Совет Попечителей Фонда Викимедиа/Призыв для отзывов: места в Совете для Сообществ/Прямое назначение подтвержденных кандидатов

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Outdated translations are marked like this.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


Call for feedback: Community Board seats
Main Page
How to participate
Board ideas
Community ideas
Conversations
Reports
Timeline

Эта идея предполагает подтверждения Отборочного Комитета с голосованием сообщества для выбора членов этого комитета. В таком случае Отборочный комитет будет отвечать за оценку навыков и опыта кандидатов, ранжирование их и оказание помощи Совету в проверке кандидатов. Совет хотел бы получить отзыв по поводу идеи о том, что Отборочный комитет мог бы затем непосредственно рекомендовать кандидатов для назначения в Совет, а не инициировать еще один раунд общественного голосования по утвержденным кандидатам. В этом случае Отборочный комитет будет полностью или почти полностью управляться сообществом, с двумя Попечителями в качестве членов или связующих лиц.

Некоторые преимущества этой идеи:

  • Специализированный комитет лучше подходит для управления и сбалансирования соображений компетентности и разнообразия, чем голосование;
  • Отборочный комитет по-прежнему может запрашивать мнение сообщества о кандидатах; и
  • Удаление шагов из процесса отбора позволяет работать более быстро и эффективно.

Ключевым недостатком этой идеи является то, что она может не достичь всех целей включения общественного голосования в процесс выбора попечителей. По-прежнему будет проводиться голосование по выбору членов Отборочного Комитета, но отбор попечителей будет осуществляться не напрямую, а косвенно. Отзывы, полученные в отношении голосования в целом, поможет Совету оценить жизнеспособность этой идеи.

Резюме от текущих отзывах

Группа фасилитаторов обновляет этот раздел информацией из отчетов.

(Пока ничего нет)

The idea of Direct appointment of confirmed candidates did not receive support, except for a couple of conversations in the ESEAP region. Many volunteers feel that this change would be too disruptive and would undermine their trust in the Board. Many have responded that the Board already can appoint directly almost half of the seats. Some participants were concerned about a situation where the community doesn’t accept any of the trustees directly appointed.

Positives:

  • A volunteer from Malaysia said the Board knows the best candidate it needs from the selection committee’s submitted list of candidates. It should be implemented with utmost transparency.
  • A person from Hong Kong says the community-elected selection committee will choose the best and the brightest people that deserve to be on the Board.

Negatives:

  • Several people said this moves away from community norms and practices:
    • One person from the Indonesia community said there is no need for a call for feedback if the Board chooses this option.
    • At the German Wiki Women conversation, all attendees said this might lead to a perfectly diverse and skillful board, but it would also cause a massive loss of trust in the Board itself. They said such a top-down solution would be emotionally impossible to realize with the communities.
    • One member of the Elections Committee considers that with the direct appointment of confirmed candidates, you end up stripping some functions that the community understands are theirs.
    • One volunteer on the idea talk page on Meta commented that direct appointment of candidates is not a good way to get buy-in from the participants in the different Wikimedia projects. They said this method does not represent the community ethic so prevalent in Wikimedia projects. They said there is an increased risk of appointing unqualified people.
  • There are concerns about lack of broad community participation in this process:
    • One volunteer said that It is unclear what would happen if a candidate appointed by the Board is not accepted by the community, similarly to what happened with a direct appointment in the past.
    • Indirect elections are almost always a bad idea as there is too much opportunity to sway the decision.
    • The majority of the participants from the Open Foundation West Africa group meeting did not support this idea. One person said this could mean the Board could appoint someone the community may not support.
    • At the German LGBT+ conversation a volunteer said any failure during the selection process would be on the shoulders of the few volunteers in the selection committee.
    • During a meeting with the Georgian community all participants unanimously rejected this idea as not democratic nor transparent. They added that the Board already has this ability to directly appoint members and it is not possible for all members to be appointed by the BoT.