Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee
Add topicLatest comment: 1 day ago by Sleyece in topic U4C Established
This page is for discussions related to Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee.
Please remember to:
Discussion navigation:
|
Please clarify acronyms (or abbreviations, or however these usages are defined)[edit]
...a co-equal body with other high-level decision making bodies (e.g. ArbComs and AffCom) A clarification of the meaning of the terms ArbComs and AffCom would enlighten this ignorant Wikipedian.—catsmoke talk 01:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Catsmoke: both terms you mentioned are clarified below in the Glossary. Hope this helps. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
global locks & bans?[edit]
I was just reading about the committee that will handle violations of the Universal Code of Conduct, and I was wondering about something. When the committee is fully in operation, will they be the ones to deal with appeals of global locks and global bans? 2600:1015:B12A:246:0:4D:A062:D301 14:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- please see Global ban and WMF global ban policy. Ghilt (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- The user was asking if U4C opinions will have the power to compel WMF to enact a Global ban. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The IP did not ask that. Global bans, and WMF global bans (office actions) are different things. The IP asked whether the U4C would handle appeals to glocks/gbans, and they were pointed to the policies on such, which do not indicate U4C involvement. -- ferret (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The user was asking if U4C opinions will have the power to compel WMF to enact a Global ban. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
U4C Established[edit]
Dear Community,
The members of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) have been in active discussion with each other and with the Wikimedia Foundation about what to do next. We would like to thank the community for their trust in us.
The U4C has had its first session and now has a mailing list, a private chat forum, and will soon have a private wiki. The U4C members feel that the U4C is now established. This means, per the Enforcement Guidelines and the U4C Charter, the U4C Building Committee is dissolved. The U4C members thank the U4C Building Committee members for their work. Following the rules of the U4C charter, the U4C members have decided to call a special election for the empty seats. More information about this election will be announced soon.
On behalf of the U4C, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the announcement. I am hoping you can time it a bit later or the election be made short and efficient. We only had Steward election some time ago, followed by U4C election. Now we have Voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter coming up, and also 2024 Board election. U4C election was lengthy, everything from candidate pages to the lack of links to the question page didn't make it easy for the voters. All these community building activities have become so relentless that it's hard to catch a break. Quite dissatisfied with how it is going overall, and feel like we are going further and further away from original goal. BRP ever 23:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @BRPever, thanks for this feedback. Speaking only for myself, I will say this is also something that has been on my mind in terms of community exhaustion. The question I've been wondering is if a "smaller" election, whose aim is to find at least 1 person to bring the committee above quorum, makes sense or not. Because, at least for me, the main alternative is a "bigger" process that amends things happening after the board election and I don't know that is actually better in terms of exhaustion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- The charter itself demands: Voting is conducted by secret ballot, with voters leaving support, oppose and neutral votes for each candidate. wich effectively means secure poll. That needs some time to set up, I'd say at least 2 Weeks, probably longer. Also information to the community that there will be another election. It is unclear if these requirements have to be fullfilled by a special election, but I assume so. That means we have to go thou the whole process again that is described in Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Charter#2.4._Elections:
- Opening
- Call for candidates
- Question + Verification period
- Voting
- Responsible would be this time ElectCom + U4C. ElectCom will probably busy with the BoT elections. (In the background there is stuff going on, right now for example choosing the best community questions.) Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 17:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with what you've written - including that this would fall more on the U4C than ElectCom. But, for instance, it's not clear to me that the Question period needs to be distinct from call/voting so I think there might be ways to make this "smaller" than a full election. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, as it is a special election it must be possible to sped things up. The time for call for candidates could be shorter, and would it not be possible to explicitly ask the ones who received 50% to stand again (by personal contacts) and skip the questions time. And also to have a short voting period, it is no big deal if there will be a limited number voting. Yger (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with shortening/merging the question period. As a candidate, having 2 weeks of just questions was quite exhausting, especially with another 2 weeks of voting without any questions (which I think should be allowed during voting anyway, same as community open discussion and/or guides). The entire period could have been 2 weeks total, if not lesser. Soni (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @DWI does "at least 2 Weeks, probably longer" mean that you need that time to set up the election from the moment the candidates list is closed or is this a general time needed to set up the system? And I agree, the previous election process lasted (from the start to the announcement of the results) around 88 days, the goal is definitely to make it shorter. --Civvì (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is a script that determines for every existing account (!) if this account is eligible to vote. That list is needed for secure poll and the script needs about 2 days to complete. But it might crash or something else might go wrong, so more then 2 days are estimated to be safe.
- Question is Who should be eligible?, meaning how many edits should an account have at what given time? In theory this is easy to decide, but it is decided by committees and committees always work slowly. You need a week to find a date for a meeting, then another week till the meeting,.... And then something unexpected happens that messes everything up.
