Talk:Wikimedia Foundation/Board of Trustees/Call for feedback: Community Board seats/Election of confirmed candidates
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Qgil-WMF in topic What happens if not confirmed elected?
This page is for discussions related to the Wikimedia Foundation/Board of Trustees/Call for feedback: Community Board seats/Election of confirmed candidates page. Please remember to:
|  |
(S)elections should be entirely run by the community
In my opinion (s)elections for community- and affiliate seats of the Board of Trustees should be entirely organized, designed and run by the community, without involvement of the Board or staff of the WMF. The Wikimedia contributors are very well capable themselves to evaluate the candidates in an election, after the candidates have nominated themselves. The Board appoints the candidates selected by the community. Half of the board seats are appointed by the Board, and that is more than enough. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused.
This discussion option says "The Board has no intention to implement a new process for selecting community- and affiliate-selected trustees that does not involve community voting". However, there are several other options on the table that seem to do exactly that. Can someone clarify? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- @The Land That sentence means that the Board is not considering any combination of ideas that results in a process where there is no community voting at all. Possible scenarios contemplate a community vote of candidates, a community vote of the Selection Committee members, or both. Qgil-WMF (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Qgil-WMF I wonder if you see the parallel with Iranian elections, which also does not completely eliminate voting. Specifically, a council of Clerics creates a list of candidates approved to run for president then the people are permitted to vote for one of the approved candidates. My view is that (1) they should just approve a single candidate skipping the sham election, and (2) the people need to overthrow such a regime. Alsee (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Alsee A council of Wikimedia clerics, you mean? :) Comparisons with political elections are tempting, but probably misleading regardless of the regime. All countries filter candidates in ways hard to translate to our Board elections. Also, Board elections are not about choosing representatives in a chamber of factions. The board is a team and it is everyone's interest that performs well as a team. Board elections are about choosing team members. What about establishing comparisons with other organizations featuring an elected board? Qgil-WMF (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Qgil-WMF you may be amused, but your statement about countries filtering candidates is not remotely true. I reviewed candidate criteria for the US and various other (respectable) countries. Candidate requirements substantially amount to:
- Age.
- Eligible voter, or some residency/citizenship requirement we can consider comparable to "eligible voter".
- There may be requirements to get on the official ballot, however those criteria are generally trivial. This may involve a filing fee, collecting a certain number of signatures to establish credible candidacy, filling out routine paperwork. However in the US and some other countries such criteria are literally null, as candidates can run and win as write-in candidates without fulfilling these criteria.
- Various jurisdictions may have other assorted rare and generally trivial specifications, but none are common and none significantly preclude the general-voter population from candidacy.
- The elected term of the current board is ALREADY EXPIRED. They suspended elections on account of "COVID", with no credible reason why COVID would preclude online elections. They will lose any pretense of legitimacy if they attempt to institute Iranian-style sham elections. Alsee (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Alsee These "(respectable) countries" e.g. "liberal democracies" have several mechanisms to filter candidates that are more sophisticated than the applicable law alone. This is why there aren't many candidates being elected without being a member of a political party or a rich person or a media celebrity. This is also why I was saying that comparisons with other foundations might be better for discussion than comparison with political elections. But all this is beyond the point of this Talk page.
