few others hire small numbers of professional staff, and others in varying degrees of development. A number of chapters appear to be defunct, with minimal or no programmatic activity.
>
> There has never been a clear definition of success for a geographic chapter. I ask most chapter members and chapter leaders I meet what their organizational objectives are and I get widely varying answers. Few say they have a role representing or serving the editing community. So it’s not a surprise that when I ask editors about the role of the chapter where they live, I often get a shrug and a disinterested look.
>
> As a result, we do not have a way to assess the performance of geographic chapters. How do you measure impact in a specific country when our projects are all cross border? Is it odd that a global movement is trying to organize itself around existing nation states?
>
> Exclusive trademark use, preferred access to donor funds, and the right to appoint trustees are a really big deal. Should other groups receive these rights? ArbCom is critical, but receives no such special treatment. GLAM effort have been an extraordinary success. It has brought together a global community sharing a strong passion. It has spawned projects like Wiki Loves Monuments which are amazing in helping pursue our vision. Yet it has no special access to donor funds. It has no exclusive right to the trademarks. It has no right to appoint Board members. Is that appropriate?
>
> Is this conflict a core driver of the failure of our movement roles effort, despite 18-24 months of effort, to drive any resolution? As someone not that involved in the movement roles effort, it seems the team has assumed that geographic chapters will be the core of our organizational design. Maybe that foundational assumption is just not the right one.
>
> Legal entities, and fundraising activities under the Wikimedia name, create a huge amount of overhead. As the Board’s Treasurer and Chair of its Audit Committee, I have very high expectations for any legal entity granted use of the trademarks or access to donor funds. Do we get enough value out of having legal entities to justify the extra effort and overhead?
>
> Let’s assume that fundraising or access to funds isn’t much of a priority for our movement now. Over the past 10 years our community has cracked the code on how to approach our global readership for donations. We are essentially now in a position where we collectively are able to raise all the money we can practically spend in pursuit of our mission.
>
> Note: The WMF Exec Director Sue Gardner has started to post some of her preliminary thinking on related issues on meta. She goes into a lot of detail and it might be worth a read.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


derby_pie at yahoo

Feb 1, 2012, 11:08 AM

Post #18 of 75 (1381 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

Finding people not well known to editors: great.
Finding people shy of 'grueling' public election process: ok...

How does either lead to hiding candidate names? not doing background checks? 

Not publishing what kinds of questions are asked?


As others said, this feels very strange.


On 2/1/12, Stuart West <stuwest [at] gmail> wrote:
> The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of
> value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT
> typically be candidates in election.  That might be because they aren't
> well-known in the editing community that decides elections.  Or as Thomas
> mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes
> grueling election process.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


alexandrdmitriromanov at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 11:15 AM

Post #19 of 75 (1386 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

I am highly perplexed why we have a *public call for candidates* when the
rest of the process remains so private.

Alex



2012/2/1 Chessie <derby_pie [at] yahoo>

> Finding people not well known to editors: great.
> Finding people shy of 'grueling' public election process: ok...
>
> How does either lead to hiding candidate names? not doing background
> checks?
>
> Not publishing what kinds of questions are asked?
>
>
> As others said, this feels very strange.
>
>
> On 2/1/12, Stuart West <stuwest [at] gmail> wrote:
> > The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of
> > value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT
> > typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't
> > well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas
> > mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes
> > grueling election process.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


morton.thomas at googlemail

Feb 1, 2012, 12:22 PM

Post #20 of 75 (1381 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

>
> *if not all chapters participate, or if the "discussion" is dominated by a
> > few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the
> selection
> > forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters,
> > is there any thought to refusing to certify under these circumstances?
> > *
>
>
> If only a handful of chapters participate in the discussion, there is no
> "consensus among chapters" and therefore we will have a vote.If not enough
> chapters vote in the determined time, we will prorogue the vote until they
> do... and only them we will tell the Board we have a result. We all know
> how to identify a consensus, don't worry.
>

I'm not sure you've answered the question being asked; which is - will the
current board be able to scrutineer the selection process and ultimately
veto the recommendation the moderators pass along?

He's not asking about how the moderators decision is made.

This is important because all elections of this form - particularly private
ones should be scrutineered.


>
> *Board members, however they are selected, represent the Wikimedia
> > Foundation and the whole "community" or movement. My question is - if the
> > 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the whole of Wikimedia...
> > *
>
>
> I'm sorry but last Chapters Seat Election had more participants than the
> Community seats election... if you want to compare, we should get rid of
> Community election seats, not the chapters one.
>

Umm; I recall there were more than 38 participants in the discussion and
overall process. ;) And one would imagine that individual chapter board
members would have a unified approach (based on their chapters decision)
meaning there are 38 opinions to consider.

