User talk:Mike Cline/USCAN Working Group Drafts/Phase I Task Forces/U.S. Canada Education Program Board Composition Proposal

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Link to Proposal: Board Composition Proposal

Debate on Specific Sections

1. In the "proposed board slots" section it states that the Wikipedia slots will be filled in a different year cycle than educators. This is a good idea, but I think it would be better to elect one Wikipedia and one Educator at a time, this way you don't lose all of your Wikipedians or Educators at the same time. Did I explain that well? Pjthepiano (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning for holding them in separate year cycles was to avoid people voting in elections where they don't have strong stakes. That is, people who primarily identify as Wikipedians might vote in the Educators election if held at the same time as the Wikipedian election, but not if on a different cycle, unless they were especially active, with a strong stake in the Educators election, and vice versa.DStrassmann (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding the explanation correctly, then I don't believe I agree with this policy. If both Wikipedians and Educators are allowed to vote for both the Educator and Wikipedian slots, then I don't believe we should implement a strategy to discourage people from exercising their right to vote. I think a valid justification for staggering elections is so that institutional knowledge gets passed on - if we're only replacing 1/3 of the board with every election, then I think things will run more smoothly. My suggestion is that instead of replacing all of the Wikipedians at once and then all of the Educators at once, we replace them in pairs (one Wikipedian and one Educator at a time) to provide even more continuity. Pjthepiano (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The task force had an active debate on the suffrage for this position. One view is that if the positions are to "represent" different constituencies (i.e. the Wikipedians and the Education Group), then people should only be able to vote in elections for those that really represent them, i.e. Wikipedians for Wikiipedians and Education members for Educators. In agreeing to permit everyone to vote in both elections, the voting procedure was designed to address the concerns of those who preferred a representative rather than an at large process. The argument for holding the elections in different cycles was therefore not to discourage people from voting, but rather to ensure that people vote in elections that they really care about, increasing the likelikhood that those who are elected "represent" the groups they are to be speaking for (and to avoid one group from dominating in representing constituencies). DStrassmann (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I support a staggered system because it gives those individuals who qualify as both wikipedians and educators opportunities to run for either slot as they choose, so that we are not setting up two mutually exclusive groups. If both types of slots were filled at the same moment, though, this might well lead to a presumption that only non-educators should be in the wikipedian slots, and that only non-wikipedians should be in the educator slots.--Pharos (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I don't see the distinction between "not discourag[ing] people from voting" and "ensur[ing] that people vote in elections that they really care about." I'd be comfortable letting the voters decide which elections they care about. Further, as I suggested above, I believe replacing Wikipedians and Educators in pairs would also improve continuity and the transfer of institutional knowledge. I'd like to get the rest of the Working Group's input on this. I'll put together the text of an amendment that we can vote on and send it around later today. Pjthepiano (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with running the two elections simultaneously (a somewhat differing concern from DStrassmann) is that it may encourage opposing camps, eg wikipedians may only support "True (Non-Educator) Wikipedians" for the 'wikipedian' slot if the 'educator' slot is up simultaneously.--Pharos (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a chance that could happen regardless of when the elections are held. I also think that the benefits of electing the Wikipedians and educators in pairs out way the risk you described. Pjthepiano (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


