Junta directiva de la Fundación Wikimedia/Convocatoria para recibir comentarios: puestos en la junta directiva /Revisión de candidatos

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Outdated translations are marked like this.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

Se necesita un proceso para garantizar que los candidatos estén calificados y sean capaces de ser miembros de la junta directiva. Esto se superpone con el Llamado dependiendo del tipo de habilidad y experiencia y con la idea de las cuotas. También se requiere como parte de las obligaciones legales y fiduciarias de la junta. Debido a esas obligaciones, la junta no puede delegar plenamente esta responsabilidad.

¿Cuál es la mejor etapa en el proceso de selección de miembros para que la junta ejerza su responsabilidad de examinar a los candidatos?

Resumen de comentarios en curso

El equipo de facilitación mantiene esta sección sincronizada con el reporte principal.

Los comentarios sobre esta idea dependen en gran medida de los comentarios sobre él llamado dependiendo del tipo de habilidad y experiencia. En esta sección cubrimos los comentarios relacionados exclusivamente con los posibles procesos de selección.

Sentimiento: demasiado pronto para saberlo

Positives

  • Some suggested a stronger vetting process comparable to a job application, reasoning that the role of trustee is a big responsibility.
  • A person attending an office hour shared an example of a board assessment and self-assessment form to determine skills possessed and skills needed on non-profit boards. She suggested its use as a way to vet or at least better assess candidates.

Negatives

  • Many people say that the Board should only do legal checks to candidates to confirm them.
  • Some say that it is the responsibility of the community to make sure that community candidates are qualified. They say if any additional vetting exists at all, it should be done by volunteers, not by the Board.
  • Among people who expressed their belief that the Board should not do a wider vetting of candidates, a few mentioned the case of the appointed trustee Arnnon Geshuri, who stepped down shortly after his announcement in 2016 after a community protest.

Other considerations

  • Frequently it was mentioned that any vetting should happen before the election/process starts to all candidates, not at the end to the winning candidates.
  • The ED of a European affiliate said that a vetting process might suffer from cultural and language bias, and its design should be considered carefully.
  • A former trustee said that potential candidates might be deterred by a vetting process requiring candidates to publish an assessment of their skills or other personal information.
  • Another former trustee stated that vetting based on skills might reduce diversity of candidates, creating a system that favors wealthier people, especially in countries where only a minority has access to the types of education required.