Am I the only one not shocked that in a time where there is a huge change happening in Movement governance (Global Council) the board is actually not committing to any sélection process?
I mean in two years time the whole movement power structures and dynamics could be immensely different from today. I prefer the options to be left open by the board for 2024 right now and make sure the Global Council discussion to move forward properly :) Le mer. 27 avr. 2022 à 6:24 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Hi Dariusz, > > Many thanks for your reply. I wasn't really interested in having you > confirm a commitment to conduct future (s)elections in any particular way – > I was only interested in having you confirm the *absence* of any > commitment to conduct a free community election in 2024, along the lines of > the one conducted in 2021. > > You have indeed confirmed that there is no such commitment to holding a > free community election in 2024. > > Best, > Andreas > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:44 PM Dariusz Jemielniak < > djemieln...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> Hi Andreas, >> >> a quick and short response: we do not provide a response on a thing that >> has not been collectively discussed. That's a standard that should be kept, >> and the organization of elections is definitely something that needs >> discussing every time they happen (the procedure involves several months of >> work of the governance committee, before going to the board discussion). >> >> In no way the "reluctance" should be read as a commitment to organize the >> future elections in some specific way. >> >> Our approach to this particular, upcoming elections of 2 seats was >> straightforward: we recognized the fact that the community input was >> missing for seats historically reserved for affiliate-only nomination. Two >> of these seats are upcoming for re-election, and we focused on optimizing >> the process for these two seats, with no specific intent for the community >> elections in the future. >> >> I realize it is difficult not to assume that we're secretly plotting to >> take over the world, but the mundane reality is that much as we would love >> to, we lack the bandwidth and to a large extent focus on things as they >> come. >> >> best, >> >> Dariusz >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:41 AM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Dariusz and all, >>> >>> Since this thread started, I (and several others) have asked in multiple >>> locations whether the WMF can promise that when the four formerly >>> community-selected seats come up for re-selection in 2024, community >>> members will be given a free vote. >>> >>> This question seemed particularly important, given that in the Call for >>> Feedback on how affiliates should participate in elections[1] – where >>> mainly affiliates were invited to respond, even though the result has >>> clearly affected the community as well – it was explicitly said that *"the >>> answers may refer not just to the two seats mentioned, but also to other, >>> Community- and Affiliate-selected seats."* >>> >>> I have received no response, nor have any of the others. And if you >>> think about it, the 2021 changes to the bylaws,[2] collapsing >>> community-selected seats and affiliate-selected seats into a single, new >>> category, "Community- and Affiliate-selected seats", only makes sense if >>> you do intend to abolish community voting. After all, these were the very >>> words, "community voting", that were removed from the bylaws. >>> >>> So, given that the WMF appears reluctant to confirm that the 2024 >>> selection process will be a proper, free community vote, along the lines of >>> the 2021 vote, I think it is safe to assume that it intends for the 2024 >>> procedure to be similar to this year, i.e.: >>> >>> – either the community once again voting on a shortlist pre-selected by >>> the affiliates, >>> – or perhaps the affiliates voting on a shortlist pre-selected by the >>> community. >>> >>> Either process could be "sold" to the community by saying that because >>> the community was given a say in what used to be 2 affiliate seats in 2022 >>> (as was argued both in this thread and on Meta), it is only fair if the >>> affiliates, in turn, get a say in the 4 former community seats in 2024. >>> >>> But while the shortlist method can be characterised as increasing >>> community influence this year, its long-term effect will be a dilution of >>> community influence on the board, because either way, the community vote >>> will always be filtered through affiliate preferences. >>> >>> I believe Jimmy Wales recognised this dilution, when he argued >>> strenuously against the bylaws change in late 2020 (and there was >>> concurrently talk of removing him from the board), saying in the Wikipedia >>> Weekly Faceboook group[3] (my emphases): >>> >>> *It is of course a bit awkward for me to comment here, but I think that >>> I should.