Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3
This procedure is unfair for some candidates and is sowing suspiciousness against chapters. Last elections I nominated a candidate and also sent questions to be passed to all candidates. The situation was absolutely crazy. Some candidates had access to chapters wiki and could have feedback from the answers of other candidates while others like the one I nominated didn't. One candidate, Phoebe, published her answers which honors her and the others not. When the election process finished nobody told the candidates without access to internal wiki the results. Still today nobody has told anything to them. And ofcourse I don't know the answers to my questions. Chapters elected board members means that the chapters are who have to appoint them but doesn't mean that this doesn't affect and is of interest of the entire community. Chapters would do a favor to themselves if they publish the candidatures, and keep questions to candidates and discussion publicly. Otherwise this is only creating division and suspiciousness among chapters and communities and among communities with chapters and communities without chapters. If someone want to have private conversations everybody has freedom of speach to talk to everybody trough private means. But WMF means belong to a common, free and open project and must not be transformed in a privative asset. I think that we must try to keep everything free and open by default. Only kept private when there are very strong reasons like legal requirements and this is not the case. It is ridiculous that we have gone to strike against SOPA and we are accepting to transform in privative the informations about a process that affects all the movement. Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 13:21:14 -0200 From: B?ria Lima berial...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees Message-ID: caa2xhjdsoth2v+bnn7xwbnn-m91gxwohlpmtnxypfa-0yum...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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. _ *B?ria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote: This procedure is unfair for some candidates and is sowing suspiciousness against chapters. Please read http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_IV_-_THE_BOARD_OF_TRUSTEES section 3D Chapter-selected Trustees. Two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered years according to a procedure approved by a majority of the chapters and approved by the Board. Amendments to this procedure also must be approved by a majority of the chapters and approved by the Board. Last elections I nominated a candidate and also sent questions to be passed to all candidates. The situation was absolutely crazy. Some candidates had access to chapters wiki and could have feedback from the answers of other candidates while others like the one I nominated didn't. One candidate, Phoebe, published her answers which honors her and the others not. When the election process finished nobody told the candidates without access to internal wiki the results. Still today nobody has told anything to them. And ofcourse I don't know the answers to my questions. The bylaws do not say that the chapters have to vote candidates, but to select board members. This means that the rules are different from those of an election. Chapters elected board members means that the chapters are who have to appoint them but doesn't mean that this doesn't affect and is of interest of the entire community. I don't know Catalan, I know that in Spanish elegido means both elected and selected, but in English the difference is clear. Chapters would do a favor to themselves if they publish the candidatures, and keep questions to candidates and discussion publicly. Otherwise this is only creating division and suspiciousness among chapters and communities and among communities with chapters and communities without chapters. There are a number of reasons to keep the discussion closed. First, chapters may propose for a seat someone who is not interested (let's say I suggest Barck Obama), or the non-selected candidate does not want to be publicly known as a loser. But I agree it would be good if the Chapters gave a report saying: We considered 10 people, 3 of them declined the offer, and among the other 7 we though Alice and Bob were the best choice because of this and this. I think that we must try to keep everything free and open by default. Only kept private when there are very strong reasons like legal requirements and this is not the case. It is ridiculous that we have gone to strike against SOPA and we are accepting to transform in privative the informations about a process that affects all the movement. Privacy is a right too. Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Please read http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_IV_-_THE_BOARD_OF_TRUSTEES section 3D Chapter-selected Trustees. Two Trustees will be selected by chapters in even-numbered years according to a procedure approved by a majority of the chapters and approved by the Board. Amendments to this procedure also must be approved by a majority of the chapters and approved by the Board. This is the second time on a thread on this subject today that someone has responded with a link to the bylaws. This is the way things are is not an effective response to here's how I think things should be. And now that we've had the link posted several times, it would be nice if no one else felt the urge to point out the obvious. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3
On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Nathan wrote: This is the way things are is not an effective response to here's how I think things should be. +1 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 19:17, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote: The situation was absolutely crazy. Some candidates had access to chapters wiki and could have feedback from the answers of other candidates while others like the one I nominated didn't. One candidate, Phoebe, published her answers which honors her and the others not. When the election process finished nobody told the candidates without access to internal wiki the results. Still today nobody has told anything to them. And ofcourse I don't know the answers to my questions. As the most of those issues depend on MediaWiki features and moderators, it will be changed this time. No candidate would have access to the list and wiki, and candidates will have as equal as possible treatment (it's not possible to control what would 100-150 members of chapters list share with whom). Chapters would do a favor to themselves if they publish the candidatures, and keep questions to candidates and discussion publicly. Otherwise this is only creating division and suspiciousness among chapters and communities and among communities with chapters and communities without chapters. If someone want to have private conversations everybody has freedom of speach to talk to everybody trough private means. But WMF means belong to a common, free and open project and must not be transformed in a privative asset. I think that we must try to keep everything free and open by default. Only kept private when there are very strong reasons like legal requirements and this is not the case. It is ridiculous that we have gone to strike against SOPA and we are accepting to transform in privative the informations about a process that affects all the movement. Agreed. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
