chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

phoebe ayers-3
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
>> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the
>> > bylaws
>> > to indicate that.
>> >
>> >
>> Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee
>> positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be
>> selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
>>
>> I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the
>> community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad
>> as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still
>> means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters
>> are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board
>> majority.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at
> large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct
> responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to
> revoke their representation.
>
> Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
> representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is
> very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people
> belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise
> meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged
> that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the
> definition of "community member") are members of chapters.  I have a hard
> time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> community.  They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
>
> Risker/Anne

changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away
from the original subject of moderation....

As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in :)

I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or
very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and
could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the
second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was
our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to
improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next,
will be better. That's something we all want to see.

Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale
behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation --
to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely
dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of
voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller
language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name
recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder.
Additionally, the chapters *are* a part of the greater Wikimedia
movement, and selecting seats via chapters helps ensure that those
chapters get a place at the table. In the U.S. there has not been a
chapter presence until WM-NYC was founded, but that's not true in
other places -- Wikimedia Deutschland was of course founded before the
WMF itself was founded, and many of the other chapters are well
established too.

Now, you could certainly ask, given all that, why in the world the
chapters would have selected me -- yet another American English
Wikipedian -- to be on the board. And that's a perfectly valid
question! It's important to realize however that I am not a
"representative" of the chapters. On the board itself, I am identified
as a board member or sometimes as a community board member, but not as
someone who is there specifically to advance chapter interests or be
more involved with chapters than anyone else (there are currently
three board members on the chapcom, for instance: one is
chapter-selected, one is community-elected, and one is appointed). I
am honored that the chapters thought that I would be a good board
member *in general*, to work on all of the issues that the WMF faces
-- and hopefully that is why they selected me :)

As for community accountability, I certainly feel accountable to the
community. I also feel accountable to the long-term survival and
health of the Wikimedia projects, and will do my utmost to help make
decisions that will both help ensure this survival and that also
represent community interests and needs. I have been around for long
enough, and thought hard enough about the community, to realize the
obvious -- that there is no single "community" for a trustee to
represent. There are editors of all different types and interests,
there are chapter members, there are even readers... but I do think
that we have some important shared values, of openness and freedom and
knowledge-sharing, and those values underpin my decisions.

As for knowing what it is the board does -- yes by all means if you
care about this topic go to the movement roles meeting (I have a work
conflict, sadly). I also hope to start having more open IRC community
meetings, as I mentioned a month or so ago at the IRC meeting with
Bishakha -- I just haven't had time to schedule them yet is all. Soon
:) And please ask questions anytime.

-- phoebe


--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

Geoffrey Plourde
Phoebe,

If concerned about equality, why not have two chapter seats and two community
seats?





________________________________
From: phoebe ayers <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 2:52:46 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
>> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the
>> > bylaws
>> > to indicate that.
>> >
>> >
>> Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee
>> positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be
>> selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
>>
>> I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the
>> community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad
>> as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still
>> means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters
>> are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board
>> majority.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at
> large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct
> responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to
> revoke their representation.
>
> Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
> representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is
> very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people
> belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise
> meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged
> that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the
> definition of "community member") are members of chapters.  I have a hard
> time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> community.  They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
>
> Risker/Anne

changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away
from the original subject of moderation....

As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in :)

I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or
very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and
could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the
second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was
our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to
improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next,
will be better. That's something we all want to see.

Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale
behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation --
to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely
dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of
voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller
language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name
recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder.
Additionally, the chapters *are* a part of the greater Wikimedia
movement, and selecting seats via chapters helps ensure that those
chapters get a place at the table. In the U.S. there has not been a
chapter presence until WM-NYC was founded, but that's not true in
other places -- Wikimedia Deutschland was of course founded before the
WMF itself was founded, and many of the other chapters are well
established too.

Now, you could certainly ask, given all that, why in the world the
chapters would have selected me -- yet another American English
Wikipedian -- to be on the board. And that's a perfectly valid
question! It's important to realize however that I am not a
"representative" of the chapters. On the board itself, I am identified
as a board member or sometimes as a community board member, but not as
someone who is there specifically to advance chapter interests or be
more involved with chapters than anyone else (there are currently
three board members on the chapcom, for instance: one is
chapter-selected, one is community-elected, and one is appointed). I
am honored that the chapters thought that I would be a good board
member *in general*, to work on all of the issues that the WMF faces
-- and hopefully that is why they selected me :)

As for community accountability, I certainly feel accountable to the
community. I also feel accountable to the long-term survival and
health of the Wikimedia projects, and will do my utmost to help make
decisions that will both help ensure this survival and that also
represent community interests and needs. I have been around for long
enough, and thought hard enough about the community, to realize the
obvious -- that there is no single "community" for a trustee to
represent. There are editors of all different types and interests,
there are chapter members, there are even readers... but I do think
that we have some important shared values, of openness and freedom and
knowledge-sharing, and those values underpin my decisions.

