On 4/30/2013 3:54 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members
(those who don't independently qualify as "community members") voting
or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either
*both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither*
should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San
Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one
in Berlin!
(It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of
course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future
elections)
I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an
inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve
staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members).
I also agree that it would be best to treat all staff the same in this
regard, whether they technically work for a chapter or the global
foundation. I think that's particularly true because the technical
employment arrangements don't necessarily line up with true function,
and could lead to rather odd results in specific cases. As we've seen or
could easily imagine, staff might be designated as temporary
contractors, be delegated to work at another organization, or have their
salary paid by one entity while working for another. All of these things
could happen for perfectly good reasons in operational terms, but have
no bearing on whether that person should be able to participate in these
elections.
BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected
seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once,
which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the
community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the
next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here.
This is a valid consideration, but I'd like to offer a counterargument,
which is (at least in my mind) an important reason the rotation of board
seats was set up the way it is now. As we've seen, the process of
organizing and conducting these elections is a significant burden,
especially on the volunteers doing the work but also for the candidates
who choose to participate. I would suggest that it also imposes costs on
the community at large in terms of the attention and energy directed to
the election. I consider those costs well worth paying overall, but
believe that it's also better not to run them up too often. I'm not sure
that the benefits of this change warrant effectively doubling the load
the process creates.
--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
