Talk:Affiliate-selected Board seats

For discussion regarding the process for 2008, 2010, and 2012, see Talk:Chapter-selected Board seats. For discussion regarding the 2014 process, see Talk:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2014 Archive and Talk:Chapter-selected Board seats/2014 resolution.

Request for Comments regarding 2016 process

I would like to request comments on the 2016 Affiliate Selected Board Seat process, which will need to get underway in a few months. Reviewing the discussions about the 2014 process I think the system we have as set out in the 2014 resolution is basically sound but there are a few things that we need to return to. Please comment away. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Required changes

The existing resolution specifies that the process will happen in even-numbered years. This now conflicts with the Board by-laws which say Board members serve for 3-year terms. We need to update the process to reflect this change to the WMF by-laws.

For discussion

There are a number of issues raised during the last ASBS process which deserve thinking about again: Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Should votes be made public?

This issue was raised a number of times in 2014. One might argue that movement affiliates ought to be accountable to their memberships and the broader community about the way they conduct themselves in this selection, and so their votes should be public. However, there are counter-arguments that should also be considered. For instance, you could argue that private discussion, debate and voting is less likely to result in "playing to the gallery", and give a more thoughtful result. And you could argue that, since all Board members perform their duties in exactly the same way, it might be unhelpful to publish the votes. For instance, if a Board member was elected after receiving only 2 or 3 first preference, would that make it difficult for that Board member to do their job effectively? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

In the past, there have been some chapters were having binding votes of their members (whatever the members decide, by whatever voting process used, becomes that chapter's official vote); some were having consultations with their members and publishing then the the board members voting publicly; some chapters were having a private deliberation inside their board and only publishing their final choice; or not posting the chapter's final selection publicly at all - only placing it on the private ChaptersWiki. Each has it's advantage but it felt unfair for the different chapters to be doing different processes ESPECIALLY when they're doing it at different times so they influence each other. Wittylama (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable that at a minimum, final vote tallies should be released following the conclusion of the process. As a rank and file member of an affiliate, I would also certainly want to know who that affiliate voted for, in order to keep them to account, but I think that's a matter for individual affiliates rather than for the election process itself. Craig Franklin (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC).

It would be helpful to see which affiliates participate in the selection and how they made their decision (binding votes of members, vote within the respective board, ...). Alice Wiegand (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So that would suggest that a list of affiliates who voted would be made public, but not who voted for whom. we could also invite them to make a statement about how they arrived at their conclusion, though I'm note sure we could force people to tell us (also I suspect some answers would be very long and some very short). Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is fine to display a list of affiliates that voted. I would encourage, but not require, affiliates to disclose how they arrived at their votes, such as by saying that their board voted or that their members voted and whether there were public or private deliberations. The choices of how affiliates arrive at their votes, and whether affiliates publicize who they voted for, should be left up to the affiliates' internal procedures. --Pine^✉ 07:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I would not see an issue with final overall tallies. We do that for the community elections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Should the requirement for candidates to be nominated by an affiliate be removed?

This requirement may have reduced the number of candidates last time. Phoebe observed: "It seems like requiring an endorsement might discourage candidates who have reputations built on individual volunteer, international or cross-group work, rather than having a clear affiliation with a single community." Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth (although this doesn't directly relate to your question)... one of the reasons for the existence of affilate-seleted process is to help identify good candidates who would either not win a popular-election or wouldn't want to stand for one; and also to help maintain diversity on the board relative to who was elected by the community at large. This can include people with different perspectives on key issues facing the movement, demographic criteria (however you want to define that); and people who the affiliates might know who are outside the movement. I think this is generally pointing towards favouring a 'non-public' process, rather like the appointed seats on the board. However, on the flip side, a completely closed process could easily descend into horsetrading between voting blocs between chapters to elect 'their' continent's candidate. So, that would be generally pointing towards an 'open' system of nominations and votes. No conclusion drawn, just a comment of something to be aware of. Wittylama (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