As for knowing what it is the board does -- yes by all means if you
care about this topic go to the movement roles meeting (I have a work
conflict, sadly). I also hope to start having more open IRC community
meetings, as I mentioned a month or so ago at the IRC meeting with
Bishakha -- I just haven't had time to schedule them yet is all. Soon
:) And please ask questions anytime.

-- phoebe


--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

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



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

Risker
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
<snipping>

>
> changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away
> from the original subject of moderation....
>
> As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in
> :)
>
> I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or
> very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and
> could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the
> second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was
> our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to
> improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next,
> will be better. That's something we all want to see.
>


I've looked around both the WMF wiki and Meta, and can't actually find any
documentation of the process by which the chapters elected their two
representatives.  Does anyone have a link to where I might be able to read
it?


>
> Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale
> behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation --
> to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely
> dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of
> voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller
> language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name
> recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder.
>
<snip rest of message>

Well, that would sound logical....except that the majority of chapters
correspond pretty well with the largest projects, and they are
geographically based, not project-based or language-based.  That argument
would make more sense for a Wikiquote chapter (or, heaven forbid, a
Wikiversity one) if one is concerned about "smaller" projects.  I'd
disagree, as well, about the difficulty of getting "name recognition",
because there have always been non-English members on the Board, and some
consider relatively small projects their home wiki.

It also doesn't deal well with the intersection of geographic areas, such as
the current discussion on Kosovo/Serbia. What happens if a bunch of Scottish
editors decide they want their own chapter - does Wikimedia-UK prevent that
from happening?  What if the Scottish editors want to focus on
Gaelic-language projects?

Right now, the US only has one chapter, WM-NYC. What about if the Boston,
Washington, Chicago, and Nashville groups all decide to proceed? Will they
all have the same voting power as, say, WM-DE, our oldest and (I believe)
largest chapter?

What about situations where a dozen or so people get together and decide to
do the "chapter" thing for a geographic region/country, without actively
seeking input from the majority of Wikimedians from their region? Once the
name is incorporated, it's something of a done deal, whether or not the
Board grants them chapter-hood.

Please don't misunderstand me, I agree that chapters should exist, and those
who can demonstrate active focus on the work of various WMF projects and the
goals of the WMF itself are worthy of support in both time and, yes,
money.   Support, though....not giving them the ability to decide 40% of the
make-up of "community" representation to the board.

Phoebe, on a personal note, your election to a chapter seat on the board has
reassured me to some extent; having seen your contributions over several
years, I know your focus is on the community as a whole, and I cannot
imagine you changing your focus. (I don't know Arne's work well enough to
comment, but I extend the same good faith to him.)

Now...would someone please explain internal-L to us?  Thanks.


Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
Thank you Phoebe for changing the subject...

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
>> representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is
>> very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people
>> belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise
>> meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged
>> that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the
>> definition of "community member") are members of chapters.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters :
chapters have 2137+ members.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Results/en : 2940
valid ballots.
Anyway, this is the wrong question: the right question is, if chapters
are able to select good WMF board members, with the disclaimer that as
Phoebe said we are only at the second round.

Risker, 21/10/2010 07:29:
 > I've looked around both the WMF wiki and Meta, and can't actually
find any
 > documentation of the process by which the chapters elected their two
 > representatives.  Does anyone have a link to where I might be able to
read
 > it?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/Process
This is linked by the navigational templated and was linked several
times on foundation-l...

Nemo

--
Federico Leva
[[Meta:User:Nemo_bis]]
(See for contact methods. This account is for lists only.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by Risker
Hi Risker!

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> <snipping>
>
>>
>> changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away
>> from the original subject of moderation....
>>
>> As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in
>> :)
>>
>> I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or
>> very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and
>> could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the
>> second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was
>> our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to
>> improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next,
>> will be better. That's something we all want to see.
>>
>
>
> I've looked around both the WMF wiki and Meta, and can't actually find any
> documentation of the process by which the chapters elected their two
> representatives.  Does anyone have a link to where I might be able to read
> it?
>

Sure. See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats,
for a bit of background, and
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/Process
for the process used this year.