2. Could the Task Force elaborate on the distinction between Wikipedians/Education Program Members and "Education Program Caucus Groups"? Presumably there's a lot of overlap among these groups. Is there a reason for the having a separate reserved spot filled by the Chapters/Caucuses? Pjthepiano (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any member of a Education Program Caucus Group has to be a member, but people can join the program without joining a caucus group. We decided that it would be a good idea for there to be a reserved spot for members of Wikipedia Chapters. Since the Caucus groups would be the Education Program's version of chapters, we thought that members of the caucus groups should also be eligiible to be elected to (and vote on) the person to hold this reserved spot.DStrassmann (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Education Program Member" = anyone who has decided to join the education program, regardless of whether they also join any caucuses. "Caucus Groups" = anyone who is part of at least one caucus (geographic or topical). "Wikipedia/Wikimedia chapters" = other location-based or thematic organizations in the U.S./Canada — currently only the New York, DC, and Canada chapters exist. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These explanations are helpful. Since caucuses are intended to be the building blocks of this organization, I wonder if they should be more heavily represented than just 1/12 of the board. I think a 3/12 representation might be more fitting. Thoughts? Pjthepiano (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion, for sure. The caucuses actually get to vote on the other members, too (6 of the 12). Also, the problem with 3/12 is that 3/12 already go to Wikipedians and 3/12 go to educators (these are actually the 2 stakeholders who have the relevant expertise for the Board). That leaves 6/12, and the task force felt there should be plenty of spots available to fill in the skill/expertise gaps that might arise from restricting our pools within those other 2 groups. So we're already down to only 2/12 spots left, and the task force also decided WMF should get to appoint one, since we want to make sure the organization is aligned with WMF, as a Thematic Organization (hopefully). JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the consensus, but I do think that as the caucuses evolve as actual organizations, and if we find that they are in fact becoming a major source of skill/expertise in the organization, it may make sense to revisit this and give them a larger role in board composition.--Pharos (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it out of the question to add 2 more spots to the board (for a total of 14)? While it may be true that educators and Wikipedians have relevant skills, I don't think we should discount the experience of the caucus members who are actually implementing this program on the ground. I really do think that giving only 1 spot to the caucuses would be a mistake. Pjthepiano (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As boards get larger, the key work is increasingly done by executive and other committees or even staff, leading to less representation of key stakeholders in decisions. I personally think the board is already too large; to avoid ties, we may wish to dial down to just 11 members. A good way to involve more people is by permitting non board members to serve on board committees. (This is generally ok as long as board members are still the majority on a committee.) DStrassmann (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: board definitely should not get larger. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would support the idea of the board evolving to contain a greater percentage of Education Program members, perhaps switching some or all of the "Wikipedian" slots to Education Program members like ambassadors, who might not necessarily be Educators. In the current version of the proposal, non Educator ambassadors would have to serve in the Wikipedia slots, and could be voted on by people who are not Education Program members. Do chapter elections normally permit people to vote who are not members of the chapter? If not, I'm wondering what makes this program different? (Note, we didn't have time to debate this endlessly and various people made compromises so that we could come to consensus.) DStrassmann (talk) 05:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Related to my first question, I think it would be a good idea to establish the order in which board slots must be filled. Similar to the way the Senate has Class I, II, and III senators. Pjthepiano (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Do you have a suggestion for this? More generally, we anticipated that that elected positions would be filled first, and that the elected members plus the WMF appointee would then vote to appoint the other four. If terms are staggered, however, including those for appointed members, the appointments would occur in different stages. However, we still anticipated that the intitial board would be appointed; this plan for be our recommendation for the bylaws for future board positions.DStrassmann (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also love to hear your suggestions on this, PJ, especially taking in your congressional experience (or not). Thanks! Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well this may seem too simple, but this is how they did it when assembling the Senate for the first time in 1789. Suppose we say that a member's term is 3 years. We have 12 members on the board so we can divide them into 3 groups of 4. At their first meeting, they can draw lots from a hat to be in class I, II, or III. Class I members only serve one year before they are up for election, Class II have two years, etc. After the first round then everything proceeds normally. Make sense? Pjthepiano (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Related to my second question, in the "definitions" section, the definition of "Education Program Members" seems to be a circular definition. Could the Task Force clarify that definition and explain how this is different from being a member of a Caucus Group or a Wikipedian? Pjthepiano (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedian would be someone who has a user account and has made a specified number of edits over a period of time. The exact details will be important to specify in the bylaws, but we haven't yet firmed them up. We'd like them to be more inclusive than for WMF elections but not so easy as to permit "fly by voting". Some members of the Education Program may not qualify as Wikipedians as they may not be sufficiently active in editing Wikipedia themselves (as is the case with many who teach with Wikipedia). We felt that joining the Education Program should be very easy, but anticipated that those who do so would need to follow a simple application process to show allignment with the goals of the program.DStrassmann (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think there was some disagreement in the task force about how to define "Wikipedian." Some felt the term should be inclusive as possible — including everyone who basically created an user account and maybe some other really low-barrier requirements — and others felt it should be limited to people who genuinely have quite a bit of experience editing Wikipedia. I'd love to hear the Working Group's thoughts on this. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your other question, a person can join the Education Program (as a member, perhaps just by signing up and completing an online form or something along those lines) without joining a Caucus (geographical or topical). These members will not have the exact same support (i.e. could not get funding, I think), but the task force decided these interested people should still get as much support as possible when using Wikipedia in the classroom. Also, some of them will likely join a Caucus once they have a grasp of how the program works. I don't know if that explained it any better, so someone else who is on the Task Force might have better reasoning. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Jami - ok, then it might be better to define "Education Program Members" as individuals who have registered with the nonprofit, but are not members of a caucus. Pjthepiano (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could just come up with another term (I do see what you mean). It would be weird not to consider Caucus members to be members of the org (in title). Maybe we could go with "non-essential Education Program members"? ;) JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need a special name for people who are members without having joined a caucus. They may choose to join one in the future. I think it is really important to use a plan that coheres well with ways that academics are familiar with. The model of joining a larger academic association and then picking or not picking to be a member of a specific caucus is a model used by many academic associations. Sociology, philosophy, anthropology and many others have big national associations and then people can check to join a caucus as well. Since we expect that a large percentage of Education Program members will be academics, we should stick with a model that academics are familiar with.DStrassmann (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


