Consiglio di fondazione di Wikimedia Foundation/Richiesta di feedback: seggi del Consiglio di comunità/Seggi di specializzazione
| Richiesta di feedback: seggi del Consiglio di comunità |
|---|
| Pagina principale |
| Come partecipare |
| Idee del Consiglio |
| Idee comunitarie |
| Conversazioni |
| Rapporti |
| Sequenza temporale |
- Questa idea è stata suggerita da Houcemeddine Turki durante la Call for feedback sui seggi del Community Board. Se desideri suggerire altre idee, condividile nella pagina di discussione principale di Call for feedback.
Per migliorare le competenze del Consiglio di fondazione, dobbiamo coinvolgere le persone che hanno le competenze necessarie per il Consiglio. Queste competenze possono spaziare dall'amministrazione aziendale e dal diritto all'informatica e alla linguistica.
Questa idea propone l'uso di tre seggi selezionati dalla comunità e dagli affiliati per gli amministratori con competenze specialistiche. Dovrebbe essere proposto un elenco esaustivo di queste abilità. Questa proposta si ispira ai seggi regionali, ma considera la competenza sul campo una delle principali lacune da affrontare. Questa proposta non avalla l'idea di quote di portata ampia e poco chiara.
Questi posti potrebbero essere dedicati a capacità in scienze economiche, informatica e scienze umane. Potrebbero essere ampliati per includere tutte le varietà di conoscenze come Biblioteca e Scienza dell'informazione, che sono sottorappresentate nel Consiglio di fondazione e tra i dipendenti della Fondazione nonostante abbiano un ufficio GLAM.
Lo scopo della creazione di tali postazioni è quello di scegliere persone esperte che abbiano una significativa esperienza wiki (ad esempio membri di affiliati specializzati come Wikimedia Medicine o membri di team WMF come Technology Department) invece di nominare capacità esterne alla Wikimedia Community.
Riepilogo del feedback in corso
Il team di facilitazione aggiorna questa sezione con le informazioni da reports.
The feedback was mixed. Some people felt specialized seats would be too complicated to implement or not important enough to the Board’s success. Others felt each trustee has an important role to play and this idea could help solve the Board's capacity problem. People who liked the idea suggested some specialized seats, frequently mentioning technical and GLAM specialized seats.
Some specialized seats that were suggested are:
- GLAM
- Linguist
- Technical
- Economist
- American lawyer
- Digital freedom defender
Positives:
- Some see Specialization Seats as directly connecting with regional knowledge (see: Regional Seats). Some panelists said during the “Regional Seats” session that the Board needs people who understand the context and understand the community and people coming from specific regions will bring new, diverse perspectives to the Board.
- A participant from the Noircir Wikipedia group suggested that the specialization should be based on the knowledge of the candidate of a specific region or community. For example, a candidate who has the best understanding of the African community and its needs.
- One person from Malaysia said that a Trustee that specializes in helping small communities is necessary for mentoring and growth so they can be as strong as other communities. One person from the Philippines said specialized seats are necessary because some smaller communities do not have the membership to have a specialized expert.
- It was suggested during the “Skills for board work” topic panel session that the community can vote and endorse skills they see as important, somewhat like the Community Wishlist.
Negatives:
- At the German Wiki Women conversation one person said diversity was more important than broad and vaguely-defined skills.
- One person on Meta-Wiki said appointed seats should be used to fill skill needs. They were concerned that specialization seats might reduce the pool of candidates.
- One person in a French-speaking African meeting said an advisory committee could be filled with experts instead.
- One person felt this could lead to inclusion of popular skills and ultimately lead to more ignorance of less popular skills.
- One person on Meta-Wiki said skills have been overemphasized and the Board should be a generalist body. Not having specifically requested skills has also been said to be a good thing because an outside perspective can be helpful to identify missed items.
Other considerations
- Some Wikidata volunteers felt it is tricky to evaluate a specialisation and how someone can be considered an expert in a field. They said that, while it is possible, it would be more of a job selection process rather than a board election process for community seats.
- One person in the Spanish Telegram chat said this idea would only work if training is provided, since access to education is different globally. Another person said this proposal would be less inclusive if training is absent.