Talk:Chapter-selected Board seats/2012/Candidates/Questions

Who is supposed to be asking questions of these candidates?

I understand that this is the first time questions at this stage of the process have been raised openly on Meta. Can someone confirm who is supposed to be asking questions? I would have thought the purpose of this page was for Chapter representatives to be asking relevant questions of the candidates for chapter-selected board seats rather than it becoming a public free for all, but that no longer appears the process being followed.

The page has only existed for 2 days and we already have a challenging wall of 24 questions which will result in many pages of answers. As someone expected to (at some point) read through all this, I already feel daunted and I am not trying to write answers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know - but I do apologize for being the random chapter member who set the (bad?) example! Deryck C. 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

as for me I've made things even worse by adding questions ... to Arne, sorry ! Should we have sections for each chapter that would include its own "chapters-sponsored" questions in a limited quantity ? --Ofol (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the second part, but I agree that questions intended for people not running for office do not belong to the page... Deryck C. 00:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am 100% with Fæ on this, this is starting to get out of hand. As a matter of fact I found it was already out of hand with Laura's 8 (eight!) questions to start with. These have been mostly answered, but I would like to see questions from different sources, not millions of questions from one source, so it would be nice to pick the most relevant ones when there are so many at once. I also suggest to simply cap the number of questions to 1 per person/chapter whatever, so people actually don't ask everything that goes through their head at a given moment.

Also, please make sure questions are not trying to answer something that's simply not answerable in a few lines (for example, while a question like: 2. how do you understand the role of a wmf trustee in developing, implementing and preserving such standards [of accountability] as defined in response to 1. within the evolving framework of the movement? is interesting, I do not see how an answer to the first part can be "concise", as this debate has already generated tens of pages and talk pages on meta). Also, theoretical questions such as "if you're not elected, what will you do?", simply don't belong here. We're trying to select people, not to know what they'll do if we don't select them, questions must be rephrased or simply taken out. Thanks. notafish }<';> 15:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What purpose are we serving by limiting questions at all? All of the questions are optional, so if any are unanswerable or otherwise inappropriate, the candidates should demonstrate their good judgement by noting that fact instead of answering them. The only argument against the questions so far that I can see is that someone feels "daunted." Are the questions really so difficult that they would all take more than an hour to answer? If we expect the winning candidates to spend dozens of hours per year on board work, why would we feel that we have to limit questions before the vote is opened?

Yes, it is daunting. If you're someone who has a day job, whose first language isn't English, and/or who would like to give consideration to the questions asked, 25 questions within 3 days is daunting. Also I believe that limiting the questions per person asking allows for much more focus on which questions one asks. Which might spare questions such as "Why do you want to be on the board?", since well, all statements actually answer that question to start with, for example. notafish }<';> 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If questions are optional, then all parties need to agree that they won't be biased against a candidate who doesn't answer them! That seems like a lot to ask of human nature. -- phoebe | talk, who is going to try to be as concise as possible!

I am unhappy that my questions have been deleted. Although I sent Beria an email with my name, I have not heard back from her. I have very good reasons for almost always keeping my name private on Wikimedia projects, including in my recent chapter work, and I do not want to have to disclose it. Unless the moderators see fit to replace my questions, I would like to ask the individual candidates using this anonymous IP. 69.61.67.111 19:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

for what it's worth, these are very good questions! -- phoebe | talk 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If only chapters nominate, then it is legitimate and makes sence to limit asking to the chapters (one representant per chapter). One chapter should have at least two questions. So the absolute maximum for a candidate will be ca. 60 questions - a lot, but not unlimited. And many chapters won't ask everybody two unique questions. Ziko (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm speaking for myself only here - there seems to be a legitimate concern here about the number of questions. I however, am willing to answer any. I can not expect the chapter representatives to read through 60 or so answers per candidates, so I respect whatever the larger decision about question limits may be. However, if anyone feels that asking a question privately helps them answer their concern or make up their own mind, then and I welcome it. If the moderators permit, private questions might be the solution here, individuals asking them can choose if they want it to be public or not. We're already half-way through the Q&A period, and I am more than willing to answer questions if it helps make up anyone's mind. I believe the moderator can take the final call on this. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Organization

It would help those of us answering to either have each person's answers under each question (like the community elections) or to have each question separately numbered so we can refer back to each specific question accurately. -- phoebe | talk 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Having to scroll all the way up down the page to read each question before scrolling back down to read each candidate's answers is definitely annoying. Having the questions repeated in each candidate's section, or each candidate's answer listed under each question, would be much more reader-friendly. Fluffernutter (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Currently each question is repeated above each candidate's answer, so I hope it isn't too bad? Deryck C. 14:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The version of the page I'm seeing has a link to each question above the candidate's answer, but not the actual question (and the links aren't working meaningfully with my popups). So I still end up scrolling up and down the page repeatedly to read anyone's answers, because I haven't memorized each question and its number. It's not a huge deal (first world problems: "zomg I have to use my scroll wheel?!"), but it is sort of a minor, annoying inconvenience. Fluffernutter (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the remarks. Because multiple people have indicated this problem, and since apparently the moderators don't want us to add the questions to the overview page (because it would take away focus from the replies), I have taken the liberty to add them anyway to my own Q&A page with a noinclude, so that the questions won't show up on the overview page. I hope that helps. Effeietsanders (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

All rise and give your attention. The honorable Moderator will speaking ! :D (feeling like a Sir! :D)

Jokes aside, I think I solved the problem. See please what I did here Chapter-selected Board seats/2012/Candidates/Questions/Patricio Lorente (I used his page because is the one with fewer answers so far) and see the difference here: Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Candidates/Questions#Patricio_Lorente_.28Patricio.lorente.29. That solves the problem? I trully hope so, because I'm going to place that in all candidates page right now! :D Béria Lima ^msg 03:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you! Deryck C. 10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing answers

As said above it's legitimate for candidates not to answer and as far as I understand some answers are kept private, so I think it would be nice to leave a simple pointer/reminder here which says that an answer has been published on the chapters' wiki, just to show that the question wasn't ignored. If such a complete list already exists elsewhere, ignore my request. Nemo 09:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)