Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections



Hello. All the related pages are currently named individually, poorly interrelated, largely undocumented, and frequently out of date. I would like to move pages to the names shown in the table below, and add {{process header}} templates to explain the historical significance of each page, their relation to others, and summarize the outcomes for the Historical project. Each language edition will be interlinked with {{other languages}} (see example use).

These changes should simplify documentation for the Historical project, make the organization more understandable, and allow easy maintenance via Special:Prefixindex. Redirects from the old page names would ensure that no links are broken, and links on Meta will be updated.

Current proposed
Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections
Election FAQ redirect Board elections/2007/FAQ
2004 elections
Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2004 Board elections/2004
Election candidates 2004 Board elections/2004/Candidates
Election results 2004 Board elections/2004/Results
Election FAQ 2004 Board elections/2004/FAQ
Election notice translations 2004 Board elections/2004/Notice translation
Board vote interface text Board elections/2004/Vote interface translation
2005 elections
Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2005 Board elections/2005
Election candidates 2005 Board elections/2005/Candidates
Election results 2005 Board elections/2005/Results
Election FAQ 2005 Board elections/2005/FAQ
Election notice translations 2005 Board elections/2005/Notice translation
2006 elections
Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2006 Board elections/2006
Elections statistics 2006 Board elections/2006/Statistics
Election candidates 2006 Board elections/2006/Candidates
Election results 2006 Board elections/2006/Results
Election FAQ 2006 Board elections/2006/FAQ
2007 elections
Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2007 Board elections/2007

(There are also a number of other pages not linked from the main index, such as Election UI text 2005, that will be added to the organization.)

Are their any suggestions about or opposition to this organization? —Pathoschild 17:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Progress report:
Pathoschild 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions and answers before voting?


Talk:Board elections/2009/Candidates/Questions#When?

Late notification


I just received the email about this, on the 8th of August (and being away, only read it on the 10th). Apparently voting has been happening since July. What's the deal? Stevage 22:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering how you didn't know about it, election notices were sent to a few mailing lists and there has been a global notice running since July. We know the e-mail got sent out later than it should have and the committee has apologized for that. Cbrown1023 talk 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Move request for all election pages


There is a large move request at Meta:Proposed_page_moves#Current_requests that needs more feedback. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wrong name here - need confirmation that this should move


This is currently called "Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections". There are 4 kinds of board elections. This page refers only to the community seats. This page should be moved to "Wikimedia Foundation elections/Community-selected Board seats" to match affiliate-selected Board seats, or otherwise, needs a name that clarifies that this is the page for community elections. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

A structure which provides a general page and subpages for elections by community as well as by chapters (and maybe also for appointed seats and the founder seat to complete it) would be helpful to harmonize the information and to provide it at one starting point. It looks like a lot of work to restructure with all those links and subpages. Alice Wiegand (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Rogol Domedonfors At Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee#Terminology you express strong opinions about the names for the elections and seats. I read what you said, and I have no comment on your opinions, but I would like to establish names for the seats and elections. Here are the current names -
Would it be useful for what you are trying to do to propose names for these things? If you like the idea, you can be the one to do it! I am hoping for a naming scheme which makes these four things seem related, and which can be used in a way that helps all of these seats develop a common set of documentation. Thanks for any comments you might provide. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the invitation. I suggest that the correct term overall is "Board selection" with four subdivisions "Community nominated", "Affiliates nominated", "Founder" and "Appointed" (or possibly, "Co-opted"). All four classes are of course appointed, by the Board. The "elections" are to the positions of nominee, not to the Boad itself. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Rogol Domedonfors, User talk:Bluerasberry, Alice Wiegand i'ts time we make this title move. The confusion is increasing and for the 2019 ASBS election the entire architecture should be improved.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Proposal @Alexmar983:

