مجلس أمناء مؤسسة ويكيميديا/دعوة لتقديم الملاحظات: مقاعد مجلس إدارة المجتمع/لجنة الاختيار المنتخبة من المجتمع
|دعوة للتعليق : مقاعد ممثلي المجتمعات في مجلس الإدارة|
|أفكار مجلس الأمناء|
للسماح بمزيد من سيطرة المجتمع على عملية اختيار امين المجتمع، يمكن إنشاء لجنة اختيار جديدة. ستكون لجنة الاختيار مسؤولة عن تقييم المرشحين باستخدام نموذج تقييم الوصي ، ويمكن أن يساعد مجلس الإدارة في فحص المرشحين.
هناك طريقتان مهمتان تختلف فيهما لجنة الاختيار عن لجنة الانتخابات الحالية:
- ستشارك لجنة الاختيار في التقييم الموضوعي للمرشحين، بينما ينصب تركيز لجنة الانتخابات على إدارة وعمليات عملية الاختيار.
- يتم اختيار لجنة الانتخابات بالكامل من قبل مجلس الإدارة (على وجه التحديد، من قبل لجنة حوكمة مجلس الإدارة)، ولكن سيتم اختيار لجنة الاختيار بالكامل عن طريق انتخابات المجتمع.
يسعى مجلس الإدارة للحصول على تعليقات حول فكرة لجنة الاختيار. يسعى مجلس الإدارة أيضًا إلى الحصول على تعليقات حول ما إذا كانت لجنة الاختيار ، إذا كان سيتم إنشاؤها ، يجب أن تعمل في تصفية المرشحين قبل تصويت المجتمع أو إذا كان يجب اختيار المرشحين مباشرة لمجلس الإدارة لتعيينهم
ملخص التعليقات الجارية
يقوم فريق التيسير بتحديث هذا القسم بمعلومات من التقارير.
(لا شيء حتى الآن)
After the fourth weekly report:
Concerns about a model of indirect elections are widespread, and especially the idea of a Board-delegated committee. There are some exceptions in Africa and South Asia. There, a few groups felt confident about trusting a committee formed by experienced community members who would become well-informed on candidates. In general, the idea is seen as unnecessary, removing the control of the community to directly elect trustees and adding complexity to the process. The main risks identified are a decrease of community participation, committee bias, and a compromised credibility of the trustees selected through this method.
- The idea of a selection committee (mainly community-elected) was more popular in several conversations held with volunteers in different African countries and regions. A main reason for them to support this model is their trust on experienced community members to make good choices.
- Volunteers from the Goa and Odia communities said that it is almost impossible for every voter to read lengthy profiles and make the most rational choice. They said that, because of this, a selection committee could work better.
- These groups also said that a selection committee can eliminate the popularity bias that influences voting in an election process.
- About the Board-delegated option, participants in a couple of meetings from the Sub-Saharan Africa region said this process would be simpler than the Community-elected committee.
- Some of these participants suggested nominating former board members and other experienced community members.
- A Nepali volunteer felt a board-delegated committee shortlisting candidates for election is better because it puts the onus of ensuring diversity on the Board, rather than on the election process.
- The idea of a Board-delegated committee was more widely concerning. Obstacles identified by different participants included:
- This system would remove too much authority from the community.
- Board members selected this way would not represent the community.
- If everything is controlled by the Board, then it is better to let the Board itself appoint candidates.
- While concerns about a Community-elected committee were milder, they were still held by a majority of participants. These arguments were mentioned:
- Some people said that if a community can elect a diverse and qualified committee, why can’t a community also elect diverse and qualified Board members?
- Several people said that an election to form a selection committee would unnecessarily add complexity and bureaucracy.
- Some people said that an election before or after the filter of a selection committee would result in a more complex process. They said that it might make the selection process harder for people to engage in, and reduce participation in comparison with direct elections.
- Several people said that a process starting with voting a committee would take longer.
- Other arguments were made against a selection committee in general:
- Volunteers from the Urdu and Kannada communities said that there were a lot of unanswered questions regarding a selection committee, and for that reason, they would prefer to keep direct elections for now.
- Several comparisons were made with political regimes:
- Participants of the Georgian community compared “when you choose someone and someone else decides” with communism.
- A former appointed trustee compared indirect elections with the two tier system in the US, and opposed any system where the community doesn’t have the final say.
- One volunteer compared the idea of a selection committee with the Council of Clerics in Iran.
- A couple of people said that the Affiliations Committee was an example of how a committee’s intent on selecting people from diverse backgrounds actually ends up selecting people with similar characteristics as their own.
- Wikidata volunteers also shared a similar concern, on a note that “it is basic human tendency to favour people who are similar to us.”
- A couple of people suggested consulting psychological research about groups of people selecting people like themselves.
- A CIS-A2K staff member felt that when a person is elected through community voting system, they will be accountable to all volunteers, but if it is through a selection committee, their accountability may be limited to the committee itself.
- People from the Punjabi Wikimedians User Group said that the relation between the selection committee and the Board would affect the results. They said, if the relationship is good, the committee would be able to negotiate better for skills and diversity, but if the relationship is bad, then the candidates will suffer the consequences.
- An Election Committee member said that lack of diversity on the committee would affect the final outcome.
- A person from the Telugu community suggested that the quotas are applied to the selection committee to ensure diversity in their choices, and a Maithili volunteer suggested distributing all seats ensuring gender and regional diversity.
- A Wikitech volunteer suggested having a large committee and final decisions regarding candidates should be made through voting among the committee members.
- A Karavalli Wikimedian suggested having a conflict of interest policy if a selection committee is formed, and the situation in which a committee member is also interested in being a board candidate should be addressed.
- Volunteers from Urdu community suggested having regional subcommittees, working in coordination with the main committee, to increase the involvement of grassroot communities in the process.
- A CIS-A2K staff member suggested having a monitoring committee that will keep a check on the process, behaviour, abuse of voting processes, too much canvassing etc, just like in regular political elections.