- I mean: Going backwards we have 2 weeks of voting, 2 weeks questins + eligibility confirmation, 2 weeks of call for candidates, and maybe two more weeks for deciding when the call for candidates should start. That's 8 Weeks 8x7=56 days. Plus the time to confirm the results. Last time another 2 weeks. That would be 70 days. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 19:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- That seems like a lot of work to probably just get the same result as last time. Is there any possibility of a poll to gauge the likelihood of a quorum at the end of this process? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- What makes you think we'll get the same result as last time? We may have entirely different candidates, some of whom may receive overwhelming support for all we know. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overwhelming support from a handful of Admins without community involvement is what I'm afraid of. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Admins are part of the community too, incidently. Sleyece, you barely are involved in any of the projects as is. It's probably time to stop smearing the process and those involved. -- ferret (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean "smearing"? I don't appreciate this at all. You're saying I'm not active and also complaining I'm too active on Meta, which is a project. I've already been threatened by one Commons Admin/ Steward that I should shut up about saying that the U4C should seat itself because it wouldn't happen. That was literally one day before the U4C went ahead and seated itself. I feel targeted and attacked on a number of fronts for participating in good faith. I will be discriminated against in an illegal manner if this behavior continues. You are very aware of my medical conditions, and you banned me from the Discord after I raised awareness of the U4C election in there; at least one U4C member was elected after finding out about it on Discord. Please stop Administrating me across projects immediately. You are a Wikipedia Admin, and I don't want Admins to be the only members of the community deciding the remainder of the U4C because It's going to lead to Systemic Bias against certain users, including me. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Admins are part of the community too, incidently. Sleyece, you barely are involved in any of the projects as is. It's probably time to stop smearing the process and those involved. -- ferret (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Overwhelming support from a handful of Admins without community involvement is what I'm afraid of. -- Sleyece (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- What makes you think we'll get the same result as last time? We may have entirely different candidates, some of whom may receive overwhelming support for all we know. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- As the Bot election is on until middle of September, any election-voting must start after that time, but it should be possible to end voting by early/middle of October and result ready before end of October and U4C operational by November Yger (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- That would be about 40-50 days from start to results. It would be a special election six weeks after a major election. Is any candidate likely to get 60%? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- yes Yger (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Sleyece (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- The challenge is now known and action to get a better result can be taken. It can for example not be forbidden that key persons involved check personally with persons that could be a good candidate to step forward. A precheck by an individual checked the candidates in this election and found all but the elected ones to be substandard. It goes also the other way around, a clever initiated person can know in beforehand if a person would be elected with 60% support or not, and see to it that there are persons with that type of strength/Qualification Yger (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, I recommend the committee utilize the 3.6. Structured Support section to the extent possible. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- The challenge is now known and action to get a better result can be taken. It can for example not be forbidden that key persons involved check personally with persons that could be a good candidate to step forward. A precheck by an individual checked the candidates in this election and found all but the elected ones to be substandard. It goes also the other way around, a clever initiated person can know in beforehand if a person would be elected with 60% support or not, and see to it that there are persons with that type of strength/Qualification Yger (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Sleyece (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unless voters start voting Oppose due to exhaustion alone, I don't see why a qualified candidate would not be able to get 60%. There is no minimum quorum for voters. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would imagine there is a hypothetical turnout level that could be so low as to violate 4.2.1.1. Systemic Failures if not accounted for. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- yes Yger (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- That would be about 40-50 days from start to results. It would be a special election six weeks after a major election. Is any candidate likely to get 60%? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- That seems like a lot of work to probably just get the same result as last time. Is there any possibility of a poll to gauge the likelihood of a quorum at the end of this process? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @DWI does "at least 2 Weeks, probably longer" mean that you need that time to set up the election from the moment the candidates list is closed or is this a general time needed to set up the system? And I agree, the previous election process lasted (from the start to the announcement of the results) around 88 days, the goal is definitely to make it shorter. --Civvì (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with what you've written - including that this would fall more on the U4C than ElectCom. But, for instance, it's not clear to me that the Question period needs to be distinct from call/voting so I think there might be ways to make this "smaller" than a full election. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- The charter itself demands: Voting is conducted by secret ballot, with voters leaving support, oppose and neutral votes for each candidate. wich effectively means secure poll. That needs some time to set up, I'd say at least 2 Weeks, probably longer. Also information to the community that there will be another election. It is unclear if these requirements have to be fullfilled by a special election, but I assume so. That means we have to go thou the whole process again that is described in Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Charter#2.4._Elections:
- @BRPever, thanks for this feedback. Speaking only for myself, I will say this is also something that has been on my mind in terms of community exhaustion. The question I've been wondering is if a "smaller" election, whose aim is to find at least 1 person to bring the committee above quorum, makes sense or not. Because, at least for me, the main alternative is a "bigger" process that amends things happening after the board election and I don't know that is actually better in terms of exhaustion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)