Here's how it worked, in a nutshell:

* anyone could nominate a candidate, including non-chapter people;
people could also self-nom
* for the nomination process, a candidate had to accept the nomination
and write a brief statement
* within the timeline, nominations were accepted; then all the
nominations went to the chapters
* candidates were discussed between the chapters & within each
individual chapter
* a page of questions went to each candidate, who sent their answers
back, via the moderator (I posted my answers on meta, if anyone cares)
* I believe once they got down to a handful of finalists there was a
vote, which each chapter casting a ballot for the two seats
* the final announcement was made the day before Wikimania started,
which was a bit awkward, but was the reason why I was on the board
panel this year (I had just found out about 6 hrs previous)

I am not sure how many people noticed the "anyone can nominate
candidates" part, though it was advertised pretty widely (I think in
the sitenotice even?). I'll note that since the finalists do come out
of the pool of nominations, nominating people is one way to influence
the process (much like how running for the elections is the surest way
to make sure candidates you agree with stand!).

>> Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale
>> behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation --
>> to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely
>> dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of
>> voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller
>> language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name
>> recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder.
>>
> <snip rest of message>
>
> Well, that would sound logical....except that the majority of chapters
> correspond pretty well with the largest projects, and they are
> geographically based, not project-based or language-based.  That argument
> would make more sense for a Wikiquote chapter (or, heaven forbid, a
> Wikiversity one) if one is concerned about "smaller" projects.  I'd
> disagree, as well, about the difficulty of getting "name recognition",
> because there have always been non-English members on the Board, and some
> consider relatively small projects their home wiki.

Sure. However, I think the idea is that chapter people who speak the
same language and were probably editors on whatever wikipedia or
sister project probably also know who the good leaders are in their
communities, whether they are directly involved in the chapter or not.
Appointments can actually help in that regard as well; Bishakha has
done some wonderful outreach to Indian projects since she joined the
board. (And I'll note there's nothing to stop chapters from selecting
someone who's not directly from the projects as well -- perhaps a
member of our advisory board or similar. The hope is just that they
pick good board members).

> It also doesn't deal well with the intersection of geographic areas, such as
> the current discussion on Kosovo/Serbia. What happens if a bunch of Scottish
> editors decide they want their own chapter - does Wikimedia-UK prevent that
> from happening?  What if the Scottish editors want to focus on
> Gaelic-language projects?

You're starting to ask the kind of questions that keep the chapters
committee up at night :) Yes, chapters focus on geographies not
languages, a point which has been debated. There is also a clause in
the chapters agreement that if a new chapter wants to start up within
the area of an existing chapter the foundation will consult the
existing chapter first.

> Right now, the US only has one chapter, WM-NYC. What about if the Boston,
> Washington, Chicago, and Nashville groups all decide to proceed? Will they
> all have the same voting power as, say, WM-DE, our oldest and (I believe)
> largest chapter?

Another good question that has been on a lot of people's minds. This
is, not coincidentally, PRECISELY the kind of question the Movement
Roles group is interested in, so if you're at all interested in this
kind of discussion I'd post on those wiki pages.

> What about situations where a dozen or so people get together and decide to
> do the "chapter" thing for a geographic region/country, without actively
> seeking input from the majority of Wikimedians from their region? Once the
> name is incorporated, it's something of a done deal, whether or not the
> Board grants them chapter-hood.

Well, not entirely. As I understand it, if a group got together and
started using the Wikimedia name without permission it would be a
trademark violation (see
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy). I know these
questions has been debated over many years; someone from the chapcom
etc should jump in for a longer answer.

> Please don't misunderstand me, I agree that chapters should exist, and those
> who can demonstrate active focus on the work of various WMF projects and the
> goals of the WMF itself are worthy of support in both time and, yes,
> money.   Support, though....not giving them the ability to decide 40% of the
> make-up of "community" representation to the board.

Well, I was trying to make the point that in the end what you're
trying to end up with is electing five great board members, and then
appointing five more great board members. Yes, the community board
members come from the community but, much like elected representatives
in the U.S., what you're trying to elect in the end is good judgment,
shared values and the skillset needed (e.g. a tolerance for
meetings!).

(or perhaps not; I am sure there are single-issue voters out there.
But from the limited exposure I've had to the board so far it doesn't
really work that way, and I think a truly single-issue candidate would
be quite ineffective.)

 If it seems like the process isn't working well we should revise or
reform it, but that's of course a conversation that would have to be
had with all the stakeholders and the board. Scrapping the process
altogether and doing something else would take a bylaws change.

> Phoebe, on a personal note, your election to a chapter seat on the board has
> reassured me to some extent; having seen your contributions over several
> years, I know your focus is on the community as a whole, and I cannot
> imagine you changing your focus. (I don't know Arne's work well enough to
> comment, but I extend the same good faith to him.)

