Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees/Call for feedback: Community Board seats/Reports/CEE

Here are reports from all discussions and meetings with CEE affiliations.

Meeting with the Turkish WikiCommunity

The meeting with the editors of the Turkish Wikipedia and representatives of the Turkish WikiCommunity took place on February 2, at the weekly meeting.

The Turkish community was provided with detailed information about the process, including:

• It was explained in detail why the Board of Trustees of the WMF decided to change the charter.
• Details what has changed in the Bylaws.
• What will change in the future and what you need as a community to do.
• Urged to actively participate in the discussions and if there is a desire, we can arrange a separate meeting for them.

There were only two questions on the process, it was clear that the Turkish community was not informed and didn't know about the changes that were made in the bylaws, as well as didn't know about the process that followed after that. In the future, before the end of the process, several more meetings are planned.

Meeting with the Russian WikiCommunity

A meeting with the Russian community, as well as representatives of other linguistic (minority) communities in Russia and outside Russia, took place on 6 February. The meeting was attended by representatives of the following UG's, projects and chapters:

• Admin of Russian Wikinews and Ruwiki.
• WM UG Bashkortostan.
• WMRU and WM UG North Caucasus.
• WM UG Bashkortostan and WikiGrannies.
• WM UG North-West Historian and Russian Wikivoyage.
• Wikimedia Armenia.
• WM UG Erzya.

The participants of the meeting were not informed about the process that had begun, so I provided them with maximum information about the process.

The majority of those present agreed that an electoral system should be chosen where representatives of the affiliation can vote, as well as nominate their own candidates. The ranking system and confirmation of candidates according to their recognition are the best among the proposed.

They categorically against the quota, since according to their opinions, this is one of the bad system.

At the meeting they also spoke about the Universal Code of Conduct, it was noted that the Board of Trustees had already ratified it.

Agreed to discuss further issues at other meetings.

Meeting with the Turkic WikiCommunity

On February 13, a monthly meeting of representatives of the Turkic UG took place. At the meeting discussed the process call for feedback about Community Board seats.

Attendees

• 4 representatives from Turkey
• 1 representative from Iran
• 3 representatives from Bashkotorstan

At the meeting, those present were provided with a short story about the whole process, which actively began last year, and why this whole process is needed. Detailed information was provided on the changes made to the WMF bylaws and on the call for feedback process, which began on 1 February.

Discussed the proposals for future elections that were proposed by the Board, and also discussed the proposals made by representatives from the communities. Specific positions were not recorded for each proposal, but it was noted that communities, and more specifically regional and local affiliations, should be given the opportunity to represent and vote for candidates.

Everyone was called upon if they have a suggestion or any comments on this process, let them contact the regional facilitator.

Meeting with the Georgian WikiCommunity

The meeting with the Georgian community took place on February 26, Friday. The meeting was attended by 6 active community members. The community was provided with a historical background of the process, as well as the latest news from the call for feedback.

Together with the community, we reviewed each proposal to understand what the community thinks about each proposal.

• Ranked voting system: One participant commented that this system is not suitable for elections, as it can be manipulated and candidates with the best characteristics may be at a disadvantage.

• Quotas: Two participants liked the idea of quotas, but if it is based on quotas on a regional or linguistic basis. For their consideration, it is necessary to conduct quotas on a regional basis and each large region should get a seat (or seats) in the BoT on this basis (for example, CEE should get one seat in the Board). WMF can also introduce a quota for large language communities, so large language communities can choose their representative on the Board (for example, the Arab or Slavic community can choose their representative on the Board).

• Call for types of skills and experiences: This proposal was rejected as those present felt that in a diverse movement, like the Wikimedia movement, this form of election or selection of candidates is not the best and cannot be representative of the Wikimedia movement.

• Vetting of candidates: All participants in the discussion rejected this idea as a very subjective form of board elections.

• Board-delegated selection committee: The participants rejected this idea, as they think then this whole process doesn't make sense, since, in the end, the community loses the opportunity to be involved in the selection process of future members of BoT.

• Community-elected selection committee: The participants saw it as falling into communism when you choose someone and he decides instead of you something that you may not like.

• Election of confirmed candidates: One of the participants supported this idea as a status quo in comparison with other ideas.

• Direct appointment of confirmed candidates: All participants unanimously rejected this idea as not democratic not transparent. In addition, they added that the Board already has this ability to directly appoint members and it is impossible for all members to be appointed by the BoT.

• Regional seats: Three participants supported the idea as one of the best since it will give the regions an advantage to choose their candidates, who will subsequently represent their interests in the foundation BoT. But they also noted that first, it is necessary to clarify how the regions should be divided so that everything is representative.

• Specialization seats: The participants rejected this idea as it doesn't appear to be very representative of the entire community and the Wikimedia movement.

Participants stated that they will contact the facilitator team in case they have more ideas or thoughts on the process.

Meeting with WMRU

The meeting with the representative of Wikimedia Russia and the leader of the North Caucasian User Group took place on January 27, Saturday. Specifically discussed the entire feedback process, and discussed point by point each idea that was submitted to the community for consideration.

• Ranked voting system: For the WMRU representative, the principle of the system is clear and assessed as normal, but one can also criticize it for its shortcomings. He thinks it might be better to leave this system for the future.

• Quotas: He doesn’t like placing quotas on the board. He assesses this system as American and not the best in our situation.

• Vetting of candidates: He strongly dislikes this idea and rejected it.

• Board-delegated selection committee: He also doesn't like this idea, as it is not transparent.

• Community-elected selection committee: The idea is normal, but doesn't prefer to see it during the BoT elections.

• Election of confirmed candidates: This idea, as an already existing one, is the best and perhaps it is worth preserving the status quo.

• Direct appointment of confirmed candidates: Was rated as one of the worst ideas.

• Regional seats: Not a bad idea and it is possible to implement it, but we need to take into account the number of the population and size of wikiprojects by region. It might be difficult to take everything into account.

• Specialization seats: Doesn't see the point of this idea, it can also be included in the quotas if necessary.