5. Is there a reason why "Education Program Caucus Group" is listed twice in the definitions section? Pjthepiano (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may have been, but since I don't remember what it was, I have just combined the two. (Not sure why that last sentence is in italics ~ could someone educate me?)DStrassmann (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


6. "Educator" is a term used throughout the proposal, but is not included in the definitions section? Could the Task Force add that definition? I ask because it matters in terms of who is eligible to be elected to fill the educator slot on the board. For instance, suppose a professor participated in 2011, but hasn't had a WP class since then. Is he/she eligible? Pjthepiano (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the task force wanted to leave this up for discussion. Definitely shouldn't be that they had to participate in the most recent term (maybe they don't teach in all semesters). What do you think? JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jami is right about our wanting to have a more extended discussion on how recently an Educator would need to have taught to be eligible. I would think a 3 year window would be reasonable in case someone has taken an administrative leave - such as to become a Dean or to write a book or to do field work. DStrassmann (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a definition of Educators, but because the formatting isn't felicitous (not one of my skills), it seems to be part of a different section. The definitions section was intended to be broad and to distinguish definitions of classes according to both suffrage (voting eligibility) and election eligibility. The definitions sections seems to be formatted to put the election eligibility section outside of the definitions, but it does in fact define the educators as follows:
"Educators: election eligibility to include those who have led an Education Program-sponsored class assignment or activity over a specified time period in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction or as part of instructional activities transmitted via digital networks (e.g may include librarians, writing center directors, digital media staff)."
Note that Educators are defined to be those among Education Program members eligible to fill Educator slots; however, all Education Program members and Wikipedians can vote for them. I have just edited this part of the proposal to make this more clear. DStrassmann (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Feedback and Questions

1. What is the term length of a board member? Are there term limits (e.g. one may only serve 3 terms)? Pjthepiano (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are important questions, and will need be specified in the bylaws. We haven't yet addressed these questions, but welcome your thoughts.DStrassmann (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think 3 year terms without term limits would be reasonable. Pjthepiano (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions re Board Composition

On the board composition I have the following question and one observation: Without a proposed Governance structure (ie By-laws), answers to these questions may be difficult, so consider them more observations than questions.

1. The board composition proposal doesn’t address officers of the organization and whether or not they are voting members of the board or not. In other words what relationship do the key officers of the organization have with the board?

Our current proposed board composition does not provide for the CEO/ED or other organizational officers to be members of the board, unless they are among those appointed. However, this is a question for which I would appreciate advice on best practices from legal counsel. DStrassmann (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Structure task force had a discussion about staff votes over the weekend. Not everyone on the task force has weighed in yet, but the consensus so far is that staff members of the education organization/program should be allowed to vote for the 3 Educator slots and the 3 Wikipedian slots. We haven't talked explicitly about having staff sit on the board itself, although my sense is that the task force didn't want staff to be formal voting members of the board (but we'd need to discuss that topic more explicitly). If anyone else on the Working Group has comments about this, please let us know. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the CEO/Director of the organization should be allowed to sit on the board even if it is in a non-voting capacity. This would mean the s/he attends all of the board meetings, is on the board mailing list, etc. This would provide for a formal bridge between the trustees and operators of the program. That said, if someone thinks this is a bad idea, I can be convinced otherwise. Pjthepiano (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with PJ on this ~ actually think the ED might appropriately be a voting member. Here is a case where I'd really appreciate legal advice on best practices.DStrassmann (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Geographical diversity of board members – I think the board composition should specifically identify the geographic diversity we want/need from the educator and wikipedian community. If we don’t do that then there is the possibility (since these are elections) that one geographical region will dominate board membership (especially among wikipedians) and thus dominate the focus of the program and the allocation of resources. If that occurs, the overall program will suffer. I think the board composition proposal should allocate the seven educator/wikipedian slots into at least 6 geographical regions-Western Canada, Eastern Canada, Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, Southwest United States. There should be at least one board member within the Educator/Wikipedia contingent from each of these regions. That way, no one region can dominate the board.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds way too specific to me. Quite frankly, if 5 people who happen to live in New York are who "the people" want, then let's do it. I think we should assume a little good faith that Board members want what's best for the organization and our students/teachers/Ambassadors/Wikipedia/members. Of course, I think there have both Canada and the US represented, but the idea that we need someone from the Midwest, someone from the Pacific Northwest, etc. seems way less important than the skills/experiences of the Board members. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The task force discussed this issue and Jami accurately describes our censensus: to permit those who vote (whether in elections or the board invoting on appointments) to make decisions that balance a variety of desirable characteristics of board members.DStrassmann (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jami and Diana that we should not create such specific geographic requirements. The board itself gets to appoint 4 members so if they see that there is some geographic bias, there is a way to correct it. But I don't think it's necessary to get too prescriptive here. Pjthepiano (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments

Per the working group "rules", I request recorded votes on all proposed amendments. DStrassmann (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amdt. 1 (PJ Tabit)

To amend the "Proposed Board Slots" section of the proposal to specify that the Wikipedian and Educator slots will be elected in pairs (e.g. one Wikipedian and one Educator in each election cycle).

Support

Place supporting votes here.

1. Pjthepiano (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Place opposing votes here.

  • DStrassmann (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brianwc The Task Force had mixed views on whether Wikipedians should be allowed to vote on the Educator slots. I only agreed to this point after much debate so long as the Wikipedians and Educators were elected in different years (so that those more informed about the candidates would be more likely to vote and fewer "drive-by" uninformed votes would occur.) If this Amendment passes, then I would want an amendment to remove Wikipedians from the group of those that can vote for the Educator slots. Brianwc (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC). PJ I totally get your point about not wanting to lose the same type of expertise at once. But, if you look at the amendment below about terms and term limit, I think we can agree that it will be highly unlikely for all 3 Wikipedians or all 3 educators to be voted out at once, and therefore I think we don't have to worry much about losing the same type of expertise all at once. Even if all 3 educators or all 3 Wikipedians get voted out at the same time (which again is highly unlikely), we won't lose all our board expertise because there are 9 other members on the board, and we won't really lose Wikipedian/educator expertise because those slots will be immediately filled by others who also have Wikipedian/educator backgrounds. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amdt. 2 (PJ Tabit)

To present the "Proposed Board Slots" section of the proposal in tabular form.

