Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ&A/Question2

Streamline the question

The question could've used some editing in terms of being specific and clear on what is being asked. "The Board" is not a free floating entity, but part of the WMF - therefore the question should have been asked in a way that makes it clear how the candidates see the place and structure of the WMF changing over the next few years in order to achieve the 2030 recommendations. Braveheart (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, my question could have been much improved by some editing (not least in style, readability and translatability). I was specifically asking about the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (to use the full name) though, see the discussion it grew out of for context. HHill (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You can already tell by Mike Peel's answer that the question of which role the WMF should play in the future is not clear. But then again, that might be just as well for the WMF, to just pretend the 2030 recommendations don't affect the make-up of the WMF ;-) Braveheart (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually do consider it to be an answer to my question. You seem to be more interested in an answer to question 8 or something like it. HHill (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean, both are so broad that I can both see and not see the issue of the long-term WMF strategy asked in both of them. But Pundit already offered one example of an answer that does outline his vision of there the WMF is headed to in relation to other/future entities of the Wikiverse. Braveheart (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Question to Rosie

Rosie, you say you "would like to see the Board, the community (which, in my opinion, includes Affiliates, the future Global Council, the future Hubs), and the Wikimedia Foundation on equal footing -- akin to a 3-legged stool/seat." Is this what you meant to say? The WMF board is part of the Wikimedia Foundation, so as things stand, in your three-legged seat, two of the three legs would be WMF legs, with one leg representing all the volunteers and affiliates together. If this is the vision you put forward, then to me as a volunteer it seems like a rather lopsided arrangement that holds little attraction in terms of ensuring volunteers' voices will be heard. Regards, --Andreas JN466 14:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Andreas, for connecting with me. My response was confusing. I am grateful to have the opportunity to clarify what I mean. Thanks again. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Rosie. You say, "I support the decision that the Board has already made and is implementing with the 2021 and 2022 Board elections: increasing the number and percentage of community members on the Board." As far as I am aware, exactly the opposite has happened: the percentage of community members on the board has diminished. To recap, the board used to comprise ten members:

• three selected by the community (30%),
• two selected by the affiliates (20%),
• one founder (10%), and
• four appointees (40%).

The new 16-seat structure however envisages:

• four selected by the community (25%),
• four selected by the affiliates (25%),
• one founder (6.25%), and
• seven appointees (43.75%).

Surely this means that

• the proportion of appointees has increased, from 40% to 43.75%,
• the affiliate proportion has increased, from 20% to 25%,
• the community proportion has decreased, both in absolute terms from 30% to 25%, and relative to the affiliates, from a 3/2 proportion to parity,
• the Founder seat, traditionally committed to voting with the community in the event of a tie, has also dropped, from 10% to 6.25% – actually the most substantial drop here.

So as far as I can see, the winners are the affiliates and the appointees, with the volunteer community the losers. Even if you define "community" so as to include the affiliates, their share of seats has remained at 50%. I am sorry – I don't mean to pick on you specifically, I just haven't gotten round to everyone else yet – but that sentence caused me some cognitive dissonance. Best wishes, --Andreas JN466 09:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur, affiliates are not en par with community, and I still fail to see any reason, why the appointed members, that are members to fill not elected skills and diversity, should go up anyhow, if the number goes up, I'd expect the diversity and skill-set get more complete with more members. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 10:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this, in general, and engaging with me in particular, Andreas and Sänger. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)