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The first page Wikimedia Foundation elections is not about the Board, it includes also the FDC for example. that title is fine, IMHO. We need a summary page for ALL the elections, than a page for the Board elections--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
The Affiliate-selected Board seats was put inside the "community" but that's strange. Elections can be classified by body or by type of voters here. I will try to rewrite the page as a whole but we have to agree on some temrinology. All is based on how we write and improve Wikimedia Foundation elections. For example "community" elections should be the one where users cast the vote for sure, and we should create a subsection for "local community" elections (ArbComm elections should not be in a different paragraph). You suggested to use the label "users" but I prefer "community" because so far I did not consider "affiliates" as "community" in this contest, community is a very direct concept, while affiliate are intemrediate entities recognized by WMF so I would consider them under "foundation" elections, but this will take some thinking to do it properly.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
At SecurePoll there is demand for more access to elections software. The Wikimedia community loves elections and if there were ever access to software, the number of public elections would increase greatly and quickly.
How many elections do we need to accommodate here? It is challenging to move these titles because of all the translations, so we ought to choose a robust name.
Are these all "Wikimedia elections"? FDC, stewards, and Arbcom elections are not WMF elections. Also the community election and the affiliate election are for the WMF board, but I would not call those WMF elections because there is supposed to be separation between the WMF and those elections.
"Users" is one of the terms we use for individuals and "affiliates" is one term we use for organizations. Both users and affiliates are community, but non-wiki organizations and the WMF are not community. The recognition of affiliates comes from the Affiliates Committee, which historically has been a Wikimedia community organization that acts as liaison with the Wikimedia Foundation for reviewing that the candidate organizations meet Wikimedia community standards. All these distinctions are challenging to manage.
When should all this be sorted? Can this wait till after the election? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
FDC sounds like WMF to me and many other people... maybe stewards are not WMF strictu sensu but they have to provide their I.C. credential to SFO right? So everything which requires some formal degree of involvement of WMF is also a WMF election.
I don't think the point here is the current election, we can wait it's just that we have to agree on a final architecture or the situation will never improve. As I noticed, in Berlin, we are not using consistent terminology. I can take track of the core pages of ASBS2019 and use a consistent naming there for 2019 but we must agree on some order on the long-term. I am thinking about sending a general mail and call everybody who has experience of these pages for a brainstorming here or Wikimedia Foundation elections talk page. At least I can take a decision about the specific subpages for ASBS2019 that are less controversial and minimize my effort later... still, if we are going to vote for best user of the year or something similar, I think it's the best option to have a general page where these elections are all listed, the alternative is just having them scattered which will simply increase the confusion. At least with a generic summary page, you are FORCED to see things on the long term.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Alexmar983: I agree that the situation is confusing. If you have an idea for any change, then I would support that now. Since we are so pressed for time, if you want a make a change now then do it, and we can call a community discussion about this entire election directory when other things are less urgent. You are correct that there should be an election landing page which directs people to all other elections. There is some common documentation which applies to many elections and also having them in one place will help people understand the differences. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
User:Bluerasberry My proposal is to write to wikimedia-l and create a discussion not here (I can cite this one) but on Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections. I want people to rewrite such page and than we can use that structure with their naming guidelines (is FDC a WMF election? is ASBS "community" election?) for the category names.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Alexmar983: That seems reasonable but I have not thought it through. I typically only call community conversation when there is a proposal in place to orient the conversation. I do not mind if the proposal is rejected but without one there the conversation can go anywhere. I favor closing this talk page and redirecting it to Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections as a start - this is such a stale talk page that it is better joining a more active place. I am not sure that pointing the conversation to "Wikimedia Foundation elections" is best. Are we advocating for one landing page for all Wikimedia elections? I think you are right that there will be some sorting. The major sorting point that I anticipate is "elections where typical people with Wikimedia user accounts can vote" versus the other kinds.
I might be willing to set up a "Wikimedia elections" page if you agree that one general landing page on meta which could redirect everywhere else is a place to start the discussion. I do not think this would be too complicated, and I think that if we are presenting this, we could lay out the cultural tradition of sending individuals and organizations to an election page so that they can navigate to the ones that concern them.
Or maybe just post to Wikimedia-l and see what happens? Maybe that is best. What do you think? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
User:Bluerasberry I just want to be sure there is a cleat majority supporting a naming convention or another. What is "community election"? what are "WMF elections"? Can we call the ASBS an election even if technically is not an election but just a suggestion to the board? The best way for me to sort this out remains that page because is the only one where ALL this problem converge. If you can't agree on that one, you probably can't on any other aspect. it's not easy but so far I cannot find any better way to start this discussion with people understanding the big picture.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Alexmar983: I am ready to support any of several options. Maybe Wikimedia-l could bring in a few more people to establish consensus, or maybe it would recruit too many voices which would require education and months of reflection before coming to a decision.
A reason why I hesitate to call to everyone is because we do not have an entrenched system here. The current system was established with little consensus and right now it could be changed with little consensus because there are not many expectations. If we call for general conversation now, that call can be misunderstood as a community review of changes to an established system, when actually the origins of all this are undiscussed draft proposals of a few individuals without the backing of discussion.
I would want anyone coming here to see all this as a draft which can change with little discussion. Anyone who comes into this should be invited to do big changes quick and not to legislate details. If we wanted to make changes we could do those without controversy now, then call for the consensus which would both sort problems and bring the disorder into version 1.0. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Eligibility for voting?


