Consiglio di fondazione di Wikimedia Foundation/Richiesta di feedback: seggi del Consiglio di comunità/Quote

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Outdated translations are marked like this.


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

L'impegno per la diversità è una delle priorità di governance identificate nello Statuto della Fondazione. Il Consiglio ha costantemente espresso il proprio impegno a raggiungere la diversità nella composizione del Consiglio. Il Consiglio può portare a compimento questi impegni direttamente con i seggi fiduciari selezionati dal Consiglio. Per i seggi selezionati dalla comunità e dagli affiliati, tuttavia, il Consiglio che dichiara il proprio desiderio di diversità non è sufficiente per garantire che i fiduciari selezionati riflettano veramente la diversità del movimento Wikimedia.

Un possibile approccio per affrontare questo problema è quello di introdurre quote che richiedono un numero minimo di seggi del Consiglio selezionati dalla comunità e dagli affiliati per essere riempiti da amministratori di gruppi che altrimenti sarebbero sottorappresentati o svantaggiati in un processo di nomina e votazione a livello di comunità.

Il consiglio ha molte domande aperte relative all'idea di quote e richiede feedback dalla comunità su quali dovrebbero essere le risposte. In particolare:

  • Quali tipi di diversità sarebbe più importante garantire con un sistema di quote? Alcune possibili opzioni sono il genere, l'etnia, lo status LGBT +, la geografia, l'esperienza del regime totalitario, lo stato sociale (inclusa la classe e il reddito), l'aver sperimentato la mancanza di libertà di viaggio, parola o religione e la maturità della comunità "domestica" all'interno di Wikimedia movimento.
  • Come dovrebbe essere applicato un sistema di quote? Una possibilità potrebbe essere quella di riservare determinati posti a membri di determinati gruppi. Un'altra possibilità sarebbe quella di considerare la diversità complessiva della composizione del consiglio di amministrazione alla fine del processo di selezione. Un altro ancora sarebbe includere la diversità nel modulo di valutazione del fiduciario come importanti caratteristiche aggiuntive.
  • Come dovrebbero essere fissate le quote e come dovrebbero essere modificate nel tempo?

Va notato che, sebbene il Consiglio non sia giunto a un accordo riguardo a una chiara comprensione di quale tipo di diversità dovrebbe essere introdotto sistematicamente, ha discusso il genere come un criterio ampiamente non controverso per la diversità complessiva del consiglio, ma non è giunto a una conclusione su come può essere introdotto in tutta la comunità e nominato praticamente.

Il Consiglio riconosce che le quote non sono necessariamente l'unico modo per garantire la selezione di una serie diversificata di amministratori per il Consiglio. Sono ben accetti suggerimenti di approcci alternativi.

Riepilogo del feedback in corso

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

The facilitation team keeps this section in sync with the main report.

Quotas have been discussed in almost every conversation and the range of opinions has been very wide. In practice, most discussions have focused separately on regional quotas or gender diversity quotas. Other factors like non-Wikipedia projects participation, minority languages, age, and skin color have been mentioned sporadically and inconsistently.

The majority of participants agree on the importance of having a Board that represents the diversity of the world. The majority of participants also recognize the difficulty of implementing a system of quotas that is fair, effective, and representative. The support to find diversity solutions based on quotas is stronger among participants from emerging Wikimedia communities as well as women and LGBT+ participants.

Some individuals had reservations to express opinions publicly or participate in the Call for Feedback at all. Aspects like gender and cultural background are closely related to people’s identities. In society, topics like social privilege, political representation of women and minorities, or contemporary colonialism are very controversial and difficult to discuss. All these factors were noticeable during the Call for Feedback. We organized targeted outreach to learn more about the opinions of participants in several groups, including Wikimedia LGBT+, WikiWomxn, Les sans pagEs, WikiDonne and Art+Feminism as well as informal groups of women and LGBT+. Some of whom noted feeling overworked by the quantity of discussions about the Wikimedia movement requesting their participation.

There are serious concerns about the implementation of quotas, including among groups underrepresented in Wikimedia. Disagreement about quotas among women and LGBT+ groups tended to be related to unintended consequences like tokenism and potential candidates feeling discouraged to run for “a quota seat”. On Meta-Wiki, a few contributors expressed their strong disagreement on principle, considering quotas discriminatory, and some of them disagree that the Board has a problem of diversity.