- If I am interpreting your words correctly, you don't want a situation where the Board or anyone directly appointed by them can arbitrarily decide who is eligible and who is not eligible to run for election. You want to stress the importance of elections as direct as possible, where candidates go through a simple screening of legal requirements and that's it. Correct? Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not just other foundations, that's a wrong description. Other huge grassroots movements would be appropriate. The Foundation is just a tool for the grassroots movement to organise better, the real thing is the grassroots movement, that's the one, that inherently has all the powers, the Foundation and the Board are just derivatives with absolutely no justification of existence on their own. So anything must be thought about better representation of the main thing here, the grassroots movements in the projects, the online communities, that's all there is. Everything else has to kowtow to this center of the Wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sänger Yes, I agree that comparisons with other hughe grassroots movements are just as relevant. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not just other foundations, that's a wrong description. Other huge grassroots movements would be appropriate. The Foundation is just a tool for the grassroots movement to organise better, the real thing is the grassroots movement, that's the one, that inherently has all the powers, the Foundation and the Board are just derivatives with absolutely no justification of existence on their own. So anything must be thought about better representation of the main thing here, the grassroots movements in the projects, the online communities, that's all there is. Everything else has to kowtow to this center of the Wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Qgil-WMF you may be amused, but your statement about countries filtering candidates is not remotely true. I reviewed candidate criteria for the US and various other (respectable) countries. Candidate requirements substantially amount to:
- @Alsee A council of Wikimedia clerics, you mean? :) Comparisons with political elections are tempting, but probably misleading regardless of the regime. All countries filter candidates in ways hard to translate to our Board elections. Also, Board elections are not about choosing representatives in a chamber of factions. The board is a team and it is everyone's interest that performs well as a team. Board elections are about choosing team members. What about establishing comparisons with other organizations featuring an elected board? Qgil-WMF (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Qgil-WMF I wonder if you see the parallel with Iranian elections, which also does not completely eliminate voting. Specifically, a council of Clerics creates a list of candidates approved to run for president then the people are permitted to vote for one of the approved candidates. My view is that (1) they should just approve a single candidate skipping the sham election, and (2) the people need to overthrow such a regime. Alsee (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's quite clear: we'll likely still be able to have some kind of vote, but our vote will only count when it just happens to coincide with voting for the people the board wants to be trustees. It's similar to how the feedback process works. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
What happens if not confirmed elected?
What happens if the Board suggests a candidate to the community and an Arnnon Geshuri case happens? That's a democratic disaster, right? Does the Board understand that after the first disaster they will have to change this system again? — NickK (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi NickK, I did a bit of homework since this happened before my time of getting really involved in the community. That sounds like that was a very tense situation! Do you think this might be something to cover in Vetting of candidates? Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JKoerner (WMF): The Arnnon Geshuri case shows how easily things can go wrong. He would have passed any reasonable profile-based vetting: he did have the necessary skills, and he was legally eligible for this position. However, he had also done something deeply unpopular with our volunteer community that does not make him directly ineligible but means that he could not get enough community support. This was basically the only case of election of confirmed candidates in our community, and it failed.
- This election system is based on the assumption that candidates selected by the Board will be confirmed. However, it is not unlikely that some candidates will not be confirmed. It is unclear what will happen in this case: second-choice candidate will be submitted for a new community vote? new call for candidates? seat remains vacant? As the proposal does not mention any 'plan B', I assume there is no plan B, which makes it a poor proposal — NickK (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I see. Thanks for your response. Those are important questions. I'll put those in the feedback. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @NickK If I understand correctly your comment, it is based on the idea that the Board would suggest community candidates. However, the Board is not considering such scenario.
- The problem you are presenting is related to the Vetting of candidates, I guess?
- Or maybe I am misunderstanding your comment. Arnnon Geshuri was a trustee directly appointed and here we are discussing processes for community-selected trustees. Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- NickK I note neither of the staff members answered your section-heading-question: What happens if not confirmed? Reviewing the proposals as a whole, it appears "Election of confirmed candidates" implies that unconfirmed candidates are banned from the ballot. And if the candidate you want to vote for is banned from the ballot, you are banned from voting unless you cast a puppet-vote for one of their selected candidates instead. I of course invite any staff to jump in here, if they would like to explain that we can vote for unconfirmed candidates and that unconfirmed candidates can win. In which case I'd also like an explanation of the purpose and functional difference between "confirmed" and "unconfirmed" candidates. Alsee (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @NickK @Alsee About the question "What happens if not confirmed?" meaning "What happens if a candidate is not confirmed in a community election... the answer is simple, and it has been clear in all previous Board elections: that candidate cannot run for election. "Confirmed candidates" here just means the candidates that pass the requirements to be eligible in a given election process. For instance, in the 2017 Board elections there were Prerequisites to candidacy. The same page explains: "Candidates who fail to comply with the above requirements and deadlines will be disqualified."
- Let me insist again: the contentious point that @NickK @Alsee @Sänger are referring to here is the vetting of candidates. What the three of you are saying or implying is that the community can vet community candidates better then the Board. Very well, point taken. If you want to discuss in more detail how the vetting process should or should not work, you are encouraged to do so in the discussion about Vetting of candidates. Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- All this talk about vetting is just a strawman, the only legitimate vetting is the pure and plain legalistic vettíng, done probably by legal, whether any objective legal, issues are prohibiting a candidate to be elected, anything else is up to the community to decide, nobody else. Thus this discussion ios obsolete.