Where can one read the eligibility criteria for editors to vote? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Never mind - I found it. Nurg (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

2022 affiliates seats


Wo finde ich die Informationen zu den geplanten Wahlen der beiden Sitze für die Affiliates? Augenscheinlich soll da irgendein seltsames neues Verfahren durchgeführt werden, und die unsinnige Verquickung von Community- und Affiliate-Sitzen soll da dann irgendwie durch dieses neue, undurchsichtige und nicht konsentierte Verfahren quasi zementiert werden. Wo kann ich den ganzen Entscheidungsprozess dazu,, insbesondere den erforderlichen Konsens der Community undf der Affiliates zur Änderung ihrer jeweiligen Sitze, nachlesen? Ohne einen solchen Konsens ist das ganze nur eine illegitime Anmaßung des Kuratoriums, ohne ein Community-Vetting kann es eine solch massive Änderung nicht geben, jedenfalls nicht eine legitime Änderung. Dass es möglicherweise gemäß irgendwelcher bürokratischer Petitessen nach formal möglich wäre gibt dem keinerlei Legitimation. Legitimation kommt einzig und allein aus der Community, dass Kuratorium ist nur Treuhänder, mehr nicht. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sänger: Die Idee kam von Meetings zwischen WMF und Affiliates: [1]
  • "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." ("Victoria" ist glaube ich Board Member Victoria.)
Im Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections/Reports#Call_for_feedback:_Board_of_Trustees_elections_final_report wurde dann das Folgende daraus:
  • "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."
Die Community-Diskussion hielt sich sehr in Grenzen:
In der Community-Diskussion wurde diese Idee mit der Vor-Auswahl durch die Affiliates nirgendwo erwähnt. Das heißt, wenn ich nicht irgendwo was übersehen habe, war der ganze Ablauf so: Es gab einen Call for Feedback, bei dem in erster Linie die Affiliates eingeladen waren. Die Community-Diskussion hatte einen sehr begrenzten Umfang. Am Schluss hat das WMF Board dann eine Idee genommen, die vom Board selber stammte, von der Community noch nicht einmal diskutiert wurde, und diese Idee dann als „Vorschlag eines Community-Mitglieds“ ausgegeben.
Wie gesagt, wenn ich irgendwo was übersehen habe, lasse ich mich gerne eines Besseren belehren, aber das scheint mir der Ablauf gewesen zu sein. Andreas JN466 12:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
English summary: The whole idea of having the affiliates pre-select a shortlist for the community to vote on seems to have come from a member of the board itself (Victoria), who was then, in the final report, coyly described as "one member of the community". The community discussions, such as they were (it was the affiliates who were mainly invited to participate), did not even mention this idea. (If I've missed or misconstrued something please let me know.) --Andreas JN466 12:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Return to "Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections" page.