In ASBS the "A" should indicate who identify the candidates, not only the voters. --Frieda (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I see endorsements as a way of simplifying the vote (by narrowing the list to only people who have a real support), without harming the result. If no affiliate endorses you, it's highly unlikely that you will be elected; and, if your are a good candidate, getting an endorsement should be simple. Four years ago I remember we wasted a lot of discussion time on candidates that clearly had no support; that's not a good use of time. The only doubt I have is that we may risk the perception (from the outside) that "X is the candidate of affiliate Y", which is not the case. - Laurentius (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that friendly affiliates can be found (there are dozens now), that should be able to support the nomination of any serious candidate. Certainly this is what I would advocate for our chapter, and it's what we've tried to do in the past. The more reasonable candidates participating, the better.--Pharos (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Pharos. I would also emphasize Laurentius' point that just because an affiliate nominated someone, doesn't imply that the affiliate will necessarily vote for him or her once all of the nominations have been received and evaluated. --Pine^✉ 07:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Should there be an in-person hustings, or some other kind of hustings, or no hustings at all?

While not specified in the election rules, 2014 saw an in-person hustings meeting at the Wikimedia Conference, with candidates not present invited to address the hustings via Skype. The intention was essentially to give all candidates (including those not present at the WMCon) an even chance to address prospective voters. In the end there were a number of technical and logistical challenges that meant this didn't go brilliantly. Should the idea of a hustings continue, and if so in what form? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just as a short (more logistical) comment as the Program and Engagement Coordinator for the Wikimedia Conference 2016: As we have written on our page for the program design process, we will reserve time and space for wildcard topics. So a time slot for “in-person hustings” at the conference could be made available on request. If you decide to organize such a session at the Wikimedia Conference (April 22-24, 2016), it would be the duty of the election committee to ensure a goal-oriented, productive session as well as the availability of the candidates. Please email me if you have more details or plans regarding that. Best regards, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to keep all hustings/Q&A's on wiki pages? Doing them in-person might bias towards those that are present at the meeting, and against those participating through skype (particularly if there are technical problems). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Peel:, I'm just highlighting the possibility, as it was a topic at the Wikimedia Conference in 2014. Best regards, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE): I was making a general point, not replying to you specifically. :-) Maybe we should use bullet points rather than indents here... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest that there be a slot on the Wikimedia Conference schedule for those attending who are not running for a board position to discuss the candidates. This way there is an opportunity for affiliates to discuss the situation without placing undue hardships on those who can't be present in person and/or virtually. A part of this is that all candidates could be given the opportunity to provide a published 3-minute speech on Commons and/or a 500-word written statement ahead of time that can be viewed during the discussion. --Pine^✉ 07:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Since not every candidate might be able or eligible to attend the meeting in Berlin, the time zone issue and all the technical challenges (although it was fun to see Patricio levitating huge as a god above Frieda and me), I would recommend to abstain from repeating a husting as it was realized last year. To be as fair to candidates as to the voters, you should look out for different formats which allow all candidates to join, be it on-wiki, in a video or something else. Alice Wiegand (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keeping as much as possible on Wiki IMO is best as it increases general overall transparency. I like the idea of 300 or 500 word statements from each candidate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Should votes need to be confidential during the elections?

Right now, each chapter vote on Wiki, and can see others votes as well. This can lead to a tendency of voting, as people want to vote as the majority voted. I'll advise the votes to be collect confidentially (should we publish them publicly after or not, this is been offered on the 1st topic) --Itzike (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm - good question. If we wanted to do this we'd have to think about what mechanism could be used to reliably cast confidential votes. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If we want to do this, the simplest way is to send votes privately to the facilitators, and publish them on chapters wiki at the end. In this way during the election votes are private, and after they can be easily checked. - Laurentius (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This idea doesn't make sense to me, surely the affiliates want to be in communication with each other and come to as consensus a selection as possible.--Pharos (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Could we use Securepoll? --Pine^✉ 07:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We could (but we would need to select one representative for each organization beforehand - and I'm sure there would be some organization that will forget that), but probably we have easier solutions. - Laurentius (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite - SecurePoll is probably over-specified for this situation, even if we could set it to only count votes from certain specified accounts notified to us in advance. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Dumb question

