Talk:Affiliations Committee/Candidates/June 2017

Better advertising[edit]

I notice this page is not receiving enough comments from broad community. Perhaps we should be working on better informing users that they can support candidates here. Maybe an invitation on wikimedia-l and a sitenotice?—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 14:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. I plan to post questions and comments tonight, anyway. Wikicology (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teles, I had boldly created a section where community members can post questions and comment on the candidate. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: That will make it easier for others to understand where they can comment and endorse. Thanks for doing it. We also need to do something to invite people to participate here.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 23:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will you consider an invitation on Wikimedia-I mailing list? Perhaps an AffCom member would do it? Pinging the AffCom Chair, Kirill Lokshin for an insight. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned that page on wikimedia-l a few days ago.—Teles «Talk to me ˱_{C L @ S}˲» 20:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to all candidates[edit]

Since there is no 'questions to all' section, and I don't think it's useful to past the same text next to every single candidate, I will write my questions here. Perhaps someone involved in managing this process can create an appropriate subheading on the content page (not talkpage) for 'questions to all candidates'? I don't want to adjust someone else's page especially when the process is already begun.

From the perspective of someone who is on the Funds Dissemination Committee, which has some overlapping responsibilities with AffCom, what do you see as the ways in which the concept of 'movement accountability' can be improved in our processes - with specific regards to the question of equity in approach to affiliates, and capacity of our movement/committees?
The affcom candidacy/nomination process is very different to that of the FDC - which has a community wide-election, and from which the FDC draws much of its legitimacy. Do you believe that the affcom process should be by community-wide election? If not, why not? [Yes, this is a leading question I suppose. But, I mean to say: "this is my opinion on the issue, if you have a different one I'd like to hear it" :-) ]

Sincerely, Wittylama (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered #1 on my nomination page. But for #2, I think that any committee's selection methodology is related to how strong a mandate it needs, and the length of its or its member's terms, with more elected seats needed for bodies wanting a stronger "moral right".

So I generally favour a mixed elected/appointed method for most committees or boards, as I think it creates a good balance between popularity, trust and ensuring there is/are specific experience(s) represented.

I'm not sure AffCom needs a community wide election process right now, but if its role changed or increased in scope, it would probably be necessary to have some elected seats. Thanks. Battleofalma (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements[edit]

Two weeks have passed since the "anticipated" deadline - I think it would be helpful for everyone if the decisions were published in a timely fashion. Braveheart (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Emnamizouni#An inquiry about the new member of Affiliations Committee. Aotfs2013 (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could I add my voice to this too - two weeks seems unfair on candidates in an already long process. If there is an issue around volunteer time to check data/format results/post out please do shout out for help? Or at the very least provide an update. Leela0808 (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]