User:Onwa/Why?

Why did I vote the way I voted? In Wikimedia Foundation board elections (and maybe other bodies under its jurisdiction), I usually vote following these terms:

What I expect from a candidate

• ☑ ❿ Wikimedia activity: candidate should have editing activity under Wikimedia projects or community engagement with the Wikimedia movement. I do not vote in favor of corporative candidates who came from nowhere without even knowing what is all this about.
  • The activity should be more than mere wikignome or low profile tasks.
  • Previous or current administrative positions or key roles within Wikimedia wikis is preferred.
• ☑ Language fluency: candidate must be at least bilingual. As a global community to disseminate all the human knowledge, built by users from many regions around the world, I expect the candidate, without exceptions, to be at least bilingual. As a member of a such important role body, it should be able to communicate with many people and communities distinct from his or her native community to understand their needs and concerns.
  • ☑ The bilingual fluency should be enough to understand people (beyond mere basic proficiency; although professional level is not required). Due to the centralized nature of the Foundation that has deep roots in US, basic English skills would be preferred to be able to cope with the international membership (it is the de facto lingua franca).
  • ☑ ❶ Although not a requirement, in case of draw, I tend to prefer someone whose dual fluency is in two not-so-much-related languages rather than one with fluency in two closely related languages (for example, English-Hindi proficiency against German-Dutch). This is not strict, and I may even vote for someone fluent in two closely related languages over other with knowledge in more diverse languages if the candidate has higly valuable or desiderable aspects in other areas.
  • ☑ ❶ Fluency in more than two languages is more appreciated. Applies the exception above.
  • ☑ ❸ Knowledge and fluency of indigenous languages and/or languages under high pressure of extinction due to a dominant language or repressive policies of the dominant class or government is highly appreciated, being this one huge point in favour of the candidacy, even more than multiple-language fluency.
  • ☒ Being monolingual, specially in a dominant or world-class language is not a positive point. But specially if this kind of candidate is not willing to at least make an effort to expand his or her language skills in the future to go outside the Anglosphere, for example. (Exception: monolingual in endangered languages; but should make an effort to at least comprehend basic English). If the monolingual candidate is not able to speak other languages but has the intention to do that in the future, is a point in favor of the candidate in future candidacies.
• ☑ ❿ Must be open to listen the community and the public and to act in consequence, also to be open to receive constructive criticism to improve him/herself or the Board. Ignoring the community is a big NO.
• ☑ Clear statements about what he or she tries to do by joining the Board, what are his or her priorities. Also be able to identify the issues and foresee or propose solutions to them.

What I do not find mandatory but appreciate from a candidate

• ☑ A subpage of the candidate where he or she explains in detail what he or she is going to do what he or she proposes, more detailed than the candidacy page.
• ☑ Activism supporting free works culture, positive copyright law reforms, free speech, etc. Or otherwise against represive changes.
• ☑ Outreach activities with cultural institutions, communities in emerging countries, etc.
• ☑ Leadering positions in cultural organizations. Or otherwise, skills in management and administration.
• ☑ Technological skills such as programming or data science.

What I do not expect from a candidate

• ☒ ❿ Past or current negative relationship towards other users. History or backgrounds of misrespect, abuse, or highly conflictive exchanges within or around Wikimedia.
  • If you have one or two blocks from long time ago, that should not prevent you to get my positive vote if you are not behaving in a uncivil way.
• ☒ ❿ Sabotage activities against Wikimedia wikis. Manipulation of processes, impersonation of visible community members, abuse of security bugs.
• ☒ ❿ Hostility to the movement, projects or purpose of the movement, that threaten or undermine the communities or existence of this Movement.
  • ☒ Also individuals related to companies visibly against free culture.
  • ☒ ❿ For candidates who have already been members of the WMF Board, also if he or she was involved with activities which led to waste of donated funds.
  • ☒ ❿ Controversial decisions that harm the movement, ignoring the community voice, such as the rebranding case. If you were involved in this kind of "proposals", expect me voting strongly against you.
  • ☒ ❺ For former members of the Board, the lack of transparency.
• ☒ ❶ Political positions that divides the community instead of uniting it. For example, I do not care about you being a "feminist", but I do care if you identify yourself as a "trans-excluding feminist against the oppresor rapist privileged white male". Diversity is good, demonization is not OK.

What I do not care or take in account when I vote

• ☐ Candidate's race or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political ideology beyond the ones related to Wikimedia movement, country of origin. I do not vote for a candidate because she is a woman, or because he is gay.
• ☐ Your outside activity unrelated to culture or Wikimedia movement.