Probably a super dumb question but (a) what does the Board do and (b) what are the requirements to be on the Board? Are there specific meetings that need to be attended, in person, remotely, etc.? More info please -- or a link maybe. -- BrillLyle (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a board member is expected to attend to a few meeting, both in person (I'm not sure how many, at least two) and remote, and a lot more things. The most complete page on this is probably the Wikimedia Foundation Board Handbook (you can also find old discussion on this subject at What makes a good Trustee? and Traits of a great WMF Trustee) - Laurentius (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Currently we hold two in person meeting in San Francisco, one during Wikimania and most of us participate in the Wikimedia Conference. Besides we've a 1,5h online meeting each month, sometimes we add other online meetings for specific purposes.

--Frieda (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Role of User Groups

Compared to last time there are many more Wikimedia User Groups. Currently the WMF Board resolution about the affiliate-selected seats specifies that only Chapters and Thematic Organisations have votes. I assume that this is a conscious choice (and if it isn't that the WMF board will update their rules in time to take effect for this process!) However, what steps can (or should) we take to engage User Groups with this process? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent question. What roles should user groups have in selecting board members? Would love to hear peoples opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

OK then! To offer my own views: User Groups should be formally invited to participate in the discussion of candidates (both on Meta and in whatever discussion ends up happening at the Wikimedia conference) and chapters/thorgs should be asked to bear UGs' thoughts in mind when deciding their votes. It would be possible to go further and offer UGs the vote as well (or a subset of them, e.g. those active enough to meet the eligibility criteria for the Wikimedia Conference, and I know a number would cast votes given the ability to do so, but I suspect many wouldn't (equally the chapters that don't currently vote are probably the ones that if formed today wouldn't move past UG status). I think that given the ease of approval for User Groups, there is a slight hazard of plural voting - if I am hypothetically candidate A's biggest fan and happen to be on a Chapter board and heavily involved in 3 User Groups then I could personally end up having a lot of influence on 4 different votes. So on balance I think encouraging UGs to participate but not actually voting is probably sensible. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The other side of things is that most chapters are in the developed world while those in the developing world usually have user groups if any organization and thus end up with less say. We could also look at user groups getting a fixed number of votes. It could be 80% of vote weight from chapters 20% of vote weight from user groups or some such split. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

To a point, yes - though adding a diverse class of voters with low participation needn't improve diversity. If there was high participation from UGs in Europe and North America (or from non-geographic UGs that are largely composed of people from Europe and North America), and there was low participation from African, Asian and South American geographic UGs then geographical diversity might actually go down. (I'm not sure this would happen but it's not a ludicrous scenario: I just did a rough count and thought 60% of UGs are geographically located outside of the USA, Canada and the better-developed parts of Europe. It doesn't take much differential turnout for that 3:2 ratio to be eroded...) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

After the discussion

From the above discussion, there seems to be support for one change in the procedure:

• publishing, after the end of the election, the list of affiliates who voted (note that vote counts were already published last time).

There are also mixed opinions on one question:

• should we have in-person hustings?

There seems not to be support for other changes in the procedure. The current resolution does not say anything about publishing the list of voters, so, as long as we agree on this, there is no need for a vote to have this change.

In addition to that, board members terms are now three years long, but this is a technical change and it's not up to the affiliates to decide on that, so there is nothing to vote on and we can directly edit the resolution text.

Having a shorter timeline, as proposed by Chris, would probably be an improvement, but we have enough time also

The proposal therefore is:

• to make the necessary changes in the resolution to account for three-years terms;
• to publish the final list of affiliates who voted;
• to keep the timings set in the current resolution;
• not to have a vote on a resolution amendment, since it's not needed;
• to evaluate later whether there should be in-person hustings or not;
• in the other respects, to stick to the same procedure we had in 2014.