- If there would be less appointed seats, and those special skills should be included in an election process as well, that's something else, but so far, with appointed seats for the missing special skills already there in huge quantities, thefre is no need for any further premature vetting process. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Qgil-WMF: No, that's not my point. I think the misunderstanding is coming from the double meaning of the word 'confirmed': while you think it means 'vetted', I wanted to mean 'elected'. I will paraphrase without using the word 'confirmed' (and have amended the heading)
- The major issue is the following. There was only one case in our movement when someone proposed the name of the trustee and then the community voted on this trustee, and it was Arnnon Geshuri. It was a major catastrophe, and the Board had no plan B when the community decided to reject Arnnon Geshuri.
- The problem with this proposal is that the procedure is extremely similar to that used for Arnnon Geshuri case. Some committee submits the list of vetted candidates. In case of Arnnon Geshuri it was the Board itself for an appointed seat, here it would be some mixed community/expert committee for one or more community seats. This process is based on the assumption that if this committee submits vetted candidates, they will be elected by the community. This process works well if the committee does a really good job and vets candidates that are overwhelmingly elected by the community. However, it can perfectly happen that this committee will do a bad job and vet a candidate with relevant skills but really unpopular with our online community and/or our affiliates.
- Thus to reword a question, what will happen if the committee vets candidates that end up not being elected? There is no scenario for this case — NickK (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @NickK Thank you for your clarification, I understand your point now. Given the ideas presented for discussion, I think there is only one combination where this situation could happen (if someone sees more combinations, please share them): a Community-elected Selection Committee entirely or nearly entirely community-run presents to the Board a list of candidates that have gone through a vetting process, for a direct appointment of confirmed candidates by the Board. In this scenario, one possible way to prevent surprises would be a community review period before the Board makes any decision. During this period anyone could present allegations about the eligibility of any of the candidates. If a lot of people think a candidate should not be eligible, a loud protest would be expected. This is just an idea I thought to answer your question, I'm sure there could be other ways. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Qgil-WMF: I am very sorry, but I am surprised that you need to look for a combination. My feedback concerns exactly the idea listed on this page: how does voting on confirmed candidates compares to direct appointment of confirmed candidates?. The scenario I am talking about is the one listed here, and it is pretty straightforward: the committee has already completed vetting, but instead of direct appointment of these vetted candidates the committee wants the community to support these candidates. Obviously the committee does not want the community to reject vetted candidates, but what happens if the community rejects them? — NickK (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- I will add one more comment and then I'll wait for others to chime in. Maybe I'm the only one who is not understanding.
- If "the community rejects" the candidates in a vote then the community won't vote the candidates they want to reject and the election will be a big fiasco. More realistically, if the list of candidates presented by the committee is so bad, it is quite certain that a big protest will arise as soon as the list of candidates is published, well before an actual vote starts. Qgil-WMF (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Qgil-WMF: I am very sorry, but I am surprised that you need to look for a combination. My feedback concerns exactly the idea listed on this page: how does voting on confirmed candidates compares to direct appointment of confirmed candidates?. The scenario I am talking about is the one listed here, and it is pretty straightforward: the committee has already completed vetting, but instead of direct appointment of these vetted candidates the committee wants the community to support these candidates. Obviously the committee does not want the community to reject vetted candidates, but what happens if the community rejects them? — NickK (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- @NickK Thank you for your clarification, I understand your point now. Given the ideas presented for discussion, I think there is only one combination where this situation could happen (if someone sees more combinations, please share them): a Community-elected Selection Committee entirely or nearly entirely community-run presents to the Board a list of candidates that have gone through a vetting process, for a direct appointment of confirmed candidates by the Board. In this scenario, one possible way to prevent surprises would be a community review period before the Board makes any decision. During this period anyone could present allegations about the eligibility of any of the candidates. If a lot of people think a candidate should not be eligible, a loud protest would be expected. This is just an idea I thought to answer your question, I'm sure there could be other ways. Qgil-WMF (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Arnnon Geshuri is an example, that the board is not able to properly vet candidates, the community on the other hand well. So the community has proven to be better at vetting of candidates then those, who try to erect hurdles here. The only completely valid members of the board are those, that were elected by the supreme entity in the Wikiverse, the online communities. Everybody else has far less legitimity and validity, and thus less rights to decide anything. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Also Confused.
