Talk:Nominating Committee/Selection criteria

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

General comments

Of the "general needed traits," personally I think commitment to the mission, and overall enthusiasm & interest, are most important. I also believe that regional diversity is important: I wouldn't want us to turn away an ideal candidate solely because they live in a well-represented part of the world, but I believe we should make a particular effort to recruit good candidates from under-represented areas. "Time availability" is fairly important too: I don't believe we have a large enough board, nor a mature enough organization, to be able to accommodate people who are board members in name only.

With regards to "specific needed expertise," it's obvious that financial skills are essential: someone needs to chair the audit committee and generally oversee the financial health of the organization. Personally I also think that non-profit governance experience is essential, and I would particularly welcome 501(c)3 governance experience: for me, it would be very helpful to get counsel from someone experienced in the specific regulatory context we operate in. And I would like to see fundraising expertise represented on the board as well. There would definitely be advantages to recruiting a board member with fundraising experience in a 501(c)3 context, but I don't think that's essential. What _is_ essential (IMO) is that at least one board member have general experience with fundraising principles, ethics and best practices.

Sue Gardner 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From the form ...[edit]

6. Ability to make a substantial financial contribution

The reads to me of a "pay to play" approach; that if someone wishes to be considered for a seat then they are not only required to have the other (imho appropriate) aspects but also to put up some cash. This seems somewhat misdirected to me. Is that really what is being sought? --Alison Wheeler 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we don't ask our other board members to make personal donations (besides the immense donation of time, energy, travel, etc.); we shouldn't ask our expert members to either. This seems like a misguided criteria that is irrelevant & should be struck. -- phoebe 17:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting from a page which is clearly labeled as a generic example set of criteria developed by an external organization (BoardSource) providing information about best practices for non-profits. So, I wouldn't interpret too much into it: Obviously the NomCom will come up with its own criteria. This is also an example rating sheet, that is, among the many things you would assess when looking at a potential Board member is their ability to make a financial contribution. You weigh and rank your criteria and use this quantitative information to guide your decision. To not do so at all can create its own set of problems: For example, if you do not quantify something, it can become a hidden, distorted influence.--Eloquence 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Legal expertise (moved from content page)[edit]

EFF is chock-full of lawyers who would meet some or all these areas. Many of them have experience in more than one field (e.g., copyright and libel law). The also have the advantage of being located nearby. MGodwin 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Membership in the Wikimedia community[edit]

The criteria all look pretty good, except for the above one. One of the reasons that I supported the board overhaul was that I'd hoped that we'd see a move towards making the board less insular. The community interest is only one of several sets of interests that the Board needs to be mindful of, and I think it would be better-placed to be mindful of other interests if it had members that were not community members. Sarcasticidealist 19:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


The point "academia/education" could mean: Being an academic/understanding academia, experience with managing relationships to academia, experience with leading research, being an educator/teacher, being a teacher of teachers, etc. I guess it is "all of the above"? Any particular focus? Dirk Riehle 00:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)