Junta directiva de la Fundación Wikimedia/Convocatoria para recibir comentarios:puestos en la junta directiva/Reportes/Semana del 02-17-2021

Call for feedback: Community Board seats
Main Page
How to participate
Board ideas Ranked voting system Quotas Call for types of skills and experiences Vetting of candidates Board-delegated selection committee Community-elected selection committee Election of confirmed candidates Direct appointment of confirmed candidates
Community ideas Regional seats Specialization seats Candidate resources
Conversations
Reports
Timeline

Este es un reporte semanal de la convocatoria de comentarios sobre el proceso de selección de puestos de la comunidad de la junta directiva entre el 1 de febrero y el 14 de marzo. Este reporte contiene ideas y opiniones nuevas o relevantes en el contexto de la convocatoria de comentarios.

Con la ayuda de un equipo de facilitadores de la comunidad, estamos organizando conversaciones y recogiendo opiniones. Durante esta convocatoria de opiniones publicamos informes semanales y redactamos el informe final que se entregará a la junta. Este reporte cubre la nueva actividad del 8 al 14 de febrero.

Si crees que falta algo relevante, háznoslo saber en la página de comentarios y consideraremos su inclusión en el próximo informe semanal.

Únete a la conversación.

Noticias

• 2021-02-09: El equipo de facilitación publicó una línea de tiempo de eventos relacionados con la gobernanza de la junta directiva.
• 2021-02-10: El equipo de facilitación publicó informes sobre la primera ronda de horas de oficina, incluyendo vídeos, notas, transcripciones y charlas.

Ideas de la junta

Sistema de votación por rango

• Hay alguna discusión sobre el efecto de la votación del personal de la Fundación Wikimedia en las elecciones. Algunos sienten que no es una preocupación mientras que otros sienten que es una gran preocupación.
• Una persona sugirió el Método de Schulze u otro método de Condorcet donde los candidatos moderados/del centro serían seleccionados para promover más candidatos del centro: una persona piensa que voto único transferible podría permitir candidatos no cualificados a la junta.
• Dos personas discutieron la necesidad de una buena comunicación y diseño de la interfaz en torno al sistema de votación. Los asistentes a las conversaciones de la comunidad subsahariana francesa estuvieron de acuerdo.
• Una persona del Grupo de Wikimedistas de Punjabi mencionó que existe la posibilidad de una menor participación de los votantes de las comunidades emergentes de Wikimedia.
• Tres personas en una discusión francófona en Twitter: Dos personas opinaron que un sistema de votación por rango tiene menos efectos secundarios; una persona sugirió la votación de aprobación proporcional; una persona dijo que se usara, pero que se revisara la utilidad del sistema.
• Todos los participantes en una conversación de la comunidad subsahariana están de acuerdo con el uso del voto unico transferible diciendo que esto podría aumentar las oportunidades para los grupos minoritarios.
• Dos personas de una reunión del Grupo de Usuarios de Wikimedia Uganda dijeron que un sistema de votación por rango podría no resolver la infrarrepresentación; doce personas de una reunión del grupo de África Occidental de la Fundación Abierta estuvieron de acuerdo.

Cuotas

• Varias personas están preocupadas por el aumento de las cuotas.
• Una persona al frente de la comunidad telugu se preocupó de que las personas elegidas a partir de las cuotas pudieran alinearse con la mayoría debido a la presión por encajar, lo que anularía el objetivo de las cuotas.
• Una persona dijo que las cuotas podrían poner a una persona no preparada en la junta. La formación de personas de las regiones necesarias podría ayudar en este sentido.
• La misma persona dijo que las cuotas podrían insultar a los candidatos cualificados; la gente podría asumir que dependían de una cuota para ser elegidos. (Una persona del grupo de Wikimedistas de Punjabi dijo que había tenido una experiencia así.
  • Además, dijeron que a los votantes pueden no gustarles ninguno de los candidatos a través de cuotas porque van en contra de la cultura de la comunidad.

