Talk:Stewards/Elections 2023

Latest comment: 9 months ago by Krok6kola in topic Sex

How many candidates needed? edit

Hello. What do current stewards think how many new colleagues should possibly be elected this year to achieve the relevant goals of the group in a reasonable way? --Krd 08:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My personal take is that with stewards, at least over the last decade or so, it has always been about lack of good candidates, rather than surplus. There are many areas where extra people would be welcome to help, be it with backlogs, with ensuring shorter waiting periods in the places where backlog is not an issue, or with more governance issues such as thinking and implementing possible improvements to the infrastructure we have (global policies, best practices, templates, automations, etc) and so forth. So I would not cap the number of candidates at all, even if we get 20 good ones I would be happy, but when it comes to good candidates, which I personally see by default as people who are active either widely cross-wiki or at least in a big multi-project and multi-language set of wikis, who are able to demonstrate both technical and social competence, and who are trusted by the global community enough, unfortunately I do not think we ever came close to having so many good candidates for this not to be just a thought exercise. --Base (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there any good candidates at all, and are the few possible good candidates actively approached by stewards and encouraged to apply? --Krd 05:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many questions can we ask? edit

Same as last year; is it 2 (globally + locally) or 2 globally + 2 locally? I thought it was the former, but then @1234qwer1234qwer4: seems to be interpreting it as the latter. Leaderboard (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like @1234qwer1234qwer4: to respond here. From where I sit, I see two questions from 1234qwer for all candidates, then 1 for Klein Muçi and another for Xaosflux. This effectively means 1234qwer has asked Klein Muçi & Xaosflux a total of three questions instead of two. I'm willing to listen to justification so I'm eager to see the response. Operator873 connect 00:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Essentially what Leaderboard asked. I (mis-)interpreted "2 relevant questions per candidate" as only referring to by-candidate questions, with the "for all candidates" section counting like a separate "candidate". (FWIW I asked Klein Muçi two personal questions considering that.) Sorry and thanks to all candidates who still decided to answer more questions than what appears to be intended by the requirement. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
00:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand corrected, apologies. Yes I see 2 personal questions for Klein Muçi so 4 total for them, 3 for Xaosflux, and 2 for all other candidates. I want to be doubly clear here... I'm not issuing a decision as yet. I was wanting 1234qwer to give input and then I'll discuss with the other members of ElectCom. Operator873 connect 00:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO if it is supposed to be 2 (globally + locally) that is a clarification that should be made next year. It's not fair to strike questions made under a legitimate understanding of an ambiguous rule. --Rschen7754 02:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm tending to agree. 1234qwer didn't make a mistake, as it were, and the questions asked aren't inappropriate or otherwise present a concern. ElectCom should consider rephrasing and clarifying that guideline, no matter what. I'm leaning toward leaving the questions with the understanding we need to clarify the standard. Operator873 connect 02:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I signed confidentiality agreement edit

I signed confidentiality agreement before election. Why I was disqualified? Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An WMF-employee has to confirm and put your name i a list. example This didn't happen for you so far. And for myself I know that this process takes some time.
e Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 17:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is, indeed, why. Operator873connect 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873:, now that @Enkhsaihan2005: is on the noticeboard, can you clarify on what you plan to do with him? From the rules, his dismissal should be reversed, as he did follow the rules in signing the agreement before the deadline (nowhere in the rules say that his name has to be in the noticeboard by then - those are two different things). Leaderboard (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From Stewards/Elections 2023/Guidelines: You must sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information before 05 February, 2023, or you will be disqualified. We don't know when he signed, but the name was in the list only at the 7th February. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 06:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can provide information when I signed confidentiality agreement. Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As unfortunate as the situation may be, the disqualification will not be reversed. Part of the signing process is for the NDA to be vetted, approved, and accepted by the WMF. Regardless of the reason or delay, ElectCom could not verify nor validate the claim of the NDA having been signed by the time the disqualification was to be enforced. Once the candidates are disqualified, it would be a disservice to both the community and the candidates, themselves, to provide a truncated window for consideration and election. Both candidates are invited to verify their NDA is posted on the noticeboard prior to the cut off date and stand for election again during the next cycle. Operator873 connect 06:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Operator873: I find this as a case of (up to two) candidates being screwed by ambiguous wording at best, and unfairly punished by the ElectCom otherwise. Personally, no matter the challenges, if the candidates have followed the rules, they must be considered. If the candidates' names must have come up in the noticeboard by 5th February, that is different to them having to sign the agreement itself. A first-time candidate can easily miss this distinction for no fault of theirs, and it's not the candidates' problem that you have to (for instance) give them a truncated window. After all, (I think) the date of signing can be easily verified through Legalpad. Leaderboard (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there is no reason at all why a candidate must sign before the election starts. It's well enough to sign it before being granted access to stewards rights, which may even be after end of the election phase. Krd 09:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest that the guidance be updated for next year if this process is needed - not that not only must it be signed, but it must also be posted by a WMF staffer - and that this may take an indeterminate amount of time so candidates are advised to do it early. — xaosflux Talk 10:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 on this. Maybe WMF can also be asked to better attend to ElectCom established procedures, deadlines included. This is a typical case when someone gets penalized only for bureaucratical reasons. — Klein Muçi (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is already talk of this internally next year that we would coordinate this with the WMF so things like this don't happen again. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In 2020 there were 2 candidates whose name was not in the noticeboard when the elections started. One of them signed the agreement before the deadline and the another not. They were however added to the list 2 days after the elections already started, but the one who signed it on time was not disqualified. So I would suggest to wait and get a confirmation from the WMF when it was actually signed, and after that choose if the candidate should be disqualified or not. Stryn (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sex edit

Would be useful if the bio for each user indicated whether they are male or female. Wikimedia needs to try harder to attract and engage more female users and Stewards should be no exception. Xania (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my personal opinion as an editor and Steward, Absolutely not. While there is a disparity discussed in at least a couple places (here and here), biological sex and/or gender is irrelevant to the role of Steward or any other role on any project, including editor. Further, no community member should ever be compelled or required to disclose publicly any information of that nature about themselves. That's not how we work. If someone wishes to disclose information, they are welcome to. Requiring or establishing an expectation to disclose should be a hard, unequivocal, unnegotiable, no. Operator873 connect 07:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you know that? Krok6kola (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Stewards/Elections 2023" page.