Board-appointed vs. community-elected: my reply
← Older revision
Revision as of 19:33, 25 June 2014
Line 366:
Line 366:
My second request is for the candidates to specify whether they believe that the community should be more involved in the selection process of the FDC, for instance whether they think that the community should be able to choose all FDC members in direct elections, similar to those held last year? Or should the Board of Trustees — with the majority of members not elected by the community — still be able to appoint six out of the eleven FDC members, ie. do they support the ''status quo''? Thanks in advance for your time, [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
My second request is for the candidates to specify whether they believe that the community should be more involved in the selection process of the FDC, for instance whether they think that the community should be able to choose all FDC members in direct elections, similar to those held last year? Or should the Board of Trustees — with the majority of members not elected by the community — still be able to appoint six out of the eleven FDC members, ie. do they support the ''status quo''? Thanks in advance for your time, [[user:odder|odder]] ([[user talk:odder|talk]]) 11:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
+
+
=== Mike Peel ===
+
Hi [[User:odder|Odder]]. I think you've got your numbers wrong here. The full FDC is 9 members, not 11. The first 7 FDC members were all WMF board-appointed; 2 more joined by community election last year. The nominations this year are for 4 WMF board-appointed members; next year the elections will be for 5 members. So although for the next year the FDC will continue to be made up of 7 WMF board-appointed members and 2 community-elected members, that changes next year to 4 WMF board-appointed and 5 community-elected members, i.e. a majority of community-elected members, which I think is a much better balance.
+
+
I think it's important that the FDC has appointed members to ensure that it has all of the necessary expertise on the committee to make the best decisions it can. I don't think that the current approach of having appointed and elected members in separate years is the optimal solution - I think it would be better to hold elections for 2-3 positions each year and then to use the appointed positions to fill skill gaps after the election results are known. Hopefully that's something that can be considered in the future.
+
+
I view the role of the FDC as ensuring that donors' money is well-spent in a way that best furthers the mission and vision of the Wikimedia movement, which it does by bringing an independent and global viewpoint to the applicant's annual plan, and then entrusting the organisations with unrestricted movement funds and the expectation that they will figure out how best to spend the money according to their overall plan and its objectives. To be honest, I don't think that the Wikimedia movement has a proper strategy at the moment that all parties have bought into - the current strategy is more the WMF's strategy and goals than it is the movement's as a whole, and I'd really like the Wikimedia movement to put together a strategy for the next 5 years that all parties in the movement buy into.
+
+
I am worried about community involvement with the FDC's work - there have been some great questions asked, and comments made, by the community on applications to the FDC. However, there hasn't been nearly enough questions and comments - most of the community isn't taking advantage of the opportunity to do this, which is rather concerning. I'm more worried about this aspect of community involvement than any other aspect. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
= Questions to specific candidates =
= Questions to specific candidates =