* >>> >>> *As is well known, I have no interest in being the boss of anything or >>> the dictator of anything. My most keen interest is for the future of the >>> encyclopedia, with all the core values intact: that we are a >>> community-first project, that we are a charity, that we are neutral, that >>> we strive for quality, and that we work towards governance that means >>> safety for all these values in the long run.* >>> >>> *In the past few years, there have been several crises that have made it >>> increasingly clear to me: the biggest problem on the board is not a lack of >>> professional expertise, but rather a lack of community representation and >>> control. I am a steadfast proponent of that - you can speak to James >>> Heilman for more details (I've not consulted with him in advance but I'm >>> sure he'll tell you about my concerns about the "professional" board >>> members who don't seem to have our values at heart.)* >>> >>> *I am deeply concerned about the tone of some of the latest proposals >>> from some quarters: a reluctance to be firmly clear that community control >>> - in the form of voting and not just some vague "community-sourced board >>> members" language that might mean anything or nothing - is not negotiable.* >>> >>> *I believe that we need to be moving in a mildly different direction >>> with the board expansion. I don't want to make a specific proposal but I >>> will say this: rather than an expansion that keeps community in a slight +1 >>> position, I think we need an expansion that gives the community an >>> absolutely dominant role.* >>> >>> *I've not spoken yet about my personal role, because I want us to focus >>> on the long run. But my preference is not to step aside until I am sure >>> that the "professional" appointed seats are absolutely always in service to >>> the community, by making sure that their numbers are - relative to the >>> community numbers - reduced.* >>> >>> *Removing my voting seat - yes, it's a good idea in the long run, as I >>> am just one person and not that important in the grand scheme of things. >>> But for now, I feel that my role is to represent the moral conscience of >>> the movement and to prevent takeover by outside interests who do not >>> understand our values. So for those who ask when, I would say: when we are >>> safe. And I don't think that's true just yet.* >>> >>> He had said earlier[4] that he would "personally only support a final >>> revision which explicitly includes community voting and I believe it is >>> abundantly clear to everyone on the board that this is mandatory." >>> Unfortunately he was mistaken on both counts; in the end, community voting >>> was struck from the bylaws by a unanimous board resolution, supported by >>> both James and Jimmy.[5] >>> >>> Of course, if I am entirely wrong about all of this, and the board has >>> no intention whatsoever of making the 2024 vote for the four former >>> community-selected seats anything other than a free community vote, all it >>> takes is an email to this mailing list to commit to this now – that the >>> 2024 selection process will be a free and open community vote – to put such >>> speculation to rest. >>> >>> And the absence of such an email will speak volumes as well. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Andreas >>> >>> [1] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/BXIB6EYTOJEKVLVUFGXUPNKUQB7GJILQ/#BXIB6EYTOJEKVLVUFGXUPNKUQB7GJILQ >>> [2] >>> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bylaws&diff=123603&oldid=123339 >>> [3] >>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/3448296538551486/?comment_id=3448469991867474 >>> >>> [4] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2020_-_Proposed_Bylaws_changes#"Community_Nomination_Process"; >>> Diff: >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2020_-_Proposed_Bylaws_changes&diff=20521513&oldid=20521233 >>> [5] >>> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Amended_Bylaws_Articles_IV_%26_V_(2020) >>> >>> P.S. Just for clarity, my brief comment earlier about the 5th and >>> 6th-placed in last year's board selection vote was intended to indicate >>> that the community is quite capable of selecting diverse candidates. If the >>> two seats the WMF is looking to fill this year had been filled last year, >>> along with the 4 seats that resulted from the 2021 community vote, we would >>> have had, based on the reported results of that community vote:[6] >>> >>> 1. An American woman >>> 2. A woman from Belarus currently living in the UK >>> 3. A Polish man splitting his time between Poland and the US >>> 4. An Italian man >>> 5. A woman from Ivory Coast >>> 6. A British man living in the Spanish island of Tenerife off the coast >>> of Africa >>> >>> There are gaps here (Asia, foremost), but it's clearly not true that >>> left to its own devices, the community only votes for white men living in >>> the West. >>> >>> [6] >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 3:13 PM Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < >>> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Last