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

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Seeking nominations and endorsements for the North American affiliate representation on the Analysis Committee[edit]

Hello- I'm reaching out to those listed as representatives here: Movement Charter/Affiliates by Region/North America; (cc: @RightCowLeftCoast and JSFarman:, thank you for already signing overleaf) @Lea-Kim, Econterms, Megs, Fuzheado, Peaceray, Airplaneman, Sodapopinski7, Sj, SuperHamster, Jonathunder, and Buaidh: Nominations are being gathered to join the "Analysis Committee" for the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board election process.

You may recall a similar decision process was completed by North American affiliates in October 2021 (the MCDC "selection" committee). The difference here is that this committee will not make any selection, only evaluate candidates based on specific criteria. Their ratings will be available for affiliate consideration.

The previous method used by North American affiliates to choose their selector was a nomination period, followed by a short voting period (one vote per affiliate). You are free to use this method or choose another method.

It is hoped to have the committee appointed by 15 May 2022. Please contact me or Mahuton if you have questions or we can provide additional support.

All the best, Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Endorsement period[edit]

Sky Harbor, Geraldshields11, Nealmcb: Congratulations; you have been nominated to sit on a committee to analyze candidates for 2022 Board elections. Shortly, I will ask affiliate representatives to provide their endorsements. Please kindly signal your acceptance or declination of the nomination as needed. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Xeno (WMF): I accept the nomination to the election for the Analysis Committee. I look forward to working with all the wonderful people. Please see both my Wikipedia user pages and my Wikimedia meta page for details on why you should appoint me to the committee to represent your interests for the betterment of the Wiki Community. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Xeno (WMF): I have also been nominated, and accept the nomination. Megs (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the reminder by e-mail, Xeno (WMF). I too accept the nomination and look forward to serving my fellow Wikimedians in North America for this important endeavor. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Sky Harbor, Geraldshields11, Megs: Thank you for confirming your nominations and being willing to do this work. Nealmcb, I see you were nominated on behalf of your affiliate, so I'm assuming you were okay with being nominated - thanks as well. Let me know if there are any questions. Some of the other regions have already seated their representatives: m:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022#Selected committee members. I am hoping the affiliate representatives will be able to place their endorsements soon. While the committee has not yet started work, it was hoped to be seated by the 20th. The accepted nominee may be joining work slightly in progress. The trustee candidates for consideration may be found here. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I am indeed honored to be considered as a member for the Analysis Committee, and accept the nomination. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Xeno (WMF): On behalf of US-SAN we think that either Geraldshields11, or Sky Harbor, should be the North American member of the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation elections' Analysis Committee.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

All four candidates are suitable[edit]

  • Sky Harbor
  • Geraldshields11
  • Neal McBurnett
  • Megs

These are all great candidates who have long histories of being deeply engaged in Wikimedia Movement governance in North America. They all are publicly known and Wikimedians in good community standing. I am happy with any of them. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

This election process is whack[edit]

This election process is problematic for reasons including the following

  • Design by Wikimedia Foundation staff without community input
  • Very high volunteer labor burden without community consent
  • High stakes outcomes for community with unclear community communication
  • Many paid Wikimedia Foundation staff involved but no budget for Wikimedia community participation or diversity
  • Fast schedule to react
  • This is a new process which breaks from community-designed processes of the past

I am not blaming anyone except the bureaucracy itself but this process is unacceptable and the Wikimedia Foundation staff involved should make a strong commitment to put community first. Staff and community have highly differing interests. This process is unacceptable and unfair to community for many reasons.

Please, no Wikimedia Foundation staff respond or react to this post unless it is with an unqualified apology and commitment to defer without limits to the community's right to speak for itself without Wikimedia Foundation speaking on behalf of the community. The community can say what is best for itself and will do so if asked and given time to respond.

I have previously been on Wikimedia Election committees and have voiced similar objections in the past. The Wikimedia Community is a values and ethics based movement and we absolutely need to schedule time for community conversation and input in important matters of government. The Wikimedia Movement is so close to bringing so much diversity and justice to so many people - staff absolutely need to give community groups a reasonable amount of time for conversation and participation. Please do better.

Bluerasberry (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

notice: public discussion!...[edit]

This is currently posted to the front page here; I am cross-posting here because it may be archived.

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Xeno (WMF): I stated above on the talk page, who San Diego Wikimedians User Group, endorsed for our choice. Though we did not have someone at the WALRUS meeting, I hope that our preferences were made known. If not we would feel excluded from the final part of the process.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@RightCowLeftCoast: - I wasn't at the most recent meeting above, so can't speak to your concern directly, but I was on the May WALRUS call where Xeno was able to clarify the process for us. It seems most of us had at least some misconceptions about how this all works. So this is a just-in-case FYI. :) North American affiliates have one person on the analysis committee. The purpose of the analysis committee is simply to analyze/evaluate the candidates so that affiliates, when it comes time to vote, can make a more informed decision. The representative isn't acting on behalf of affiliates for anything other than, basically, collaborating on a voter guide. It's a useful role, but an advisory role. The limited scope of the committee, plus the time sensitivity of the decision, is why a short-notice meeting was called to determine who would represent. (But again, I wasn't on that call, so this may be unhelpful to you). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@RightCowLeftCoast: I acknowledge that the process was complicated. Briefly 1) no I did not count the San Diego vote, because it was not posted in the endorsement table on the main page 2) I did take notes which reported checking that table and not seeing the San Diego vote WALRUS/June 2022 3) I am aware of the vote count. Although there was not consensus to make the vote count public, the vote from San Diego would not have changed the election outcome. If it helps, I can offer to meet you or join a virtual San Diego meetup to speak for what happened. Every vote is important to all of us. I want better processes. At North American Wikimedians and Barnstar Country I am advocating for WMF to sponsor a regional administrator to help make processes like this more fair. We cannot crowdsource fairness in these processes and too much is at stake for the WMF not to fund this. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply