Совет Попечителей Фонда Викимедиа/Призыв для отзывов: места в Совете для Сообществ/Проверка кандидатов

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Outdated translations are marked like this.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

Необходим процесс обеспечения того, чтобы кандидаты были квалифицированными и способными быть членами Совета Попечителей. Это совпадает с призывом к различным видам навыков и опыта и с идеей квот. Это также требуется в рамках юридических и фидуциарных обязательств Совета. Из-за этих обязательств Совет не может полностью делегировать эту ответственность.

Каков наилучший путь в процессе отбора попечителей для того, чтобы Совет осуществлял свою ответственность по проверке кандидатов в попечителей?

Резюме от текущих отзывах

Группа фасилитаторов обновляет этот раздел информацией из отчетов.

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

(Пока ничего нет)

Vetting of candidates received little feedback compared to other ideas. Although vetting was understood as required, its extent was debated. Many participants say that vetting of community candidates is not a Board task but a community task. In general these participants believe that the vetting should be minimal. Some participants prefer a strong vetting process to ensure that eligible candidates are fit for the Board. Several participants said that a stronger vetting process may introduce cultural bias and reinforce privileges for wealthy people especially in emerging Wikimedia communities.

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.