Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022/Affiliates regional distribution for the Analysis Committee/North America/yue

This page supports North American affiliate participation in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections Analysis Committee.

The Movement Strategy and Governance team is available to support this process.

Facilitators for this region include Xeno and Mahuton.

Context

The affiliate organizations voted in this election in July to shortlist six candidates from the candidate pool. Each affiliate organization was allowed one vote. This selection used the Single Transferable Vote method. Affiliate organizations discussed the candidates the affiliate organization wanted to select. Candidates ranked candidates in order of preference.

The Affiliate Representatives were able to ask questions for the candidates to answer. Candidates published answers starting on June 24.

To assist with this selection process, an Analysis Committee was be formed.

分析委員會

For regional distribution of the Affiliates and facilitators who will be supporting it, see Affiliates regional distribution for the Analysis Committee

The Analysis Committee was formed from the affiliates during late April and May. The Analysis Committee was planned to be composed of 9 representatives of affiliates (including all chapters, user groups, and thematic groups) from regions across the movement. One each from:

• CEE（中歐和東歐）；
• ESEAP（東亞、東南亞同太平洋地區）；
• 撒哈拉以南非洲；
• 拉丁美洲同加勒比；
• MENA（中東同北非）；
• 北美（美國同加拿大）；
• 北歐同西歐；
• 南亞；
• plus one for thematic affiliates.

There was no representative from the Northern and Western Europe or South Asia.

The selection process to form the Analysis Committee was defined by the affiliates, with support of the Elections Committee and the Movement Strategy and Governance team as needed.

The Analysis Committee evaluated the candidates against the skills and diversity, equity and inclusion criteria shared by the Board of Trustees. The Analysis Committee used the statements the candidates answered on their application to rate the candidates. The Analysis Committee rated candidates with a gold/silver/bronze framework. This rating was used to provide input to the affiliate organizations when they planned their vote. The details of the evaluation of each candidate will not be shared.

After the six candidates were selected during the affiliate organization voting process, the ratings of each selected candidate were published to inform the community vote. This process aims to find the best balance between sharing useful information and minimizing unnecessary exposure of candidates.

流程

The Analysis Committee worked from late May to mid-June. Details of their meetings and process can be found on the Analysis Committee Discussions.

The Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee developed a set of evaluation criteria for the Analysis Committee to evaluate candidates against. The Analysis Committee members assessed candidates individually. Only two Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators who supported the process had access to these individual scores.

Procedure for determining the committee member

Similar to a previous regional process, the procedure should be defined by the affiliates in the table below.

This page was created to assist the affiliate coordination and should be edited collaboratively.

During that discussion, User:Megs was chosen by North American affiliates to sit on the analysis committee.

Region affiliates

Endorsements were confidentially tallied in a live call.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
自治體 Affiliate representative Comments Endorsement Wikimedia Canada Wikimedia District of Columbia econterms Wikimedia New York City Megs WikiConference North America Wikimedians of North American Indigenous Languages User Group Amqui Cascadia Wikimedians User Group Peaceray I do not find this an easy choice to make. I think Sky Harbor, Geraldshields11, Neal McBurnett, or Megs would be excellent choices. I could support any of them. All have participated in affiliates. Today, my criteria is to look for the representative with the broadest experience across projects & responsibilities. Sky Harbor Wikimedians of Chicago User Group Wikimedians of Colorado User Group Buaidh Georgia Piedmont Wikimedians User Group Wikimedians of Los Angeles User Group Julie Farman New England Wikimedians A new committee feels unnecessary. North Carolina Wikipedians User Group Sodapopinski7 Ohio Wikimedians User Group SuperHamster San Diego Wikimedians User Group RightCowLeftCoast I will communicate ongoing of this process to other members of the Usergroup/affiliate.

Users willing to be an Analysis Committee member

(Self nominations or nominated by others with nominee accepting)

• Sky Harbor, nominated by RightCowLeftCoast
• Geraldshields11, nominated by the Board of Wikimedia District of Columbia
• Neal McBurnett, nominated by the Wikimedians of Colorado User Group
• Megs, nominated by Pharos (Wikimedia New York City nominated Megs as our Affiliate representative, but we didn't get around to formally nominating for this position too)