Совет Попечителей Фонда Викимедиа/Ждём ваших отзывов: места в Совете для Сообществ/Проверка кандидатов
| Ждём ваших отзывов: места в Совете для Сообществ |
|---|
| Главная страница |
| Как принять участие |
| Идеи Совета |
| Идеи сообщества |
| Собеседования |
| Отчёты |
| График |
Необходим процесс обеспечения того, чтобы кандидаты были квалифицированными и способными быть членами Совета Попечителей. Это совпадает с призывом к различным видам навыков и опыта и с идеей квот. Это также требуется в рамках юридических и фидуциарных обязательств Совета. Из-за этих обязательств Совет не может полностью делегировать эту ответственность.
Каков наилучший путь в процессе отбора попечителей для того, чтобы Совет осуществлял свою ответственность по проверке кандидатов в попечителей?
Резюме от текущих отзывах
Команда фасилитации поддерживает этот раздел синхронным с данными основного отчёта.
Отзывы об этой идее в значительной степени зависят от отзывов о Обращение к типам навыков и опыта. В этом разделе мы рассматриваем комментарии, связанные исключительно с потенциальными процессами проверки.
Vetting of candidates received little feedback compared to other ideas. Although vetting was understood as required, its extent was debated. Many participants say that vetting of community candidates is not a Board task but a community task. In general these participants believe that the vetting should be minimal. Some participants prefer a strong vetting process to ensure that eligible candidates are fit for the Board. Several participants said that a stronger vetting process may introduce cultural bias and reinforce privileges for wealthy people especially in emerging Wikimedia communities.
Достоинства
- Some suggested a stronger vetting process comparable to a job application, reasoning that the role of trustee is a big responsibility.
- A person attending an office hour shared an example of a board assessment and self-assessment form to determine skills possessed and skills needed on non-profit boards. She suggested its use as a way to vet or at least better assess candidates.
Недостатки
- Many people say that the Board should only do legal checks to candidates to confirm them.
- Some say that it is the responsibility of the community to make sure that community candidates are qualified. They say if any additional vetting exists at all, it should be done by volunteers, not by the Board.
- Among people who expressed their belief that the Board should not do a wider vetting of candidates, a few mentioned the case of the appointed trustee Arnnon Geshuri, who stepped down shortly after his announcement in 2016 after a community protest.
Другие соображения
- Frequently it was mentioned that any vetting should happen before the election/process starts to all candidates, not at the end to the winning candidates.
- The ED of a European affiliate said that a vetting process might suffer from cultural and language bias, and its design should be considered carefully.
- A former trustee said that potential candidates might be deterred by a vetting process requiring candidates to publish an assessment of their skills or other personal information.
- Another former trustee stated that vetting based on skills might reduce diversity of candidates, creating a system that favors wealthier people, especially in countries where only a minority has access to the types of education required.