- Laurentius (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Provisional timeline

Because Wikimania is very early this year, we will also need to bring forward many of the dates involved in the process. I tentatively suggest the following timeline:

Dec 30th 2015 - Deadline for comments

If need be, first week of January for a straw poll of affiliates if necessary on any outstanding issue

By end of January, adoption of revised resolution and selection of election facilitators

Sat 13 Feb 2016 - Opening of Nominations

Sat 19 Mar 2016 - Closing of Nominations

Sun 3 April 2016 - Opening of Voting

If need be, possible discussion/presentation April 22-24 at Wikimedia Conference

Sat 7th May - Voting period ends. Announcement of result could be more or less immediate unless there is some issue that holds things up.

This would require us to amend the resolution to reduce the voting period from the current 45 days. However we would still have over a month for affiliates to cast their votes. It would be difficult for the process to conclude any later as we are only giving the successful candidates 6 weeks' notice that they need to attend the Board meeting at Wikimania. Do let me know what you think. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Without amending the resolution, and keeping the same end date, we can have a timeline like this:

By 17 Jan 2016, process definition and facilitators selection

7 Feb 2016 - Opening of Nominations

9 Mar 2016 - Closing of Nominations

24 Mar 2016 - Opening of Voting

If need be, possible discussion/presentation April 22-24 at Wikimedia Conference

Sat 7th May - Voting period ends. Announcement of result could be more or less immediate unless there is some issue that holds things up.

- Laurentius (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the discussion that's happened and the fact that there are no burning issues to settle about the process - and that there are some other important movement governance issues currently --- I prefer Laurentius's timeline to my original one. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Land and Laurentius: I propose that nominations not be closed until the end of the election. It might happen that someone has a good nomination idea during the Wikimedia Conference, or that when voting starts, more people participate in the election process and another candidate is identified.

Unless there is a pressing reason to close nominations, I say leave it open until the end of the election. Right now there are only 41 possible votes in this election, so the cost of informing voting organizations of a new candidate is relatively small compared to the labor required to organize a huge amount of community discussion before voting becomes possible. In volunteer communities like Wikimedia, people take elections much more seriously after voting has begun, and I want to reduce regret and feelings disenfranchisement by permitting the most serious decisions to be made when the most people are engaged. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Last minute nominations greatly reduce transparency, because they make it impossible for some affiliates to follow their democratic process and because they make accurate scrutiny of candidates' background impossible. I think yours is an extremely dangerous proposal. Nemo 15:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This process was set up with a long voting period to allow affiliates that wish to do so to discuss the issue at their Board meetings/general meetings or otherwise, and also in the hope that more candidate statements will be translated. Allowing late nominations more or less voids all of those benefits as affiliates won't know what decision they are actually making until the very last minute. So, on balance, I think this would be unhelpful. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nemo bis and The Land: Then what about only a little overlap between the start of the voting period and the nomination period? "This process was set up with a long voting period" - this is not accurate, because this election and process is fundamentally haphazard. Details should have been sorted months or years ago. I agree with Nemo - "last minute" nominations are not good. What about closing nominations March 31, and opening voting March 16? I think I would actually prefer that nominations be allowed through the Wikimedia Conference, since this is the most realistic time for the discussion to deepen. I wish also that the election in the future could be timed to acknowledge that the Wikimedia Conference is a time for community discussion and a flood of reports and information exchange. There are lots of ways to do this, but whatever happens, I am not able to identify any record of community discussion or oversight into the design of this election process so I am not convinced that any plans are firm right now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lane. Just to set out the context and prior community discussion, the resolution that presently governs the process was discussed in 2014 and then ratified by 26 movement organisations (26 agreed it, one active abstention, none against), and then approved by the Board of Trustees. The process has been open for comment again since 27 November and there doesn't seem to be any strong feeling to change things. That doesn't mean it is an entirely done deal - if there is significant strength of feeling on this (or any) issue then it is probably worth holding a straw poll to gauge whether to amend the rules - but at present I am not seeing that, and there is not a huge amount of time before the process needs to get underway. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Land I am not sure that I made a proposal to change anything, because I am not sure that any proposal had base support anyway. Can you show me the place in which the election schedule got review and confirmation? If there is no confirmed election schedule, then there is nothing to change or amend anyway. You seem to be taking for granted that some schedule already has been confirmed, and I am unclear whether this happened. Can you show the confirmed schedule? Am I mistaken, or is everything here, and is there no confirmation of an order for election schedule milestones?

