Talk:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2016/Nominations/Jan Ainali

Company board

Interesting. Which company and what sort of board, exactly? Not the holding w:BAE Systems AB but BAE Systems Bofors AB, right? Is [1] correct and can I find more information on the functioning of the body? Nemo 09:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The latter (and correct link). It was the main Board of Trustees and this article contains information on the functioning of the body: w:sv:Aktiebolag_i_Sverige#Styrelse. Ainali (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Question on turnout in this selection process

In reply to this:Ainali Do what you like, and do not do anything you think that is inappropriate. For my own part, I am asking candidates to encourage all chapters to vote. I am not sure how this is supposed to happen, but I want for all chapters to vote and I feel that candidates who would be elected to represent all chapters ought to encourage them somehow. I want 100% voting participation. Please help if you think of a way to do this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, Bluerasberry — the two individuals selected by the chapters do not represent the chapters. They're selected by them, but their job is exactly the same as that of every other Board member. They are not on the board to represent the interests or perspective of chapters. They're there to look out for the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation, and through that the Wikimedia movement. (See the mission statement for the exact wording of the WMF's purpose.) Chapters, thematic organizations, and other movement groups are only one small part of the big picture - less than 10% of active Wikimedians are chapter/THORG members. Risker (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Risker Acknowledged. I do not immediately agree but I will talk with others and think about what you are saying. I wish to avoid discussing this here. For now I wish to keep my statement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Acknowledging your reluctance to discuss it further, it must be stated that this is not a matter of opinion. The affiliate-selected (in fact, technically recommended, just like the "community-elected" ones) board members are not charged with or expected to "represent all chapters" (or any chapters). The rationale for allowing affiliates to select two members is that their different perspectives may well result in selecting appropriately and usefully diverse board members, who once selected would share precisely the same duties and expectations of all other board members, viz. to serve as trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation. I note this not to goad a further response from you, but for the benefit of anyone reading this who may be misled by your comment into believing this is a matter of opinion. Ijon (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Answer to Maarten about meeting minutes

@MADe: Regarding your question to me, I did not mean it was ideal, it was to comment that in my experience you seldom see that detailed minutes from board meetings in other organizations. I am sorry I was not clear enough. Ainali (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions to be addressed

Hi, I've been reading through the answers to the questions that have been posed by the community, and I note that there are several long-standing questions that you have not yet responded to, including my own question on the openness of board proceedings. Knowing where the candidates stand on a variety of issues is important when deciding who to vote for, and if you have not done so recently it would be worth reviewing the questions that still remain to be answered. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What to do in these cases?

Hi dear Jan Ainali, Talk:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2016/Nominations/Susanna Mkrtchyan#Questions from 6AND5/2, Requests for comment/Indefinite block the user:6AND5 in the armenian Wikipedia ?--6AND5 (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Lodewijk. Ainali (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)