Consiglio di fondazione di Wikimedia Foundation/Richiesta di feedback: seggi del Consiglio di comunità/Richiesta di tipi di abilità ed esperienza

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎italiano • ‎русский • ‎العربية


Richiesta di feedback: seggi del Consiglio di comunità
Pagina principale
Come partecipare
Idee del Consiglio
Idee comunitarie
Conversazioni
Rapporti
Sequenza temporale

Un consiglio ottimale sarebbe composto da fiduciari la cui esperienza comprende l'intera gamma di lavoro che la Wikimedia Foundation fa e l'intera gamma di attività all'interno del movimento Wikimedia. Questo sarà sempre un obiettivo in movimento e anche un Consiglio allargato non sarà mai in grado di raggiungerlo veramente. Tuttavia, all'inizio di qualsiasi processo di selezione del trustee, il Consiglio dovrebbe valutare e determinare quali aree di competenza sono più necessarie. Per i fiduciari selezionati dal Consiglio, il Consiglio può quindi indirizzare quelle aree nel reclutamento. Per i fiduciari selezionati dalla comunità e dagli affiliati, tuttavia, è necessario un approccio diverso.

In una chiamata per i candidati all'inizio del processo di selezione, il Consiglio può specificare le competenze e l'esperienza che si spera avranno gli amministratori selezionati dalla comunità e dagli affiliati. La prossima sfida è determinare se i candidati hanno quelle capacità ed esperienza. Il modulo di valutazione del trustee può aiutare in questo processo, ma ci sono ancora due domande chiave:

  1. Quale dovrebbe essere il livello minimo di competenza? Ciò riguarda la questione della valutazione dei candidati.
  2. Chi è responsabile di garantire il raggiungimento delle qualifiche minime? I candidati possono auto-riferire i loro anni di esperienza pertinente sulla base del modulo di qualifica, ma deve ancora esserci una qualche forma di revisione. Ciò potrebbe essere fatto dal consiglio stesso, probabilmente tramite un comitato di selezione delegato dal consiglio, oppure potrebbe essere fatto da un comitato di selezione eletto dalla comunità.

Riepilogo del feedback in corso

Il team di facilitazione aggiorna questa sezione con le informazioni tratte dai rapporti.

(Ancora niente)

One volunteer proposed the idea of Specialization seats. Feedback related to dedicating seats of quotas for skills is captured in the corresponding section below.

Sentiment: Divided opinions in a discussion with many ramifications that is expected to continue.

Some people think community experience is the only skill required for community candidates. Others think skills to perform well as a Board member are important, and opinions differ about how strongly the filter should be applied. There is broad agreement that the Board can do more to identify skills needed, to provide training, and to proactively seek potential candidates with these skills. There are questions about how the Board plans to use the recently approved Board Candidate Evaluation Form.

About the idea of skills needed in candidates:

  • There is no agreement about the types of skills that should be required to candidates:
    • Many volunteers, especially long-term contributors, express a strong opinion about not requiring specific skills to community-and-affiliate candidates. They say the role of these trustees in the Board is to represent the community and to contribute community skills. They say that the Board has the directly appointed seats to cover specific skills required.
    • Many volunteers who have joined more recently and some long-term contributors disagree, and believe that all candidates need to have a certain skill set to aspire to a seat in the Board.
    • Each of these two positions includes volunteers who usually don’t participate in governance discussions as well as volunteers well-versed in these discussions, including former trustees.
    • Some volunteers from emerging Wikimedia communites said that some skills should be required of all candidates, irrespective of diversity quotas.
      • In meetings with the Odia and the Gujarati communities it was said that the Board is the highest decision-making authority in the movement, and skills should not be compromised.
    • In a meeting with the North Africa community it was suggested that the Board can use committees or a new advisory council delivering the skills whenever needed, keeping the Board seats for community members who win elections without requirements for specific skills. This idea also appeared in two different meetings with Women from France and Germany.
    • The director of a European chapter said non-specialists can give perspectives specialists tend to overlook, that skills shouldn’t be overrated.
    • At a meeting of the Turkic community, they wondered: what will happen if there are no candidates with specific skills?
    • One person said in an ESEAP meeting that some people improve after given the chance, that willingness to learn is important.
    • A former appointed trustee said that there isn’t any harm in having an eligibility criteria for everyone on the Board, as (according to her) it could lead to a more effective board.
    • Some volunteers said that the community should be allowed to express what skills they believe the Board should have.

Specifics about skills needed in candidates:

  • Several volunteers from different conversations mentioned skills they expect from community candidates. This is a compilation of all the skills mentioned:
    • Community experience
    • Wiki editing
    • Programmatic work in the movement
    • Mediation and negotiation
    • Management, leadership
    • Team working
    • Technical
    • Auditing, assessment
  • Some people say that training for candidates or even trustees after being elected is enough. Some say that the terms are too short to train people with insufficient skills, so a certain amount of skills might be helpful for optimal use of the term.
  • One person in a European community conversation proposed a certain amount of edits in a wiki as a required skill for all trustees, the directly appointed too.

About how to implement a call of skills:

  • There is overall agreement that needed skills should be identified by the Board and advertised well in advance.
  • One person said that the Board should be more proactive about searching for candidates in the community before the election.
  • The Board Candidate Evaluation Form was mentioned in several conversations, although it raised many questions about its intended use, and also about its effectiveness.
  • Some volunteers suggested in different conversations the idea of highlighting the skills of candidates, even if there is no hard requirement for skills.