Would supporting this be supporting some sort of system where the Board picks the candidates they want to be elected, and... something that might mimic the look of voting, but doesn't have the ability to accomplish the community's goals.
Generally, the more complicated a process like this, the more the opportunity for grift and unfairness arises. If the system isn't veryt obviously fair, than it's reasonable to assume that it's not.
This proposal should be withdrawn from consideration until it can be replaced by one that is clearly worded. I suspect that proposal would also be rejected, but at least it would be rejected on its own merits. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 23:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- TomDotGov the proposals here are is as bad as you suspect. They want to prohibit/nullify/ignore our votes, either before or after a sham election. I'm not sure whether the various options here are intended to confuse/distract/trick us, or whether they somehow genuinely believe it is a more open and fair and inclusive process to tell us they want to shoot us and give us a choice between being shot in the arm or the leg. Alsee (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TomDotGov and Alsee, Ow. This sounds like you are having a lot of frustration. I am sorry to hear this. What makes you think these ideas are intended to confuse/distract/trick you? Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JKoerner (WMF): There isn't an actual proposal here. The first paragraph is a preamble. The second paragraph invites us to compare two things, one of which is linked and defined, and the other is not. The second paragraph is asking the community for feedback on a proposal, but the proposal itself is not present.
- An important thing about elections is that everyone that looks at the procedure should be able to see the procedure, and say "that's obviously fair". Given that there is no actual proposal here, it fails that test. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TomDotGov, I think I know where the frustration is. This "idea" is just a place to discuss the status quo as in this is a page to discuss why the status quo of Board elections ("direct elections") is good. Or what is good in it and should be preserved and what is not so good and could be changed. It is not a new idea itself.
- Hi TomDotGov and Alsee, Ow. This sounds like you are having a lot of frustration. I am sorry to hear this. What makes you think these ideas are intended to confuse/distract/trick you? Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- For some context, other Calls for Feedback have been criticized because there was no clear spot to discuss the current process. Let me see if there is a way I can make that more clear within my capabilities as a facilitator. :) Does this help clear some of the confusion and frustration? Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- @JKoerner (WMF):I don't think that's correct. This is comparing "voting on confirmed candidates" (a new thing, that has not been defined) vs "direct appointment of confirmed candidates" (another new thing, with its own page). I don't see the status quo here, but something that seems like it might be misrepresenting the status quo.
- Can you clarify where this "idea" originated, please? Was it with the Board Committee or the Staff? TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 20:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TomDotGov, This isn't a new idea. It's like I said, this "idea" is just a place to discuss the status quo as in this is a page to discuss why the status quo of Board elections ("direct elections") is good. Or what is good in it and should be preserved and what is not so good and could be changed. It is not a new idea itself. Maybe the wording is confusing on the main page. Let me see if I can get some clarification on the wording on this. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- The status quo isn't "voting on confirmed candidates", though. It is direct elections, which we should probably keep, but those aren't the same thing.
- As I said above, I think this should be withdrawn and replaced with a clearer version. I don't think it makes sense to try to edit the main page, as now you'd be mixing feedback on two versions, which is a recipe for a confusing final report.
- The impetus for this page came from somewhere. Since it's listed under "Board ideas" in the navigation, is it fair to say that this is the work of the Board Governance Committee? TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 21:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- In the case that this is just some sort of miscommunication about what "confirmed candidates" are, is there a place where the three current board members that had been community elected before becoming appointed members were confirmed as candidates? It may be that "confirmed" is some sort of shorthand for the work of the election committee, in which case it needs to be clarified. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 21:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- TomDotGov reviewing all of the items as a whole, I think it is clear that "Election of confirmed candidates" implies unconfirmed candidates are banned from the ballot. In other words Iranian style elections. They come up with a list of who they chose to fill the position(s), and to preserve the fiction of an election they try to keep that list longer than the number of positions to fill. If they don't like who you want to vote for, you either play along as a puppet and hand them a vote for one of their candidates, or they ban from voting at all. Alsee (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Alsee (talk · contribs) You might be right. JKoerner might be right. I think the big problem here is that again, this page doesn't actually say any of this - and since there's a disagreement on what it means, it needs to be withdrawn and replaced with a new page or pages that can provide actual feedback to the report.
