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

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Dear friends, please name a representative for your group this week and try to find a candidate for the committee. We need to find the committee member within next week! --Ailura (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the Committee[edit]

Hello all. This is an update on the BoT Analysis Committee.

So far, members have introduced themselves. We have been made aware that SAARC and Western & Northern Europe will have no representative, so the committee will only have seven people.

We are assessing candidates to the BoT based on nine criteria, including Wikimedia experience, diversity and specific skillsets (i.e., technical capacities, experience in public policy). We are expected to score each candidate on these criteria, with scores going from 1 to 3, by mid June. The process is overall straightforward, and the criteria are relatively fair and reasonable. A call among members is expected to happen in the next week.

There have been inquiries about the exclusion of one of the candidates, Iván Martínez. His candidacy was overruled because he submitted it twelve minutes late. In my opinion, this was a bit harsh, and I am still hoping this will be reconsidered.

Feel free to reply here or contact me if you have any question or consideration about this committee or the BoT selection. --Joalpe (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the Committee 2[edit]

Hi all. This is a second and final update on the BoT Analysis Committee.

Members of the committee had two meetings during the process. The first meeting was meant to clarify the procedure and discuss among members some problems in the analysis. One of these problems was that information provided by candidates might actually not be enough to assess them based on the criteria we were looking at. One suggestion was that candidates were contacted by committee members to provide information when lacking, but this ended up not happening. The second meeting happened after committee members had already made their individual assessments to discuss the results and work on finalizing the results. It was decided that candidates would not only receive a general assessment but also be ranked based on more specific criteria: Wikimedia background, skills, regional experience, and human rights and underrepresentation experiences. Rankings were based on a numeric score, that led to attributing qualitative marks (gold/silver/bronze). Final results were consolidated by June 19th.

I hope this was helpful. I do not think another update will be necessary. I am still available to answer any question that might arise. --Joalpe (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]