Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+/Governance/2024-04-13

‘Unnamed extra participants’

Given that this is the Governance Committee of the group, I do not understand why we have ‘unnamed extra participants’ taking part. The Governance Committee members are publicly disclosed, as are the elected board members.

While I understand the need for some individuals working in the LGBT+ space to maintain confidentiality, the members of board and governance committee have chosen to forego at least part of their privacy to take on these important - and responsible and accountable - roles in our group.

I feel that in the interests of openness and transparency, and even more importantly in the interests of responsibility and accountability, the attendance of committee and board members at meetings should be noted. (And the absence of members NOT attending should be similarly disclosed). Peltarion (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Peltarion: Sorry, I only just noticed this message. (Feel free to tag me in queries like this relating to the UG in future; my watchlist is unmanageable and unusable.)

As it mentions on the WMLGBT+ Governance page:

Given that queer people are much more likely to be subject to abuse and harassment and that it is dangerous to be queer in many parts of the world, WMLGBT+ also reserves the right for board members to be anonymous or pseudonymous. If that is the case, any such board members' identities will be known to AffCom.

When any anonymous individuals (UG members or board members) are present at a meeting (of the UG or of the board), then their attendance will be noted thus.

On the subject of responsibility and accountability, the WMLGBT+ Board takes collective responsibility for actions taken in the board's name and any such concerns may be raised to any named members of the board (and, once we elect one at our next meeting, the chair). We operate by consensus, not by vote, so were any anonymous members present, that should not affect decision-making in a problematic manner.

I hope that makes sense? — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 17:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@OwenBlacker I understand the point, but disagree with it. If we look forward to a time when there is an fully elected board, how will it be possible to elect/re-elect people when members/contributors are unaware of the contributions or commitment of the ‘unnamed extra participants’? If privacy is a concern, then policy provides the establishment of an alternate account for participating in controversial areas.

Board membership should entail accountability not only to the board and other board members, but also to the organisation’s members/paricipants. Peltarion (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think when we get to a fully elected board, users might need to be pseudonymous rather than anonymous, but I think there might always be the case that users who are subjected to on- and off-wiki harassment might need anonymity.

It's certainly something we'll need to revisit and think through how it could work, when we get to that stage, for sure. Please do stay engaged and keep us accountable on that issue in the future. — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 10:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)