year the community voted that way putting diverse candidates at >>>> 5th and 6th position because the election method could not work properly, >>>> even assuming (as it was) a general attempt of diverse choice by the >>>> electorate. The main issue was in the low threshold for the candidatures. >>>> As soon as I figured out with a simple set of simulations I tried to warn >>>> and I was semi-harassed on the telegram chat. One person told me to shut up >>>> because I did not understand how STV worked, another one accused me of >>>> being in bad taste. >>>> >>>> However, my analysis was probably right. I expected the output to be >>>> gender balanced but not geographically balanced because of dispersion among >>>> candidates. Unfortunately people were probably too ideologically oriented >>>> by how good STV system was and how great was to have so many candidates. >>>> Just to be clear, I don't dislike STV, but at least I understand how to >>>> simulate an election. If you want to use STV for a diverse output, put a >>>> clear selection of candidates after studying how people usually vote. >>>> >>>> In general, this community has no literacy on electoral process but >>>> more importantly, it does not want it. That's why discussing this topic >>>> seems almost useless. People could mix up everything together, >>>> sometimes they just take a concept and put it to the extreme. >>>> >>>> The direct elections was poor because of the lack of understanding of >>>> the voting behavior. I am sure even now somebody thinks we have elected so >>>> many "white people" because of the "racist" (or more nuanced adjective) >>>> electorate, but it would have happened with an honest attempt of diversity >>>> by voters, which I think it actually occurred. >>>> >>>> As for this issue, these other seats with this system. in the end it >>>> looks that the power of the generic users might have increased, we are >>>> switching probably from a totally affiliate-oriented election to an >>>> election where the community in one step of the process cast a vote in a >>>> open at-large election which is generally good. If you have a good >>>> selections of candidates, the result might be balanced. >>>> >>>> The ASBS2019 election was already an improvement enlarging the >>>> electoral base, it was more transparent and public the previous elections >>>> of affiliates seats, but it still had to face some issues. One is that some >>>> affiliates cast the actual vote among few people with no real participation >>>> of their members (even suggesting them to at least inform their members >>>> they were casting a vote was "too much"), the other one that a small >>>> fraction of active users could be more involved in the process in two or >>>> more UGs. >>>> >>>> Giving a power of selecting candidates and not final votes to >>>> affiliates force them to care more about that step, producing convincing >>>> figures while the at-large election still has some issues but it's more >>>> democratic for the final choice. It might work, if correctly calibrated. >>>> One issue of the at-large elections is the threshold for candidates, >>>> but delegating to the affiliates might lead to both strong and diverse >>>> options, without excessive dispersion. >>>> >>>> Another issue of the at-large elections are the votes of institutional >>>> account that are not properly handled. Usually people here make some weird >>>> comparison about civil servants voting but it has nothing to do with it. >>>> You just expect people to reach voting right by themselves and not as a >>>> result of c.o.i paid activity, and you should be more careful about it in >>>> the case of close results. If the internal process of affiliates select the >>>> candidates, than that would be a good moment to decide the weigh of this >>>> type of votes at the next step if it's an at large election. Again, you >>>> probably don't want to deal with this problem with a close call. >>>> >>>> In any case, again, electoral literacy is hard, while taking one >>>> concept and enlarging it for a "soapbox moment" is easy. just to clear I >>>> have nothing against one position or another per se. For example I disagree >>>> with the merge of the two types of seats because it might lead to some >>>> functional results if correctly handled but for sure with the strong >>>> ideological positions we face, it can only lead to more chaos. So far, I >>>> might say that both processes might end up to more open globally than in >>>> the past. Although they could have been much better. >>>> >>>> Like everything, we will deal with the data at the end for those who >>>> want to care. >>>> >>>> Alessandro >>>> >>>> >>>> Il domenica 24 aprile 2022, 14:58:23 CEST, Andreas Kolbe < >>>> jayen...