Thanks. :) Your good faith is well placed in Arne as well.

speaking of long histories with the WMF, a correction is in order --
two people wrote me to ask what in the world I was talking about re:
wm:de & the wmf. The WMF was founded in 2003, WM:DE was founded in
2004... I was confusing something in my head about non-profit status
dates. You would think I would have the history of the foundation
memorized by now! I'll just claim that I was trying to keep the
fact-checkers of foundation-l on their toes....

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:52 PM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>
>> Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at
>> large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct
>> responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to
>> revoke their representation.
>>
>> Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
>> representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is
>> very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people
>> belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise
>> meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged
>> that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the
>> definition of "community member") are members of chapters.  I have a hard
>> time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
>> community.  They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>
> changing the subject line because I think we've ranged pretty far away
> from the original subject of moderation....
>
> As the person who was selected via this process I feel the need to jump in :)
>
> I agree that the chapter selection process is not very transparent, or
> very clear (to the people inside as well as the people outside!) and
> could have been improved. However, this time around was also only the
> second time chapters have selected seats (by contrast, last year was
> our 6th community election) ... so I hope that we will continue to
> improve on that front and the next selection process, year after next,
> will be better. That's something we all want to see.
>

The question has not an answer.

The chapters select the board members internally and the selection
must be *transparent* for the chapters and not for the communities. In
few word it must be transparent for Wikimedians and not for
Wikipedians.

The document which describe the process is available to all persons
instead and it has been approved by the WMF board, it's sufficient in
my opinion to assure a transparency to any external person.

To have a feeling how the process of selection is transparent for the
Wikimedians, it's very simple because it sufficient to ask to be
member of a chapter (the membership is not linked with the citizenship
or with the language or at least it is what happens in a large number
of chapters).

If the process is not transparent in a chapter, the problem is
connected with the chapter and not with the process. All board members
of local chapters are informed and they must inform internally the
other members.

I don't understand the question of transparency because in these terms
also the WMF board meetings could not be judged transparent (it's an
example but there are a lot of other internal processes in WMF which
are not open to external participation but it's normal).

Please... the selection of chapter board seat it's not a "reality
show". There is a moderator who assure that the process follows the
agreement with the foundation and that it's "democratic" for all
chapters.

Second point: The board members are selected by a tiny number of
representatives. I don't agree.

How we calculate the "importance" of this small community? Counting
members? Counting the number of edits for each member? Counting how
many surnames they have?

The question is analyzed in a simple way here, but it's a more complex
in the reality.

The "universe" Wikipedia is formed by different bodies and every
bodies focus their interests in different matters.

The chapters probably are more interested in the fundraising, in the
relation with media and so on. In their decision they analyze these
parameters and in my opinion the selection of chapters bring a
richness in the WMF board because they give an opportunity for good
candidates who could not have a chance in the community selection
process because they may be unpopular but experienced.

In this division of the process of selection I can only see a
diversification of different point of views which can assure an
heterogeneity in the WMF board.

For a board who accepts a big challenge, this can be a big improvement.

Ilario

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

John Mark Vandenberg
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:52 AM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>..
> Others can speak to this better than I can, but part of the rationale
> behind chapter-selected seats was to help even out representation --
> to make sure that the elected seats on the board were not entirely
> dominated by candidates from those communities that have lots of
> voting editors, like the English Wikipedia. If you are from a smaller
> language project, or a smaller chapter, the chances of getting name
> recognition and a seat in the community elections is much harder.

Similar to Risker's comment about this, it seems to me that we have
not obtained better representation through this process.  The make up
of the board has been representative of our main Wikipedia projects.
Wikipedia has always been the primary project of our board members,
with only a few board members having done more than dip their toe into
sister projects and Commons.

English and French Wiktionary are our second and third largest
projects respectively after English Wikipedia, based on number of
'good' pages.

In Sept 2009, Wikisource (all subdomains) consisted of 869 million
words, which was second only to English Wikipedia. (keep in mind that
the wikisource subdomains overlap rarely, whereas wikipedias contain
much of the same content in different languages)
Wikisource is now at 1,001 million words; no recent stats available
for the other projects.

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 6:26 PM, phoebe ayers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> ...
> Well, I was trying to make the point that in the end what you're
> trying to end up with is electing five great board members, and then
> appointing five more great board members. Yes, the community board
> members come from the community but, much like elected representatives
> in the U.S., what you're trying to elect in the end is good judgment,
> shared values and the skillset needed (e.g. a tolerance for
> meetings!).
>
> (or perhaps not; I am sure there are single-issue voters out there.
> But from the limited exposure I've had to the board so far it doesn't
> really work that way, and I think a truly single-issue candidate would
> be quite ineffective.)