• Una persona en una conversación de la comunidad subsahariana francesa sugirió escalonar las elecciones en diferentes regiones y marcar las cuotas a medida que se satisfacen.
• Todas las personas en una conversación de la comunidad subsahariana francesa estuvieron de acuerdo con las cuotas de género y geográficas. Un participante expresó una "cuota de género equitativ". Las personas de las comunidades Wikimedia del Norte de África dieron una respuesta similar. Doce personas de la reunión del grupo de la Open Foundation en África Occidental apoyaron la aplicación de cuotas regionales y de género.
• Tres personas de Indonesia discutieron cómo implementar las cuotas; puestos por tamaño de la comunidad o que cada comunidad tenga un puesto. Se preguntaron si esto daría lugar a candidatos no cualificados.
• Una persona en el chat de Telegram en español dijo que la intención de las cuotas es superar las desigualdades históricas o sistémicas. La práctica actual lo dificulta; otra persona dijo que está en contra de las cuotas, pero que entiende las razones que las sustentan. Le preocupa que las cuotas puedan crear una lucha de poder entre comunidades; otra persona dudó de las cuotas como solución: habría representación forzada o infrarrepresentación.
• Una persona en el chat de Telegram en castellano dijo que las cuotas deberían usarse durante el proceso de selección y no la elección.
• Una persona en el chat de Telegram en español comentó que las cuotas por género, lenguas indígenas, número de hablantes, etc., generan el mismo problema que las cuotas regionales, ya que eventualmente habría una representación forzada o sub-representación en el movimiento.

• Un miembro de Wikimedistas de Punjabi expresó fuertes objeciones a las cuotas.
• Un miembro de Wikimedia Bangladesh dijo que, aunque pensaba que la palabra cuota tiene connotaciones negativas, las definiciones de cuotas serían útiles.
• Un miembro de Wikimedia Bangladesh dijo que se utilizaran puestos designados para cumplir con las cuotas de diversidad. (Una persona estuvo de acuerdo. Además, dijo que Estados Unidos y Europa dominan el movimiento y no entienden del todo las prioridades de otras comunidades.
• Tres personas de una reunión del Grupo de Usuarios de Wikimedia Uganda están a favor de las cuotas.

Call for types of skills and experiences

• People from Wikimedia Indonesia said strong negotiation, technical, and auditing skills are important to move the community forward. People at a French Sub-Saharan community chat said management and community experience are important.
• The Board should publish its opinion and advice about desirable attributes: diversity, experience, etc. People from Wikimedia Bangladesh agreed.
• One person said few candidates from emerging Wikimedia communities have run for the position and were not elected because they lacked remotely comparable qualifications.
• The proposer for Specialized Seats said the Board should identify its specialized needs.

Vetting of candidates

• Three Wikimedians from Indonesia are divided about this. One person recommends it, the other does not. One did not provide an opinion.
• Two people 1, 2 said to do legal vetting of candidates before election: one said to verify skills and experience too! People at a North Africa Wikimedia community meeting disagreed. They say vetting should only cover Wikimedia experience.
• One person said they don’t trust the Board to vet candidates, noting the Arnon Geshuri event, saying the community is better equipped to vet candidates.
• Two people from a Wikimedia Uganda User Group meeting support vetting candidates; one wants to know more about how this will be implemented.

Board-delegated selection committee

• One person from Wikimedia Indonesia said it is best if candidates are selected by the community first.
• One person said any selection committee would be “disruptive pure bureaucracy” and worse “if it is intended to prohibit free election of legally-qualified candidates.” No process would be better than electing candidates.
• One person from Cameroon said this would be simple whereas electing the committee would take longer. They suggested using former board members. In a French Sub-Saharan community conversation one person agreed and added experienced people too.

Community-elected selection committee

• Two people from Wikimedia Indonesia do not recommend this. One recommended this as long as it met the Board’s criteria.
• Two people about AffCom representing a good diversity of backgrounds but not a good diversity of views.
• One person reiterates there is no process that would be better than elections.
• One person from Benin and another from Morocco are in favor of this as this gives power to the community. One person at a French Sub-Saharan community conversation agreed.

• Three people from Open Foundation West Africa group were in support of the community selection committee.
• People from the North Africa Wikimedia community said at a meeting the community should lead and manage the process.
• People from Punjabi Wikimedians User Group said a selection committee will be able to negotiate with the Board better for skills and diversity.
• People from Punjabi Wikimedians User Group said if the committee and Board aren’t together, candidates can be lost. Conflict of interest was also mentioned.
• A person from the Telugu community recommended quotas for the selection committee to ensure representation from across the movement. It can include quotas for participants across the movement since the size of the committee is not set.
• In a French Sub-Saharan community conversation people said voting for a committee could make the process longer.