I do not see anything about election scheduling in the first link and cannot access the second link as it is a closed wiki. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The only things currently agreed regarding schedule are set out in points 3, 4 and 8 of the resolution (which is what has had a certain amount of community scrutiny, as I set out above). Laurentius has proposed a way to comply with that resolution while also allowing the successful candidates time to arrange attending the WMF board meeting at Wikimania, but that currently is a proposal. :)

To me the language of point 4 " The Election Facilitators shall determine the dates of each biennial election, provided that there is a nomination period of at least 30 days, a nomination finalization period of at least 15 days, and a period for discussion and voting of at least 45 days" suggests that the nomination period cannot overlap with the voting period. One could probably argue that the language of the resolution is not so specific as to rule out that happening, and the election facilitators could use that as justification for doing as you suggest.

Hope this helps clarify things. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I propose slowing this process and the facilitator process - Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016. If you like, let's talk by voice or video. I do not entirely know what is going on or why there seems to be a rush. In my perspective, the process should be timed to accommodate the community, and not to fit a short-term schedule. The community will live with the outcome of this process for at least three years and the impact could be longer. Nothing should happen in haste. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What is going on is as follows: There was an agreed and workable process for the 2014 selection. After consultation, there didn't appear to be much impetus for changing that process. However, Wikimania is significantly earlier than in previous years. So, taking the existing process with ample time for nominations, discussion and voting as more-or-less given, the Wikimania board meeting as a fixed point and giving the successful candidates 6 weeks to make arrangements to attend, Laurentius and I have proposed a schedule that will make all of that happen. If people think that's the wrong thing to do, then that is fine (but one or more of the objectives are are currently working to hit will not be met). Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Land It seems to me that your overriding concern is having the election finished in time to have the affiliate-selected board seats filled and the office holders in person at Wikimania. I challenge the idea that the election should be designed around this goal. Instead, I want to confirm community participation first, and to design the election in a way that promotes community discussion. Having the seats filled in time for an in-person Wikimania presentation is not critical to me. It might be for others - and it seems to be for you and Laurentius, or at least, maybe it was important in 2014 and you are still following that process - but I am not convinced this is most important. I want the election designed for the community, and not to force the community to accommodate election rules. If someone wants to follow a process, then perhaps notice and scheduling of this election can match the general community at large election from 2015, when there was lots of advance notice.

Or - I could be mistaken about something here or not understanding. From what I see, there is a rushed process being discussed here and very little participation in designing the election. I am not sure that a process designed for 2014 should be automatically confirmed as best for this election. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely not rushed: we are using a process agreed two years ago, and a request for comments to improve it has been opened in November. We have a process in which there are 60 days for discussion about candidates, which is a lot. "Rushed" is one of the most unlikely words for this process. - Laurentius (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Laurentius Can you point out the community support for the proposed schedule? I am having trouble identifying it. How is it confirmed that the schedule you are supporting has the backing of the voters? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The resolution has been almost-unanimously (one abstention) voted in 2014. This proposed schedule is a proposal based on the process defined in the resolution. - Laurentius (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed timeline and think that the election facilitators should proceed with all speed. There's been plenty of warning, and I see no benefit in delaying the process, particularly as that would mean trustees attending Wikimania would not know if they were just about to be voted off the board. It's important in my view that nominations close before voting starts. Chapters and other affiliates will need time to study the candidates in detail, and to discuss them, and will often need to work around dates of board meetings that have been set long in advance. They will find it almost impossible to vote - or even worse to be asked to re-vote - based on last minute changes changes in the line up. That's a non-starter so far as I am concerned. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I also support the timeline proposed by Laurentius for the following reasons
  1. We must select trustees by Wikimania 2016 simply because Frieda's and Patricio's terms expire at that time. Bylaws do not have a clause that an election may not be organised on time, and affiliate seats may be vacant only if one of winners does not meet the requirements. Thus if we do not organise the election on time to fill vacancies by Wikimania 2016, most likely WMF Board will have to organise them according to 2014 procedure and timeline, which is hardly better.
  2. Nominations cannot be open until the end of the vote (or until Berlin). On one hand, chapters and thorgs must have time to organise voting, and some may want to consult all their members. On the other hand, I believe that finding a good candidate only in Berlin is very unlikely: if it is a really good candidate and someone suggests this candidate in Berlin, they can easily ask their affiliate to suggest the same candidate before Berlin.
  3. Finally, 41 organisations does not mean 41 voters, this could mean up to 25,000 voters (or up to 5,000 if WMDE does not consult their members), or still some 300-400 voters if only Board members decide. This also requires coordination

