Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022/Affiliate Organization Participation/Analysis Committee/Discussions
This page contains the summary of the Analysis Committee process.
First Analysis Committee Meeting
[edit]By the consensus of the Analysis Committee, the members had their first meeting on 3rd June. In this meeting, the members introduced themselves, discussed the rubric and the rating exercise, and clarified their questions. The Analysis Committee members decided they will first finish their rating asynchronously before having another round of discussion.
Some Analysis Committee members expressed interest in seeking further feedback from their regional affiliates before completing their ratings; the Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators confirmed the members can do so freely if they see the need, as long as this additional process does not become a public rating exercise.
During the meeting, a member raised the potential issue of rating "Structures of power and privilege" fairly, as candidates may not wish to disclose sensitive information. There was also a discussion around taking into consideration that not all candidates have been given equal opportunities in the past. The Analysis Committee agreed among themselves to keep certain flexibilities when assessing a candidate: if one demonstrates a good understanding of an area, or one has a great vision of how to support the Wikimedia Movement in this area in the future, the rating can be a bit more flexible.
Second Analysis Committee Meeting
[edit]After the completion of ratings by all Analysis Committee members individually, the Analysis Committee had their second meeting on 14th June. In the meeting, the members shared their overall impression and feedback of the rating exercise. There were proposals made regarding the three areas below:
- Publishing the rating result of each criterion (gold/silver/bronze) to show more nuance than an overall rating of gold/silver/bronze.
- Publishing the mean score of each candidate to show differences between candidates in the same rating category or candidates who are close to another rating category. This was brought up to ensure equal terms for all the individual assessments.
- Removing “Structures of power and privilege” from the final rating calculation, considering that some candidates may have decided to not elaborate too much due to privacy reasons, and therefore some Analysis Committee members found it difficult to rate the candidates fairly without complete information. Some did not have an issue rating for this section and were able to assess candidates appropriately.
Final Decision on Publishing the Results
[edit]The feedback and proposals made by the Analysis Committee were brought for review. The Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee reviewed all the proposals and took the proposal to publish the rankings of criteria (gold/silver/bronze), but grouping different areas into four in total, which are the following:
Wikimedia Background
[edit]Consists of the rating of “Knowledge of Wikimedia Movement”
Sought Skills
[edit]Consists of the ratings of the four specific skills named by the Board as desired skills
Sought Regional Experience
[edit]Consists of the ratings of “Regional Experience” and “Cultural Fluency”
Human Rights and Underrepresentation Experiences
[edit]Consists of the ratings of “Safe and trusted collaboration spaces, including advocating for human rights” and “Structures of power and privilege”
Following this decision, the Movement Strategy and Governance team has completed the calculation accordingly and asked the Analysis Committee to review the results.
Rating Results of the Analysis Committee
[edit]The Analysis Committee rating results were emailed to Affiliate Representatives on 20 June. The Analysis Committee rating results will be published here following the Affiliate Selection, by mid-July.