- I think there does need to be a "no major changes" option, but if we can't agree on if this is "no major changes" or "ayatollah", this page isn't clearly written enough to be useful. And to just circle back to JKoerner's questions, when elections are unclear, opportunities for unfairness arrive, and legitimacy tanks.
- I can't wait to see this discussion on the weekly reports. TomDotGov (talk) (hold the election) 14:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- TomDotGov reviewing all of the items as a whole, I think it is clear that "Election of confirmed candidates" implies unconfirmed candidates are banned from the ballot. In other words Iranian style elections. They come up with a list of who they chose to fill the position(s), and to preserve the fiction of an election they try to keep that list longer than the number of positions to fill. If they don't like who you want to vote for, you either play along as a puppet and hand them a vote for one of their candidates, or they ban from voting at all. Alsee (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TomDotGov, This isn't a new idea. It's like I said, this "idea" is just a place to discuss the status quo as in this is a page to discuss why the status quo of Board elections ("direct elections") is good. Or what is good in it and should be preserved and what is not so good and could be changed. It is not a new idea itself. Maybe the wording is confusing on the main page. Let me see if I can get some clarification on the wording on this. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- For some context, other Calls for Feedback have been criticized because there was no clear spot to discuss the current process. Let me see if there is a way I can make that more clear within my capabilities as a facilitator. :) Does this help clear some of the confusion and frustration? Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Confirmation criteria
Candidates should only be confirmed for Fiduciary duties of care & good faith, loyalty, and obedience to the mission, other legal vetting, and eligible to vote. Cooking up a committee to prohibit the community from voting for otherwise eligible candidates is not acceptable. Alsee (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Collected Feedback about Election of confirmed candidates from the first weekly report
The facilitation team was thinking it might be helpful to share the feedback pertaining to each idea on each idea's talk page. Here is the feedback from the first weekly report covering February 1 - 7 of the Call for Feedback. The facilitation team has revised the reporting procedure for weekly reports after feedback received from the community regarding the weekly reports. This is visible on the second weekly report.
- Selection and election should be run by the Election committee and ASBS facilitators
- What happens if the Board suggests a candidate who the community finds is unfit to serve on the Board?
Please reach out with questions or comments. Kindly, --Mehman (WMF) (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Collected Feedback about Election of confirmed candidates from the second weekly report
The facilitation team was thinking it might be helpful to share the feedback pertaining to each idea on each idea's talk page. Here is the feedback from the second weekly report covering February 8 - 14 of the Call for Feedback. The facilitation team has revised the reporting procedure for weekly reports after feedback received from the community regarding the weekly reports. This is visible on the second weekly report.
- One person posed some questions prompted by previous situations (Arnon Geshuri)
- It is unclear what will happen if a candidate is not confirmed.
- Will a second-choice candidate be submitted for a new community vote?
- Will there be a new call for candidates?
- Will the seat remain vacant?
- One person said this does not have the ability to accomplish the community’s goals and should be withdrawn and reworded to be more clear.
- One person suggested a parallel with Iranian elections and suggested the people should overthrow such a regime.
- Three people from Indonesia do not recommend Election of confirmed candidates.
- Three people from Open Foundation West Africa group meeting were in support of the election of confirmed candidates.
Please reach out with questions or comments. Kindly, --Mehman (WMF) (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Collected Feedback about Election of confirmed candidates from the third weekly report
The facilitation team was thinking it might be helpful to share the feedback pertaining to each idea on each idea's talk page. Here is the feedback from the third weekly report covering February 15 - 24 of the Call for Feedback.
- Claudia Garad, Executive Director of Wikimedia Österreich, says enforcing skills and diversity should not lead to a loss of involvement of the community in selection processes. To her knowledge this view was shared by a vast majority of the "Roles & Responsibilities" working group and is shared by the members of Wikimedia Austria too. Claudia would welcome any combination of ideas preserving the direct involvement of the communities in the selection process with a process ensuring skills and diversity.
- Astrid Carlsen, Executive Director of Wikimedia Norge, said, community involvement is important due to shared ownership in the movement. Jon Harald Soby added that a lot of work within the movement is done by volunteers, so they should be a major part of the selection process, as decisions influence their work a lot.
- One person mentioned concerns of being tricked by these ideas.
Please reach out with questions or comments. Kindly, --Mehman (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)