  While the idea of nominating candidates in Berlin sounds interesting, this can be done only if we agree to cast all votes within 2 or 3 weeks after Berlin, which may need a vote by WMF Board. Or alternatively reschedule Wikimedia Conference (that used to be in early April) or Wikimania (used to be in July or August), but these solutions sound even less feasible — NickK (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  Oh, and coming back to the idea of in-person hustings... If we announce eligible candidates well before Berlin, we will have time to make sure that all eligible candidates attend Wikimedia Conference (in particular by sending an additional invitations if a candidate is not representing any affiliate there), which can be an additional advantage — NickK (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I also support the timeline proposed by Laurentius (per NickK) --アンタナナ 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me. Popo le Chien (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Checking the dates, I think there was one day counted in the wrong place, and it could be:

• Nominations: 8 Feb - 8 Mar (30 days)
• Nomination finalization: 9 Mar - 23 March (15 days)
• Voting: 24 March - 7 May (45 days)
• Announcement of results: shortly after (9 May?)

Additional time points:

• up to 17 January: people willing to serve as facilitators sign to the Meta page;
• a few days later: the affiliates confirm the selection of the facilitators;
• late January: timeline is final, the elections are announced;
• 22-24 April: Wikimedia Conference;
• 24-26 June: Wikimania.

(anyway, one or two days might move until the timeline is finalized) - Laurentius (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Timeline to promote in-person community discussion of nominations and voting

The rules are at Affiliate-selected Board seats/Resolution. The only guidance they give for dates is that “there is a nomination period of at least 30 days, a nomination finalization period of at least 15 days, and a period for discussion and voting of at least 45 days” and “within 15 days of the conclusion of the voting period, the Election Facilitators shall calculate the outcome of the election” That means that this is the fastest possible election schedule:

day 0 - start of nomination period

day 30 - end of nomination period - nomination finalization period

day 45 - start of voting

day 90 - end of voting

day 105 - last possible day for reporting outcome

I propose this election schedule for the 2016 election -

day 0 - April 7 - start of nomination period

Wikimedia Conference, April 22-24

day 30 - May 7 - end of nominations

day 45 - May 22 - start of voting

June 24-26 - main days of Wikimania conference

day 90- July 6 - end of voting

day 105 - July 21 - results reported

The other proposal is designed to end the election in time for the elected people to attend Wikipedia. I see no particular reason to make this a priority. My priority is in encouraging good community discussion and thoughtful nomination and voting. There are only a maximum of 41 votes in this election. If the election is done with an emphasis on online, as with the other proposed scheduled, then I think that creates a bias for candidates backed by chapters which have the best online organization. I propose to counter that bias by placing the nomination period in the Wikimedia Conference, and the voting period in Wikimania, so that chapter representatives can talk among themselves and everyone can have discussions about why every chapter votes the way it does.

