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

Mykola Kozlenko mycola-k at ukr.net
Wed Oct 27 10:55:39 CEST 2021


Well, I understand where their concerns are coming from, but it can work both ways.

On one hand, they are afraid that if the community selects, say, two English Wikipedians and one English Wiktionarist, our committee will not select anyone from English community because of perceived over-representation (but would have selected at least one otherwise).

On the other hand, this may precisely lead to under-representation of some diversity. Say, if the community selects one North American, and the committee selects the same North American, it is quite likely that their replacement (7th choice of selectors) would not be a North American. 

In my understanding, we can mitigate this by selecting 6 + 7, i.e. announcing the shortlist of 6 before the community results plus preparing 7 replacements, and choosing among replacements once the community election results are announced. (This is slightly different from the proposed approach, but this should mitigate these concerns).

Best regards,

27 жовтня 2021, 09:49:34, від "Philip Kopetzky" <philip.kopetzky at gmail.com>:

Hi Kaarel! 
Thanks for spending so much time on solving this Gordian knot. I think the compromise is fine, a shortlist will hopefully produce a list of candidates with the skills and expertise that can fill the gaps that the election will probably produce (based on this year's WMF Board of Trustee election). I'm a bit shocked to see how editors from en.wikipedia have driven the narrative of a "fair" process, when in reality it only benefits their own worldview and leaves everyone else out. 


On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 23:13, Kaarel Vaidla <kvaidla at wikimedia.org> wrote:
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. 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!

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


Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
Movement Strategy
Wikimedia Foundation
WMCEE-l mailing list
WMCEE-l at tools.wikimedia.pl
WMCEE-l mailing list
WMCEE-l at tools.wikimedia.pl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listy.wikimedia.pl/pipermail/wmcee-l/attachments/20211027/b57ef709/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the WMCEE-l mailing list