Talk:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2014/Nominations/Patricio Lorente

Results[edit]

Ciao, Patricio. Just to mention a recent example, I want to thank you for opposing the wmf:Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement roles decision (together with all community trustees except Phoebe); however, the result is that it passed. The discussion on that can continue in its page, but I have a couple questions for you.

Do you think there is a way for the Wikimedia community to act within the Wikimedia Foundation governance (as opposed to, say, rebellion) to pursue the Wikimedia mission? Which is it?

That vote, where 100 % of [non-officer] community-elected trustees voted against a decision but the majority of the board passed it nonetheless, seems to prove that board elections are not a way for the community to influence the WMF.

Do you agree? Is this the reason why the 2013 elections saw a 99.5 % abstention rate and a 48.2 % decrease in participation compared to 2011? What sense do elections/selections like this one make?

--Nemo 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nemo. Do you have any objection to me adding these questions to the page with questions for all candidates on it?. Regards, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC) (election facilitator)[reply]

I've talked with Nemo and he agrees. I'm adding them to the questions for all candidates. - Laurentius (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, Nemo. Let me quote your questions so I can answer them properly:

Do you think there is a way for the Wikimedia community to act within the Wikimedia Foundation governance (as opposed to, say, rebellion) to pursue the Wikimedia mission? Which is it?

Yes, I do. In fact, there are recent examples in which the Foundation worked really fine with the community, as in the privacy policy or the trademark policy, just to mention two topics that need periodic revision because they are core to our mission.

Regarding the Movement roles decision, it is known that I don’t share the arguments behind this. I’m worried that, unlike other discussions, it didn’t come from an identified community need. As said, I’m not happy with the process’ outcome, but this is still an ongoing process and the Board, no matter its future composition, will review it periodically in light of the results. There are not dogmatic views here, but different opinions about how should the Wikimedia movement organize itself --the key here is to document, publicize and discuss those different opinions.

There is space for reinforcing alternative arguments in that discussion and to change the current path if interested stakeholders make their voice heard and struggle to produce documented materials. In this sense, I am willing to be a bridge between all Wikimedia stakeholders, and I think I did my best to be such bridge during my tenure.

* Do you agree? Is this the reason why the 2013 elections saw a 99.5 % abstention rate and a 48.2 % decrease in participation compared to 2011? What sense do elections/selections like this one make?

I see your point, but I don’t agree. In fact, I wouldn’t be asking for a new term if I wasn’t convinced that the community is and should be part of the Wikimedia Foundation. What I do think is that our community is diverse and that there are multiple ways to participate in our projects. It is not surprising for me that most Wikimedians are not interested in governance issues --that is the same reason why many people are not interested in organizational matters, and that is not, and should not be read, as a demerit for Wikimedia affiliate organizations. Another element to consider is the need for advanced English skills to fully participate in most of all movement-wide discussions --in that sense I think that internationalization is still a need, we’ve made baby steps in the last couple of years but there’s still a long way to go.

I’d favor a slight change in the Board composition to increase the percentage of community-elected trustees, but of course that is a discussion for the long term and that can’t be appropriately handled in the current conditions. We could conduct some project-wide survey to have better input about the reasons for low general involvement in movement discussions and low voter turnout in community elections, and take lessons from there in terms of what can we do to increase overall participation. And I'd like to highlight that despite all the difficulties and concerns, every two years we have a wide offer of excellent candidates to choose from, which means that fortunately there are always people from our worldwide community willing to serve as Board members. Patricio.lorente (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for all candidates[edit]

Hello, Patricio. Thank you for your candidacy for the Board of Trustees. You are recommended to answer the questions asked of all candidates, listed on this page. Thank you, harej (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]