ウィキメディア財団理事会/フィードバックの募集：コミュニティ議席/地域議席
| Call for feedback: Community Board seats |
|---|
| Main Page |
| How to participate |
| Board ideas |
| Community ideas |
| Conversations |
| Reports |
| Timeline |
- この着想は理事会のコミュニティ代表議席についてご意見を募集したところ、Anass Sedrati さんから提言を受けました。その他の発案を提議したい場合は、 ご意見募集のメインページに投稿してください。
多様性の不足を理事会から指摘され、それを伝えるために格差を認識して個別に議論する必要があります。
これはコミュニティと提携団体の議席数8のうち1、2議席を代表者が欠けている地域に割り当てるという提案です。該当する地域の定義には合意がもたれるべきです。この案はクォータ制のアイデアから派生しましたが、所与の不均衡を是正するために地理という具体的かつ妥当な要素を考慮しています。この提案は広範で不明確な範囲のクォータ制を推奨するものではありません。
These seats could be exclusively reserved for a broad region such as emerging Wikimedia communities or Africa/Asia, where more than half of humans live. This would ensure that at least one member would bring the perspectives of these regions. One point to discuss is whether these seats are voted by peers from the region, or by everyone. Another point to discuss is whether the seats shall be about Africa/Asia in particular, or emerging communities in general (including South America).
So far, it is mostly Asian and African community members that haven't been represented at the Board. The gender balance is rather respected and seems to do better in comparison. It can be a good solution to allocate at least one seat for Africa/Asia to guarantee their presence, inclusion, and empowerment.
The rest of the community and affiliate seats would remain open for all candidates, including those from emerging Wikimedia communities. Having regional seats would not mean that the other seats are only for community members outside of emerging Wikimedia communities.
Summary of ongoing feedback
The facilitation team keeps this section in sync with the main report.
There is agreement that the Board should improve its regional diversity, but there is no agreement about how to achieve this goal. Opinions about regional quotas are mixed, and support is stronger in underrepresented regions. Many participants have mentioned that the regional diversity should be considered for the entire Board, not only the community seats. Some participants have suggested treating regional diversity as skill required in the Board, rather than a simple geographic quota.
The questions about implementation include how many seats would be allocated for regional diversity, how regions would be defined, who would be eligible (natives, diaspora, members of local communities...) A general concern is how to avoid that trustees elected through regional quotas have as much credibility as the rest.
Positives
- There is broad agreement that the Board has a problem of regional diversity but no agreement on how to address it.
- Some participants in discussions in Africa and the Middle East believe quotas are the only way someone from their region would get on the Board.
- One person said that there have been many candidates from Africa and none of them made it.
Negatives
- Many people argue that the definition of regions is complex, especially considering the limited amount of seats. Some contributors say that quotas for continents or emerging Wikimedia communities won’t solve the problem of understanding local needs, because these regions are huge and diverse, and no single person can represent them.
- One person at a German LGBT+ conversation said that these seats might be taken by privileged persons from the region, and that candidates from privileged countries of the region will have more chances to win the seats.
- A couple of volunteers from Asia and Latin America stressed the risk that trustees of regional seats have a bias towards their own country/group within their region, marginalizing different countries/groups and smaller communities.
- A few people have said that the Global Council will be more capable of regional representation because it is expected to become a larger body, at least compared with the potential number of regional seats the Board could offer.