While I am a man with many issues, I'm sure it won't surprise anyone
to learn that I am a single issue voter. ;-)

"How much has the candidate done, on the ground, for the projects
other than Wikipedia?"

Over the years there have been many candidates vying for last place
wrt to my single-issue. ;-)

If history is anything to go by, a single issue candidate is the best
chance that WMF will adjust its strategy to devote more energy towards
supporting the sister projects.

I'd hoped that the strategy project would result in board adoption of
proposals that focus on the sister projects.  Despite the five year
plan not speaking directly about growing the sister projects and small
language projects, I'm hoping the board recognises that their
ambitious targets will only be realised if they embrace the untapped
opportunity for growth in the sister projects.  If this doesn't
eventuate, I think we'll need to consider giving sister projects some
form of direct representation on the board.  Maybe I was dreaming, but
I vaguely recall someone suggesting this on foundation-l.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

Federico Leva (Nemo)
John Vandenberg, 21/10/2010 12:30:
> If history is anything to go by, a single issue candidate is the best
> chance that WMF will adjust its strategy to devote more energy towards
> supporting the sister projects.

Have we ever had a single-issue trustee who achieved something?

> I'd hoped that the strategy project would result in board adoption of
> proposals that focus on the sister projects.  Despite the five year
> plan not speaking directly about growing the sister projects and small
> language projects, I'm hoping the board recognises that their
> ambitious targets will only be realised if they embrace the untapped
> opportunity for growth in the sister projects.  If this doesn't
> eventuate, I think we'll need to consider giving sister projects some
> form of direct representation on the board.  Maybe I was dreaming, but
> I vaguely recall someone suggesting this on foundation-l.

It may be something to consider, but I think that it's easier so support
and participate in chapters.
Chapters are currently the only Wikimedia organizations who care about
sisterprojects and do something for them (especially biggest/oldest
ones; I would mention WM-DE, WMFr, WMI), and most likely the only chance
for the Wikimedia movement to do something for sisterproject within
a/the strategic plan.
Chapters members (and trustees) are often cross-project- and
meta-contributors, and viceversa; and people involved in chapters
usually have a broader view of the Wikimedia movement, i.e. they don't
think only about Wikipedia, so they're more interested in sisteprojects.
I think that Arne and Phoebe are good examples of this, and therefore
good WMF trustees for sisterprojects (as well as at least one community
elected WMF trustee, by the way).

Nemo

--
Federico Leva
[[Meta:User:Nemo_bis]]
(See for contact methods. This account is for lists only.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

phoebe ayers-3
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:30 AM, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
<snip>

> While I am a man with many issues, I'm sure it won't surprise anyone
> to learn that I am a single issue voter. ;-)
>
> "How much has the candidate done, on the ground, for the projects
> other than Wikipedia?"
>
> Over the years there have been many candidates vying for last place
> wrt to my single-issue. ;-)

Heh... if I *talk* about the sister projects do I get any points in
your book? :) I'm giving a big talk to a librarian conference in a
couple weeks, and am going to explain the virtues of wikibooks and
wikisource, among other things....

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian)

Joan Goma
In reply to this post by phoebe ayers-3
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:52:11 +0200
> From: Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 79, Issue 65
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>        <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTiksvkMvG302TrRa8HQX6=6PEvxcFWRgytfk1=x=@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hoi,
> The fact that nobody informed the "losers" that they had lost wins
> definitely not the price for best practices. I know for a fact that the
> person involved in the election process has been suggested to do so. People
> do appreciate a word of thanks for being a candidate and a good loser.
>

We can improve and we have a good example to copy from. I was a candidate
for Chapters committee and Lodewijk sent me a mail telling I had failed that
made me feel very comfortable. (Thanks again Lodewijk). Then I sent personal
mails to each one of the winners congratulating them.



>
> As far as I know only winners have been announced. It is not clear even to
> participants in the election how many votes they got.  A thick veil of
> secrecy hung over this election. I was warned that by posting my candidacy
> I
> might no longer be eligible ...
>
> So yes, there is room for improvement in the procedure. In the end good
> people were elected. People with a long track record in our movement. As
> far
> as I am concerned all is well that ends well. <grin> it could have been
> better </grin>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
I only can agree with you partially. I think we are not in the end. We are
still on time to publish the candidates and the related information not only
for the board candidates but also for the Chapters Committee candidates.
You, me, and many people can believe that the outcome has been good. But
there is no need to ask anybody to believe if they can see.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l