It would be unprecedented to expect that such discussion would happen online. I favor this schedule. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I nominated myself as an election facilitator at Talk:Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016. So far as I can tell, the election nominators decide the schedule. Maybe there should be more discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating as a facilitator! As for the timeline, I think some clarification is needed from the board. Question to the Board Governance Committee: @Lyzzy, Frieda, and Pundit: when do the board expect to appoint the new affiliate-selected board members? - Laurentius (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, the formal appointment would be very close in time to the end of the current seat holders' terms. Pundit (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So Patricio and Frieda have terms expiring on 1 September 2016. Does that mean that a result on July 21st as Lane proposes would give you enough time to seat the new Board members before 1 September? Is there any particular benefit to having the selected Board members in place at Wikimania? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: It is an interesting idea but unfortunately you create another bias, namely, a very strong bias for affiliates present at Wikimania. Please bear in mind that unlike Berlin where all affiliates are represented, some chapters may not come to Wikimania, either because of visa issues (e.g. WMUA in Washington, D.C.) or because of too difficult logistics (e.g. WMHK in Mexico City 2015). Thus we need either guarantee scholarship (and visa, as WMPH already had a problem with this!) to at least one decision-maker per chapter, and I am not aware if WMF or any chapter can make such engagement so far. Do you have an idea how can we organise this? — NickK (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and as these pages suggest, some affiliates will not be present in Berlin either, namely, WMMK and WMMO (inactive), WMHK and WMPH (ineligible), WMFI, WMHU, WMPT and WMUY (no representatives). That's 8 out of 41, which is a lot, thus we have a problem with an offline discussion in Berlin as well — NickK (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not every affiliate is present at the Wikimedia Conference and at Wikimania. In general, more affiliates are present in the former, since it's specifically targeted at affiliates. - Laurentius (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And one additional point: not every candidate is present at the Wikimedia Conference and at Wikimania. If we want to have a discussion with candidates at Wikimania, candidates must come there. Both plans have six weeks notice (in case of option by Laurentius results are announced on 8 May, while in Bluerasberry's plan candidates are announced on 8 May), but there is a significant difference: expenses of board members are covered by WMF, while expenses of candidates are not. Thus once again we either need to guarantee scholarships to all candidates, or we will have only candidates who can afford travelling to Italy themselves (which is not quite inclusive) — NickK (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why some people prefers not to have hustings. For Wikimania, there is a scholarship program, but applications are already closed. For the Wikimedia Conference, maybe we can arrange something, but I don't know if the conference budget has space for this. - Laurentius (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Overwhelmed

Late in the discussion, overwhelmed. Too many discussions going on already, how do we know which one is decided and up for a follow up and which one already answered? i.e. dumb question? 203.206.3.251

Election facilitators

We also need to select the election facilitators for this year: Talk:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2016. - Laurentius (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Term length

I've edited the resolution to reflect the fact that board terms are now three-years long (actually, I've removed any reference to term length). Since this is a Board decision, and not an affiliates decision, I've directly edited the resolution (we don't have any choice here, it's pointless to have a vote). - Laurentius (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Election tools with OpenStreetMap example

I think lots of Wikimedia enthusiasts are friendly with OpenStreetMap (Q936). I wanted to share some election results from their US chapter because of the online tool they used to manage the election.

• OpenStreetMap US Board Election 2018 Results

This website demonstrates how the single transferable votes move from one candidate to others. I wish that we could demonstrate this easily for Wikimedia elections. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Propose to redirect all talk pages about this election here

There are multiple election talk pages for past elections. If we followed that model there would be multiple talk pages for this election.

I propose to move all talk pages here. At the start of new elections the past discussion can go in the same archive.

In the past there was not enough conversation on talk pages to merit maintaining multiple locations. We should start with conversation here and only split the conversation if it becomes unwieldy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Forget this, it is a bad idea. Every election should have its own talk page. One talk page per election is probably enough though. For 2019 go to Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This should be updated with the 2019 resolution, it seems.

See Affiliate-selected Board seats/Resolution 2019. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Or just mark it as historical and go with the new one? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Working Group members missed ASBS session

Hi, due to the format of the summit, the working group members were not able to attend the ASBS session at Wikimedia Summit and give input, as such, discussions like this are happening post-summit which I think would benefit from wider participation from both Working Group members and other attendees and movement stakeholders. Perhaps other resolutions would benefit from a quick sense check. Battleofalma (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)