Other considerations
- 平均すると地域ごとに反響に差がありました。説明が成り立つとするなら、地元の地域から出た候補者が票の割り当て（クオータ）抜きで当選するかどうか、その期待値を下敷きに意見が異なるとみられます。
- アフリカと中東では、地域クオータが必要だと確信した回答率が非常に高い。
- 南アジアならびに東・東南アジア（ESEAP）地域では、意見のばらつきが目立つ。
- ヨーロッパ中部および東部（CEE）ならびにラテンアメリカ地域の反応は大勢として支持が低く、理由は広域で多様な地域からどのように代表を決めるのか不確実な点にある。
- ヨーロッパ西部ならびに北アメリカ地域の反応は賛否両論で、振興のウィキメディアコミュニティにクオータを設ける点に強く反対の人々、3世の人々に分かれた。賛成に傾いた協議では、ごく少数の議席に対して独自性のあるたくさんのコミュニティをどのように代表するのか、不確実性を議論した。
- 地域多様性パネルの期間に、参加者から次の提言があった。
- 地域多様性を技能や専門性と同様に扱うべきで、コミュニティが備えた独自の文脈の知識をもたらすという点ではその他の主題と同等である。
- 民主化先進20ヵ国以外の国出身の経験者を重視する傾向が見られ、抑圧の制度に知識がある人材なら、ウィキメディアの使用を禁じられた地域に関して有用である。
- 例え資格を満たしても、候補者に特定の地域議席に立候補を強要しないこと。一般議席か地域議席か、立候補枠を選ぶのは候補者の選択に委ねるべき。
- 次の段階の決定に関して質問が寄せられた。
- 議席総数と、議席割り当ての決定の手順は？
- 地域の定義 - 新興コミュニティ、大陸、地域グループなど。
- 全体責任者は誰なのか - 選挙管理委員会か、進行役チームか、理事会か？
- 運動全体に対して最も信頼性のある議席配分の手順とは具体的にどうするのか？ 「劣った」議席と見なされないように、あるいは議席間に格差を生まないようにしてほしい。
- 地域議席の実施：
- WALRUS 集会では、ある参加者が3議席を直接投票で、新設の3議席を代表組織のない地域間で分け合うよう提案があった。
- ロシア協会の代表のひとりは、地域ごとの各ウィキプロジェクトの参加者数と規模を手順で考慮するべきと述べた。グジャラート語コミュニティの一人のボランティアからは利用者ベースならびに／もしくは地域の言語数に比例して議席を配分すること、その比率を3-5年ごとに見直すよう提言があった。
- 複数のグループからの提言では、地域選挙は地域議席1席単位で行うという案、すなわち例えば南アジアは理事会南アジア代表を選出してはどうかと述べた。他の人々は地域選挙案に反対し、その理由としてグローバルな運動体であるのだし、「国境のないボランティア」を自負していると述べた。
- Several participants with experience in governance (including former trustees, Elections Committee members, and CIS-A2K staff) said the candidates should represent the movement globally, even if they are elected through a particular regional seat
- There are several discussions about who would be eligible as a regional candidate:
- Whether only people living in the region or people from that region in the diaspora?
- What about people who just live in that region but are from somewhere else and don't represent it?
- One person suggested keeping the system as simple as possible: hold a single election for all Board seats. If the quota is not met, replace the lowest-ranking winning candidates with the highest-ranking unsuccessful candidates from underrepresented regions.
- A participant of the Regional diversity panel suggested something similar, to host separate elections for underrepresented seats, if diversity requirements are not met with the results of the initial election.
- One person suggested as an addition to this, the Board use 2 of the appointed seats to appoint runners-up from the community elections who are from underrepresented communities.
- One volunteer of the Brazilian community said that the existing regional groups should not be used to define regional quotas, because originally they were not designed for regional representation.
- One person said that every regional seat should take turns every year. For example, 2021 ESEAP, 2022 Wiki Indaba, 2023 SAARC, and so on.
- An election committee member suggested having regional specialization seats with rotation between regions. For example, region A will have an open seat on technical skills, the following year the region B would have the same seat open.
- A Wikitech volunteer suggested having regional community-elected selection committees to finalize candidates for regional seats.
- Volunteers from West Bengal suggested considering affiliates in a region for the same, however, some volunteers felt that communities without an affiliate would get disempowered and voiceless. They also said that there is a risk of favoritism.
- A Spanish volunteer suggested using variables such as GDP, HDI, and the level of Internet coverage or access, should be taken into account, rather than existing groups such as Iberocoop and CEE, as country to country conditions change radically.