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 9:40 AM Chris Keating < >>>> chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate >>>> trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board >>>> member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1] >>>> >>>> What Dariusz has announced here is a new process for determining >>>> "community-and-affiliate trustees". This new process is being "*implemented >>>> on a trial basis for the 2022 election*". >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think it follows that the Board intends to use this model for >>>> the following (2024?) election of the four seats elected last year. Indeed, >>>> I am virtually certain they won't, given the significance of the movement >>>> governance changes that are going on, and the level of change we have seen >>>> in WMF board elections in the last few years. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You don't say you "trial" something if you're planning to do it only >>>> this once. >>>> >>>> This whole change in process goes back to a "Call for feedback" that >>>> was put out on December 23, 2021, i.e. one day before Christmas Eve.[1] >>>> >>>> There is hardly a worse working day in the year to make such an >>>> announcement, for most people in our movement, if the intent truly is to >>>> attract widespread attention. Why not wait until the New Year, and make >>>> such an announcement once people are back at their desks, undistracted by >>>> holiday preparations? >>>> >>>> (Announcing potentially contentious items or U-turns this close to >>>> Christmas should really be forbidden. A similar thing was done in the >>>> Abstract Wikipedia licensing discussion.[2]) >>>> >>>> Subsequently this "Call for feedback" process seems to have consisted >>>> almost exclusively of four calls or meetings between the WMF and a number >>>> of affiliates.[3] The description of these meetings on Meta includes the >>>> following item: >>>> >>>> *"By Victoria: Currently, there are a range of options for affiliates >>>> to be involved; e.g. the same way as before (ASBS) or; the affiliates could >>>> select among the candidates, and the community votes on those candidates, >>>> or swap it around, to have the community vote on a shortlist for the >>>> affiliates to vote on."* >>>> >>>> I assume that "Victoria" refers to WMF Board Member Victoria Doronina. >>>> If that is so, then it is somewhat obfuscatory – although not altogether >>>> incorrect, of course – to say on the page on Meta summarising these >>>> discussions:[4] >>>> >>>> *"One member of the community suggested that diversity (regional, >>>> gender, expertise and others) could be ensured if the election process was >>>> modified to allow the affiliates to choose a shortlist of 10-15 candidates. >>>> This is in a way similar to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee >>>> selection process. The community would later vote and select their >>>> representatives from that shortlist."* >>>> >>>> Of course Victoria is a longstanding community member, but she is also >>>> presently a WMF Board Member. If a WMF Board Member suggests changes to the >>>> way the WMF Board will be constituted in future, then I think it would be >>>> proper to identify this suggestion as originating from within the Board >>>> itself. If another Victoria was meant, then this point is moot. >>>> >>>> As for the question in your other mail, Chris, the two seats in >>>> question are not affiliate seats. For better or worse, they are now >>>> community-and-affiliate-selected seats.[3] They should be selected by a >>>> method that is equitable. The method Dariusz announced is not. >>>> >>>> A couple of people on the Kurier Diskussion page in de:WP and on Meta >>>> have made comments to the effect that volunteers always end up voting for >>>> white men living in the West. It's worth noting that the people placed 5th >>>> and 6th in last year's community vote were a woman from Ivory Coast (who >>>> lost out by the slimmest of margins) and a Brit living on Tenerife, a >>>> Spanish island off the coast of Africa. >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/ZJZQDVRN6KARSVYJJAJIQ4S2ED5IG3YP/ >>>> [2] >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia/Licensing_discussion#Decision >>>> [3] >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Affiliations_Consultation >>>> >>>> [4] >>>> >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Reports#First_question >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DFPXDHE6VVCI3BFDJPZNBFUPSGLD7UZ7/ >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/M3BL5MMKEQHRQJOUYMHUQV4TTWVSCM2O/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/MLAR6JQ65PNIDX4BWYVDUY76UT2H6K46/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________ >> *Please, note, that this email will expire at some point. Bookmark >> dariusz.jemieln...@fulbrightmail.org >> <dariusz.jemieln...@fulbrightmail.org> as a more permanent contact >> address. * >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DTYOJ26JVXKYFGCSS7HK5YU7SMKS7G3G/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UB3FANTBBRS6QY3DUTMXEWRKT2V5OQVL/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/K2WYAE7QWIAMJVCWL4MRQ56PB6MA5UUR/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
