Looking for your thoughts on the Wikimedia Foundation election cycle

[Joe Sutherland]

Hello all!

The Support and Safety team is looking for your thoughts on the recent
Wikimedia Foundation elections cycle - that is, the Board of Trustees
elections in April/May, and the Funds Dissemination Committee meeting in
May/June.

What do you think went well, and what do you think could have gone better?

I'd love your thoughts, either on this email thread or on the dedicated
Meta-Wiki page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Post_mortem

Feel free to email me privately if you'd like to.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, good or bad. :)

best,
Joe

--
*Joe Sutherland*
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation

[Joe Sutherland]

Um. I of course mean "election", not "meeting". :)

Joe

--
*Joe Sutherland*
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation

Post by Joe Sutherland
Hello all!
The Support and Safety team is looking for your thoughts on the recent
Wikimedia Foundation elections cycle - that is, the Board of Trustees
elections in April/May, and the Funds Dissemination Committee meeting in
May/June.
What do you think went well, and what do you think could have gone better?
I'd love your thoughts, either on this email thread or on the dedicated
Meta-Wiki page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
elections/2017/Post_mortem
Feel free to email me privately if you'd like to.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, good or bad. :)
best,
Joe
--
*Joe Sutherland*
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Joe,

You don't mean "election" when it comes to the Board, unless you mean
"election to the position of being considered for appointment by the
Board". Unless and until those positions are either truly directly elected
by the Community, or the Board commits itself to appointing whomsoever the
Community nominates irrespective of the Board's own view of their fitness
for the post – which would be a violation of their duty as Trustees –
please avoid the misleading term "election" and replace it by "nomination",
or "selection", or "pre-election", or some other term that correctly
reflects the fact that the only body with power to appoint a Board member
is the Board itself.

"Rogol"

Post by Joe Sutherland
Um. I of course mean "election", not "meeting". :)
Joe
--
*Joe Sutherland*
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation

Post by Joe Sutherland
Hello all!
The Support and Safety team is looking for your thoughts on the recent
Wikimedia Foundation elections cycle - that is, the Board of Trustees
elections in April/May, and the Funds Dissemination Committee meeting in
May/June.
What do you think went well, and what do you think could have gone

better?

Post by Joe Sutherland
I'd love your thoughts, either on this email thread or on the dedicated
Meta-Wiki page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
elections/2017/Post_mortem
Feel free to email me privately if you'd like to.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, good or bad. :)
best,
Joe
--
*Joe Sutherland*
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Pine W]

Hi Rogol,

I think that suggesting a change of vocabulary is a good idea. I suggest
that you place that feedback on the page that Joe linked.

You might also mention -- although I'm not sure whether that page is the
best place for this suggestion, but adding it wouldn't hurt --
that WMF could transition itself to be a membership organization with
direct elections.

Also, I suggest that we keep in mind that the decision about terminology is
probably made made much higher up in the
WMF hierarchy than Joe's level. Let's try to be civil to staff who are
communicating decisions that trickle down from higher up in
the hierarchy.

Pine

Post by Rogol Domedonfors
Joe,
You don't mean "election" when it comes to the Board, unless you mean
"election to the position of being considered for appointment by the
Board". Unless and until those positions are either truly directly elected
by the Community, or the Board commits itself to appointing whomsoever the
Community nominates irrespective of the Board's own view of their fitness
for the post – which would be a violation of their duty as Trustees –
please avoid the misleading term "election" and replace it by "nomination",
or "selection", or "pre-election", or some other term that correctly
reflects the fact that the only body with power to appoint a Board member
is the Board itself.
"Rogol"

Post by Joe Sutherland
Um. I of course mean "election", not "meeting". :)
Joe
--
*Joe Sutherland*
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation

Post by Joe Sutherland
Hello all!
The Support and Safety team is looking for your thoughts on the recent
Wikimedia Foundation elections cycle - that is, the Board of Trustees
elections in April/May, and the Funds Dissemination Committee meeting

in

Post by Joe Sutherland

Post by Joe Sutherland
May/June.
What do you think went well, and what do you think could have gone

better?

Post by Joe Sutherland
I'd love your thoughts, either on this email thread or on the dedicated
Meta-Wiki page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
elections/2017/Post_mortem
Feel free to email me privately if you'd like to.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, good or bad. :)
best,
Joe
--
*Joe Sutherland*
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Fæ]

I have views on both votes, but I'll just share one, as I no longer
feel that sharing any more of my viewpoint about the WMF board and its
elections here or on-wiki would be welcome, or make any difference
apart from helping to paint a bigger target on my back.

Having James back on the board is helpful in demonstrating the
election has value in its currently limited format, and gave a strong
and unambiguous message back to the WMF board of trustees. He provides
some of us long termers a friendly private channel with a trustworthy
fellow volunteer, who has no worrying political or commercial
interests.

Fae

Post by Joe Sutherland
Hello all!
The Support and Safety team is looking for your thoughts on the recent
Wikimedia Foundation elections cycle - that is, the Board of Trustees
elections in April/May, and the Funds Dissemination Committee meeting in
May/June.
What do you think went well, and what do you think could have gone better?
I'd love your thoughts, either on this email thread or on the dedicated
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Post_mortem
Feel free to email me privately if you'd like to.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, good or bad. :)
best,
Joe

[Chris Koerner]

Yours,
Chris K.