Election of confirmed candidates

• One person posed some questions prompted by previous situations (Arnon Geshuri)
  • It is unclear what will happen if a candidate is not confirmed.
  • Will a second-choice candidate be submitted for a new community vote?
  • Will there be a new call for candidates?
  • Will the seat remain vacant?
• One person said this does not have the ability to accomplish the community’s goals and should be withdrawn and reworded to be more clear.
• One person suggested a parallel with Iranian elections and suggested the people should overthrow such a regime.
• Three people from Indonesia do not recommend Election of confirmed candidates.
• Three people from Open Foundation West Africa group meeting were in support of the election of confirmed candidates.

Direct appointment of confirmed candidates

• One person from the Indonesia community said there is no need for a call for feedback if the Board chooses this option.
• One person suggested this idea be closed for lack of positive discussion about the idea.
• The majority of the twelve participants from the Open Foundation West Africa group meeting did not support this idea. One person said this could mean the Board could appoint someone the community may not support.

Ideas from the Community

Regional seats

• One person suggested having a fully elected body with some quotas for gender, language, continent, developer-background, etc.) as a solution to representativeness for communities not aligned with a Regional body.
• One person said to keep the system as simple as possible:
  • Hold a single election for all Board seats. If the quota is not met, replace the lowest ranking winning candidates with the highest ranking unsuccessful candidates from underrepresented regions.
  • Include all of americas outside of Canada and the US in the underrepresented regions. Include Japan and Korea as well.
  • Don’t tie eligibility to regional alignments. Communities should be free to join whichever body is most convenient to them without it affecting their members’ ability to run.

• Everyone at a French Sub-Saharan community conversation said they agree with geographical quotas. One person said regional quotas should be proportional to the level of contributions from each region.
• A former board member at a French Sub-Saharan community conversation said the candidates should represent the movement globally and not be viewed as a regional representation battle.
• One person from Indonesia said, “Every regional seat should take turns every year. For example, 2021 ESEAP, 2022 Wiki Indaba, 2023 SAARC,and so on’
• A person in the Spanish Telegram chat said the problem with this idea is continental needs are not homogenous with local needs. People from the Wikimedia Bangladesh community agreed: super-groups like emerging Wikimedia communities and Asia won’t solve the problem of representation.
• People from Punjabi Wikimedians User Group suggested regional representatives instead of regional seats. Example; “South Asian Representative to the Board.” They also felt that voting for these regional representatives should be done within that region only.
• A person in the Spanish Telegram chat said the capacity needed for the Board should be considered when discussing this regional proposal.

• People from Wikimedia Bangladesh felt that there needs to be clear criteria and metrics to mark some region/community as “underrepresented”.
• In a French Sub-Saharan community conversation one person said Africa should be represented as it is the future of the movement.
• One person from a Wikimedia Uganda User Group meeting is concerned that affiliates or regions might nominate candidates for the sake of just wanting representation on the Board.
• People at a Turkic WikiCommunity meeting said regional and local affiliations should be given the opportunity to be present on the Board and vote for candidates.
• People at a Kurdish community meeting said this was the most popular idea. People at a North Africa Wikimedia community meeting agreed. They went on to say:
  • Each region would have a chance to be represented: candidates elected from hubs could be directly elected and candidates elected from the hubs could run with candidates from other hubs in a final election.
• A person from the anonymous feedback form said: African Wikipedians should be given a permanent seat on the Board so conscious measures can be put in place to get the right person who meets the criteria.
• Everyone at the Open Foundation West Africa group meeting supports regional seats. One person suggested there be one male and one female for each region.

Specialization seats

This proposal was suggested by Csisc to increase specialists on the Board (legal, economist, linguist, GLAM) by replacing some appointed seats with elected specialist seats saying having such people on the Board is key for the development of Wikimedia Governance.

• One person said appointed seats should be used to fill skill needs and think this might reduce the pool of candidates.
• Some people said qualifications are not an issue for community-elected Board members as all previous ones have been well-qualified.
• Everyone at a North Africa Wikimedia community meeting disagrees with this idea. They said there could be an advisory committee with experts instead.
• One person in the Spanish Telegram chat said this idea will only work with training since access to education is different globally. Another in the chat said this proposal is less inclusive because of this.

Miscellaneous feedback

This section is organized by themes to help with the digestion of information. Some comments might fit more than one theme, but were placed with a judgement of best fit.

Increase participation

• One person mentioned gave the following feedback:
  • Some research into why people don’t vote might be worthwhile.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation should improve outreach to communities to encourage participation: banners, messages in advance to call for candidates.
  • Encourage individuals to ask questions and notify members in different languages. (Translation of candidate information, a discussion on the village pump, and personal voting invitations increased participation in voting from the Ukrainian Wikipedia community with 25% of eligible voters voting).
• A person from the Punjabi Wikimedians User Group mentioned more effort should be made to increase the voter turnout so that the results are not skewed in favour of a region.

