[WMCEE-l] Movement Charter Drafting Committee: CEE affiliates selector

Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla at wikimedia.org
Wed Oct 27 00:12:48 CEST 2021


Hi everyone,

I have noted this list thread and wanted to provide couple of points:

   - The key argument objecting the sequential approach is not so much
   about the bias of selectors, but rather equivalence between the election
   and selection processes. The argument is that if the processes are not run
   in parallel, it will disrupt the equivalence and give an upper hand in
   determining the composition of the committee to the group that goes last.
   - In the discussions with the selectors, I believe we have found a good
   middle-ground solution that would (in my perspective) keep the integrity of
   the equivalence principle and would enable the selectors to better work on
   the diversity and expertise gaps in the committee. This suggestion would be
   that 1) as the first step, the group of selectors is creating a shortlist
   of 13 candidates to express their preference related to the composition of
   the drafting committee. This will be done prior to tallying the votes; 2)
   after votes have been tallied, the selectors will have access to that
   information, to make their final selection of 6 members to be appointed to
   the drafting committee. They can only select the candidates that have been
   shortlisted prior to the tally.
   - However, there is some strong criticism related to that approach from
   project communities, mainly stating that in this way the equivalence
   principle will not stay intact with the proposed solution. A good example
   of that perspective is the recent thread on meta
   <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tardy_Selectors>
   .

I hope this helps to clarify the constraints. I am happy to discuss
further, if it is helpful.

Have a great continuation to your week!
Kaarel

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:48 PM Tisza Gergő <gtisza at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:59 AM Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sounds reasonable to me - the bias angle is still a bit bizarre
>> considering this isn't a popularity contest but a process to find a group
>> of people able to complete the work they are tasked with.
>>
>
> Yeah, it would make a lot more sense if the various diversity criteria
> were applied to the full 15 person committee, not just the six selected
> members. It does not make much sense to have a 50/50 global north/south
> split if the community election results in seven global north people, for
> example.
>
> I realize the selectors probably don't disagree but it isn't really up to
> them; so I wonder if there is some way to make this perspective heard by
> the WMF (more effectively than random people raising it on random
> discussion channels, which is already happening).
> _______________________________________________
> WMCEE-l mailing list
> WMCEE-l at tools.wikimedia.pl
> http://listy.wikimedia.pl/mailman/listinfo/wmcee-l
>


-- 

Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)

Movement Strategy <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2030>

Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listy.wikimedia.pl/pipermail/wmcee-l/attachments/20211027/e50da8f1/attachment.htm>


More information about the WMCEE-l mailing list