Mesa Directiva de la Fundación Wikimedia/Pensando sobre la composición de la Mesa Directiva

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of the page Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees/Thinking about the WMF Board composition and the translation is 42% complete.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Other languages:
Deutsch • ‎English • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎português do Brasil • ‎עברית • ‎日本語

Actualmente, la Mesa Directiva está finalizando la búsqueda de un nuevo miembro por nombramiento para fines de 2015. En nuestro encuentro en noviembre de 2014, discutimos la composición del Board y su (s)elección. Hablamos sobre posibles formas de obtener un grupo más numeroso de candidatos. Los dos diferentes procesos de nuestra comunidad seleccionan sus candidatos de grupos similares y nuestras búsquedas para el nombramiento de miembros han identificado pocas personas fuera de Estados Unidos y Europa.

Durante nuestra última reunión en febrero de 2015 comenzamos a pensar sobre formas de mejorar y quisiérmos escuchar tus aportaciones e ideas antes de discutir cambios concretos a los estatutos.

Esta discusión no afectará la próxima elección de la comunidad de 3 miembros del Board.

Qué queremos alcanzar

  1. Un proceso continuo de búsqueda de miembros potenciales para la Mesa Directiva.
  2. Diversidad (género, geografía, experiencia, antecedentes, diferentes experiencias Wikimedia)
  3. Encontrar talento dentro y fuera de nuestras comunidades
  4. Proveer de experiencia en governanza y entrenamiento a candidatos potenciales en nuestro movimiento
  5. Providing lower overhead ways to contribute to WMF governance and advise strategic decisions
  6. Limitar burocracia y/o implicación del staff.
  7. Una composión flexible de la Mesa Directiva, opr ejemplo, permitir 1 o 2 miembros extras en algunos años

What it could look like

  1. More flexibility in the number of Board members
    Instead of having an absolute, non-variable number of Board members (currently 3 elected, 2 affiliate selected, 4 appointed, 1 founder), we could change to a more flexible model. For example, we could allow a minimum and a maximum of community-based and external seats, permitting us to add additional seats proportionately depending on the present needs of the Board.
  2. A standing pool of nominees
    To increase diversity of candidates we could start moving towards input from a nominating committee or more active self nominations to create a pool of qualified candidates. This pool could be the base for a selection by the Board or a mixture of selection by the Board and election by the community.
  3. Merge community and affiliation seats
    Chapters, thematic organizations and user groups are part of the community. While chapters and thematic organizations have an exclusive right to select 2 members of the Board, they can also participate in the community selection of another 3 members. To level this artificial separation it could be helpful to combine both processes.

What we are asking for

Since the board is deeply linked to the community and partly is its emanation, we are now looking for your input and ideas on new options for all seats, simpler structure, and flexible size. Please comment on the above ideas or propose additional thoughts on the talk page.

Next steps

The Board will continue the discussion in their next Board meetings. Any changes will affect the bylaws, and there will be a 2 weeks consultation about the proposed changes before the Board votes on a resolution.

Update May 2015

The Board started to think about its composition in spring 2015 because we wanted to create certainty about changes to known processes sufficiently in advance of any elections/selections. We realized that we need more time and input and we are still figuring out how we can improve the diversity and experience we are looking for and how we can benefit most from our community and its expertise. There won't be changes to the current model immediately.