Note: two volunteers spun off the ideas of Regional seats and Specialization seats. Feedback received about regional representation or specialization quotas are listed in the related sections.

  • The topic of quotas is very broad. The only types of quotas being discussed are regional and gender quotas. Age and skin color are other factors mentioned sporadically. The opinions range from strong opposition to strong support.
  • The team has noticed some silence from individuals and groups, as well as directly encountering reservations to express opinions publicly. We have dedicated special attention to providing safe spaces and optional ways to gather feedback without exposing individuals.

Positives

  • Several participants said that the purpose of quotas is to overcome historical and systemic inequities, which the current practice of Board member election makes difficult.
  • Many participants in all regions, also in Western Europe and North America, said that quotas may be the only way for certain underrepresented groups to ensure that their perspectives and presence are included on the Board any time soon.
  • A Wikimedia Foundation executive noted that women are underrepresented in elected/nominated seats, and appointed seats should not be the only guarantee of balancing diversity.
  • Some participants commented that the Board diversity should represent the world’s population composition and not just the Wikimedia community composition.

Negatives

  • Many participants said that a representative implementation of quotas may be hard given that there is a maximum of eight seats for community and affiliates.
  • Some warned of larger communities overshadowing smaller communities due to influence and noted this may produce a silent minority as has happened in some countries with indigenous communities. For this reason, they say quotas should be based upon population and not the size of the wiki community.
  • Several participants from underrepresented groups said that quotas may deter potential competent candidates from underrepresented groups from running for election because they want to be selected on their own merits, without the help of a quota system.
    • They fear that these candidates may be judged as only on the Board because of the quota and disregard the experience or expertise of the person. Some said candidates using the quota may get less support because of this.
  • Many participants in several regions were concerned about the risk of candidates joining the Board without having the proper skills thanks to quotas.
  • Some participants feared that quotas may increase tokenism, that is, an apparent representation of diversity that is more symbolic than effective.
  • A few participants said that candidates selected due to quotas may feel public pressure from contributors opposing quotas.
    • They mentioned groupthink as a potential side effect, that is, trustees selected through quotas feeling forced to align with the trustees selected without quotas, defeating the point of diversity.
  • Several groups from emerging Wikimedia communities mentioned the connotations the term “quotas” have in their countries.
    • They described situations where governments are misusing quota-based systems that were created to include minorities, resulting in various forms of corruption.
  • Especially on Meta-Wiki, a few users disagreed strongly with any system of quotas.
    • One user said that quotas discriminate against certain people by denying them the ability to run for certain board seats based on their innate characteristics.

Other considerations

Regarding gender quotas

  • There were many considerations specific to a gender diversity quota:
    • Participants in several countries mentioned examples of gender balance laws or campaigns in their countries and considered it logical to explore a similar application in the Board.
    • Many participants mentioned concepts like “50/50” or “50%” to refer to a gender quota for women, according to some of them following terms popularized by governments or the media in their countries.
      • Other participants including members of the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group complained, saying that these concepts were binary and implicitly biased against non-binary, trans or genderqueer people. The Facilitation team acknowledged this problem and rectified the related mentions in their reports.
  • A former trustee suggested the Board be proactive about diverse articulations of gender such as trans and non-binary and also diverse sexual orientations.
  • A couple of participants suggested adding limits for overrepresentation instead of minimum quotas, like for instance a maximum of 60% of any gender on the Board.
  • One participant suggested that gender representation should not come before regional representation.

Regarding quotas in general

  • A few participants have said that quotas should be applied during the nomination process, not the election.
    • Some Wikitech participants suggested ensuring that there is a minimum number of candidates from each group rather than having election quotas.
  • A member of the Elections Committee considered it is not possible to cover all the diversity of our movement with quotas unless there is a system of short-term rotation.
  • A former trustee suggested to look at “underrepresented” as a required expertise to avoid using a plain concept of quotas.
  • Some participants said that the Board seats should reflect the current community, not the community that it is desired to become.
    • Some participants from the Wikimedia Stewards User Group were of this opinion.
    • Others said imposing restrictions on the community seats makes for ineffective representatives.
  • A few participants commented that the feedback period was not long enough to discuss quotas.