  • Question: Are not Wikipedians in general an elector in this scheme or must they be part of the Education Program to vote? --Mike Cline (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are electors in the scheme proposed by the task force: The chart as currently constructed by PJ leaves them out as electors. PJ, could you please fix the chart to conform with the proposal, and then propose a separate amendment if you'd like to offer an amendment removing the voting eligibility of Wikipedians?DStrassmann (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, really sorry. That was just a mistake on my part. It should now just be a table presentation of the text in that section. Pjthepiano (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other Task Force members, Did we intend for Ed Program members generally NOT to be electors for the Ed Program Member? I think this is inaccurate currently, because it makes it chapter/caucus members only that can vote. Instead, we imagined that some Ed Program members might not choose to affiliate with a caucus and that shouldn't disenfranchise them. Brianwc (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian ~ you are correct. This is another error. The chart is helpful to clarify things, but also can be confusing. I suggest both a chart and the verbal langauge. Not sure if that is what you intend, PJ; please clarify.DStrassmann (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Please see my more recently added comment below ~ I was confused and am retracting this comment. DStrassmann (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not an error. This is the text from the proposal: "1 reserved spot, voted on by members of Wikimedia Chapters and Education Program Caucus Groups." As this reads, only the Chapters and the Caucuses vote on this "reserved spot." If the Task Force intended something else then it should clarify the proposal. Pjthepiano (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the right process for the task force to clarify this point? Put in an amendment? If so, could someone just add that amendment? (I'm also happy to do it if no one else wants to) Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what's the purpose of this particular amendment, Amendment 2? Does it just present the same information in tabular format? I do think we should have this information in both written and tabular format. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the purpose is just to insert a table into the proposal. I'm fine with having both text and table as long as they say the same thing. However, I still think the voting privileges of the various groups is unclear. For example, Wikipedians and Educators are elected by Education Program Members and Wikipedians, but not the Caucus Groups. But aren't the members of the caucus groups by necessity also considered Education Program Members? Pjthepiano (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a majority of the task force says that we intended that all Ed Program members would be eligible to vote for this Ed Program slot. Therefore it seems the language of our proposal did not precisely capture our intentions. I don't think this should require an amendment. Rather, we should edit the language of the proposal to reflect our intentions and simply flag this change for everyone. (I'd be surprised if someone really really wanted to disenfranchise non-caucus members, so I don't think this should be controversial.)) Brianwc (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't think an amendment is necessary as long as this is a noncontroversial point on which the Task Force members agree. I've changed the table to reflect this change. Could someone from the Task Force edit the text in the proposal? Pjthepiano (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am correcting my comment, acknowledging that all of the distinctions are hard to keep clear. It WAS the intent to only permit members of caucuses and chapters to vote on what PJ has characterized as an "Education Program member." However, PJ has inaccurately characterized who is to be elected. This person could also be a member of WIkipedia chapter and NOT a member of a caucus, according to our current proposal. Also, we had quite a bit of discussion about who could represent either Wikipedians or for this reserved spot, with Pharos arguing persuasively that these groups should be able to pick whoever they wanted to represent them, so they would not necessarily be limited to having the same identities as those with the suffrage.DStrassmann (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be some disagreement over whether Education Program Members are allowed to vote for the "Reserved Spot" so I've change the table back to reflecting exactly what is in the proposal. I've also changed the column to read "Reserved Spot" instead of "Education Program Members." My intent was not to mislead anyone - I just thought that "Reserved Spot" was not a very helpful label for that role.
More generally, I think the proposal needs to be more clear about voting privileges. For example, being a member of a caucus is a more formal and, presumably, a more active role in the education program. But a caucus member actually has more limited suffrage (can only vote on the "reserved spot" for 1 person) whereas someone who is only an Education Program Members, a looser association, can elect both Educators and Wikipedians (6 people). I think that those most involved with the program should have the greatest opportunity to select the Board. Pjthepiano (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, I am personally fine with allowing general Education Program Members to vote for the "Reserved Spot" as currently labeled. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am torn about whether or not Education Program Members or education caucus members should get to vote for the 3 Wikipedian spots and 3 educator spots. I share the concern discussed earlier by the task force that this would open up room for students and at-large people who are Education Program / caucus members to vote, which could lead to biases (e.g. students might base their "educator" slot votes on which professor they personally liked the best or are even currently taking a class with). However, I also see that it's rather strange that the biggest stakeholder (arguably) of the new education program — its own program members and caucus members — only get to vote for 1 out of 12 board seats, whereas people who might not even be in the program (like general Wikipedians) get to vote for 6 or more of those seats. Weighing all that, I'm leaning toward allowing the Education Program and caucus members to vote for the educator and Wikipedian slots too. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that even under the current proposal, Education Program members and caucus members who are educators or Wikipedians would still get to vote for the 6 elected slots in their capacity as educators/Wikipedians. But my statement above still stands, because the current proposal still gives suffrage for only one board seat to people who are neither educators nor Wikipedians but who are Education Program or caucus members (new students, at-large people, etc.) Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Educators would always be a subset of Education Program members. How could someone teach with Wikipedia in the program and not join it? I think we need to clarify the requirements for Wikipedian, Educator, and Education Program member in the proposal itself, or via amendment.DStrassmann (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PJ I would like to suggest that in the chart below, the category of elected position currently called "Wikipedian" be changed to be "Elected Positions."~This would be a more accurate chart representation of the proposal. DStrassmann (talk)

I think the Wikipedian column also fails to reflect the proposal's intent. Pharos, in particular, strongly advocated that almost anyone be eligible to vote for and be eligible to hold the Wikipedian slots. I thought the task force was eventually persuaded by this. What this shows, though, is that we do need to define our terms, such as "Wikipedian". The task force has considered these definitions already. We'll talk amongst ourselves, try to come to agreement, and then put some clarifications here, perhaps in the form of an amendment. Stay tuned. Brianwc (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed the column to say "Wikipedia Representatives" since the proposal reads "3 Wikipedia representatives on the board, voted on by Wikipedians and Education Program Members via an anonymous vote, using an on-wiki process (elected in a different year cycle than the Educators)." I think the Task Force should insert into the proposal a definition for what it means by "Wikipedia representative." This is proving to be a very useful discussion. Thanks for participating. :) Pjthepiano (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Board Slots and Electors
Electors WMF Appointee (1) Educators (3) Wikipedia Representatives (3) Reserved Spot (1) Board Appointees (4)
Wikimedia Foundation Yes No No No No
Education Program Members No Yes Yes No No
Wikipedians No Yes Yes No No
Wikipedia Chapters No No No Yes No
Education Program Caucus Groups No No No Yes No
Board of Directors No No No No Yes

Support

Place supporting votes here.