However, this whole process is a bit confusing for me because it seems that
those with access to chapters wiki have the ability to discuss candidates.
And only limited information about those candidates can be passed to the
wider chapter.

Essentially, then, this is a chapter board member discussion. Fine, I have
nothing against my own chapters board members and I am sure they will act
fairly and with clarity. But it is hard to act on behalf of the chapter
when we can't even see the process, full candidate information and
discussion...

Tom
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


emufarmers at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 1:12 PM

Post #21 of 75 (1402 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Stuart West <stuwest [at] gmail> wrote:
> The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically be candidates in election.  That might be because they aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections.  Or as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes grueling election process.

How is this different from the rationale for the expertise seats?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


stuwest at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 1:44 PM

Post #22 of 75 (1396 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

I'll give my personal view on the question, and invite others on the board to jump in. I think the difference between the specific expertise seats and the appointed seats is subtle but important.

My sense is that the WMF Board specific expertise seats are more focused on board operations and governance. so the Board might do a self-assessment and identify that it needs someone with financial/audit oversight experience to serve as Board Treasurer, and then go out and find it. That's me. It's also reactive and designed to fill in the gaps. So we as Board decided a few years ago that we lacked sufficient insight and perspective from outside North America and Europe, so we sought out and were incredibly luck to find Bishakha.

The opportunity for the two seats appointed by movement organizations like the chapters is broader. Many more people are involved in identifying and surfacing potential candidates, so it has the potential to cast a wider and more thoughtful net. And there is less constraint to meet specific governance needs, which frees up the process to focus on the people and perspectives that can have the most positive impact on our movement's pursuit of the mission.

-s


On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Stuart West <stuwest [at] gmail> wrote:
>> The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through the sometimes grueling election process.
>
> How is this different from the rationale for the expertise seats?
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


risker.wp at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 2:17 PM

Post #23 of 75 (1389 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On 1 February 2012 16:44, Stuart West <stuwest [at] gmail> wrote:

> I'll give my personal view on the question, and invite others on the board
> to jump in. I think the difference between the specific expertise seats
> and the appointed seats is subtle but important.
>
> My sense is that the WMF Board specific expertise seats are more focused
> on board operations and governance. so the Board might do a
> self-assessment and identify that it needs someone with financial/audit
> oversight experience to serve as Board Treasurer, and then go out and find
> it. That's me. It's also reactive and designed to fill in the gaps. So we
> as Board decided a few years ago that we lacked sufficient insight and
> perspective from outside North America and Europe, so we sought out and
> were incredibly luck to find Bishakha.
>
> The opportunity for the two seats appointed by movement organizations like
> the chapters is broader. Many more people are involved in identifying and
> surfacing potential candidates, so it has the potential to cast a wider and
> more thoughtful net. And there is less constraint to meet specific
> governance needs, which frees up the process to focus on the people and
> perspectives that can have the most positive impact on our movement's
> pursuit of the mission.
>
> -
>

This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the
"chapter" seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It
concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter
members seem to not be considered part of the movement.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


thomas.dalton at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 2:22 PM

Post #24 of 75 (1412 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:
> This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
> elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
> the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the
> "chapter" seats is somehow more representative of the movement.  It
> concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter
> members seem to not be considered part of the movement.

I didn't get that impression at all.

The board doesn't just need to be representative of the community. It
also needs to be capable of running the WMF as well as possible. We
need to balance those two goals. Having a couple of chapter-selected
seats is a good way of doing that.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


risker.wp at gmail

Feb 1, 2012, 2:36 PM

Post #25 of 75 (1402 views)
Permalink
Re: Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees [In reply to]

On 1 February 2012 17:22, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker <risker.wp [at] gmail> wrote:
> > This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
> > elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
> > the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for
> the
> > "chapter" seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It
> > concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter
> > members seem to not be considered part of the movement.
>
> I didn't get that impression at all.
>
> The board doesn't just need to be representative of the community. It
> also needs to be capable of running the WMF as well as possible. We
> need to balance those two goals. Having a couple of chapter-selected
> seats is a good way of doing that.
>
> _
>


In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more
effective or helpful in meeting the Board's goals or running the WMF than
would community-elected Wikimedians.

I would think that direct appointment of those with specific skill sets
would be how the board ensure it is "capable of running the WMF as well as
possible."

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.