Better communication and connection is needed

• There’s a Board?!
  • In a French Sub-Saharan community meeting one person said he doesn’t know how the Board works and he never heard about the Board before.
  • Everyone at a North Africa Wikimedia community meeting said the same thing. They recommended creating and sharing awareness videos to help others participate.
• Most people from a Kurdish community meeting were happy because this was the first time they had a meeting with someone from the Wikimedia Foundation.
• People from Wikimedia Bangladesh felt that there is a gap and distrust from the community. They suggested:
  • involving community members in the appointed seats process as well.
  • more communication and community involvement in the Board proceedings.
• One person from the Open Foundation West Africa group conversation said explaining information in meetings with affiliates and communities will increase participation.

Inclusion and diversity

• One person said the community is eager to embrace diversity in candidates, if those candidates are otherwise acceptable.
• One person from the Spanish Telegram chat said the Board must ensure the inclusion of all people; i.e., remove barriers to entry, languages.
• One person from the Spanish Telegram chat said people are often chosen based on popularity and it’s hard for new diverse voices to compete with people who have been in the movement for 20 years. This forms an inequality of origin. Enabling and expanding the space in a conscious and consistent manner is the solution.
• A person from Punjabi community said to “anonymize” the candidates into certain profiles.

Comments not sorted into a theme

• From the anonymous feedback form:
  • I believe the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees are really looking to be inclusive.
  • The community should organize it, not the Wikimedia Foundation.
• One person from Open Foundation West Africa group meeting suggested that Wikimedians of the year should be offered a seat on the board.
• One person said, “The proposals here threaten to badly escalate an already bad relationship” referring to the relationship between the community and the Wikimedia Foundation.

CfF process feedback

• Former board member Alice Wiegand criticized communication and timing of the Board’s expansion. She stated that the expansion might cause a less creative and more sluggish board, eventually causing a loss of its power.
• One person said they feel the community’s vote will only count if it coincides with what the Board wants.
• Remaining concerns from a Wikimedia Uganda User Group meeting:
  • Are Africans going to have a positive outcome from these discussions, considering Wikimedians from Europe and America are more than Wikimedians in underrepresented communities?
  • What happens when more Wikimedians from Europe and America participate in the discussions and they support different ideas than the few Wikimedians from Africa who are able to participate in the discussions?
  • Will the Board implement the ideas supported by the majority?
    • Does it mean our participation in the discussions has been in vain?
• Several people shared feedback about the first weekly report:
  • Be more clear about who said what and where.
  • Be careful to use proper English in communication.
  • Include linking to places where things were said.

Note from the team of facilitators: we will be more explicit about who said what where. We will provide links where we are able to do so. Proofreading will be done, but please do excuse grammatical errors. These things happen, especially when efficiency is key to producing a report each week. We will aim to capture what was said and present content from conversations across the entire community.

What is happening next

The second Call for Feedback Community Board seats Office Hours will be held on February 20.

Next week we start the second half of the Call for feedback. We will start identifying specific topics that welcome more attention and further discussion.

Conversations

The Conversations page has an up-to-date list of conversations happening around the Call for Feedback. This includes future scheduled and proposed conversations. Reports from these conversations can be found on Meta.

• 2021-02-08

Round 1 with Punjabi Wikimedians User Group

• 2021-02-09

Round 1 with French Sub Saharan wikimedia communities Round 1 with Wikimedia Bangladesh Round 1 with Telugu community Round 1 with Urdu community / Dehlavi Wikimedia User Group

• 2021-02-10

Round 2 with French Sub Saharan wikimedia communities Meeting with Wikimedia Uganda User Group members

• 2021-02-11

Round 3 with French Sub Saharan wikimedia communities

• 2021-02-12

Meeting with North Africa wikimedia communities Round 1 with Kannada Wikimedians

• 2021-02-13

Round 2 with Punjabi Wikimedians User Group Round 1 with Wikipedians of Goa User Group Meeting with Open Foundation West Africa User Group members

Volunteers

The facilitator team thanks the following volunteers for:

• @Csisc: continuous translational work of all Cff-pages into Italian. Wow!
• @Sänger: for translational work to German.
• @Manavpreet Kaur and Satpal Dandiwal: for organizing a meeting with Punjabi community, in Punjabi!
• @NickK: and @Nosebagbear: for engaging in conversation and solution-focused discussion.