  1. Pjthepiano (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Support

  1. DStrassmann (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Please change Board of Directors to read WMF Board of Directors to distinguish it from the Education Program Board of Directors. Also, as an FYI, the Structure Task Force is considering how/whether members of the WMF Board/Advisory Board should "count" as Wikipedians in how they are defined. That could have implications for the chart. Note also that members of the WMF who count as either Wikipedians or members of the Education Program would also be able to vote. DStrassmann (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. The proposal reads "4 members appointed by the rest of the board." That sounds to me like the Education Program Board of Directors gets to appoint those 4 people, not the WMF Board. Am I wrong about that? Pjthepiano (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Education Program's Board of Directors gets to appoint the 4 appointed slots. I don't think WMF's Board should have direct involvement with the Education Program Board — I don't think they would want to or have the time to (they have the whole WMF to look out for already). Structure task force: did I misunderstand something? Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You"re right! I was confused (again). I was thinking about the WMF appointed spot. I think we will need to be very careful with the bylaws to clarify all the nuances; While the chart is very helpful to clear up confusion, it doesn't clear up everything; for example, we will need to make sure that for any election, each person can only vote once, even if they wear more than one hat. DStrassmann (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To fit with the actual proposal so that this is simply a clarifying chart rather than an additional amendment, I suggest a slight revision of the chart as shown below. Note, I will also clarify the language in the proposal so that it is more clear that the people who are elected are chosen by the group(s) that elect them, but (except in the case of educators), can be selected freely by those doing the electing.

DStrassmann (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Board Slots and Electors
Electors WMF Appointee (1) Educators (3) Representatives (3) Representative (1) Board Appointees (4)
Wikimedia Foundation Yes No No No No
Education Program Members No Yes Yes No No
Wikipedians No Yes Yes No No
Wikipedia Chapters No No No Yes No
Education Program Caucus Groups No No No Yes No
Board of Directors No No No No Yes

DStrassmann (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Place opposing votes here.

Amdt. 3 (PJ Tabit)

To reduce by one each the number of slots reserved for educators and Wikipedians and increase by two the number of slots reserved for Education Program Members.

Support

Place supporting votes here.

1. Pjthepiano (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Place opposing votes here.

  1. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Brianwc The Task Force considered having fewer in each category, but in particular I argued that different faculty have brought different valuable perspectives to our own Working Group because of their different experiences and different local conditions. I would want at least three Educator slots in this new structure for the same reasons. What makes sense at Berkeley may be a non-starter at Rice, but someone from Ole Miss may be able to suggest a compromise solution that works for all. I think we need to guarantee those multiple perspectives by reserving at least three slots for Educators. Brianwc (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DStrassmann (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)I think this proposed amendment reflects concern that there may not be spots on the board for Ambassadors and other non Educators who support and are members of the education program. That's why I would like to see PJ's chart fixed to accord with the proposal, and to clarify that the non Educator elected spots are to represent Wikipedians and Education Program Members, and not necessariliy to be Wikipedians as could be restrictively definied. Our proposal defines 'Wikipedian" to permit members of the Education Program to be elected to those spots, which could theoretically give them three spots. I can't imagine why any Wikipedian would want to serve on the Education Program board if they are not a member of the Program or actively engaged with it.DStrassmann (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amdt. 4 (Annie Lin)

To propose that the term for each board member should be 2 years, and there is no limit to the number of terms a person can serve.

Question - Annie, I think what you mean is that the term of each board member would be 2 years with no term limits (e.g. no limit on the number of terms a person may serve). Is that correct? Pjthepiano (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct! Thanks for clarifying. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've changed the amendment to reflect that. Pjthepiano (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PJ! :) Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Place supporting votes here.

  1. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Brianwc The two-year term makes alternating year elections possible, e.g., Wikipedians elected in odd years and Educators elected in even years. One benefit of this approach is that then expertise does not rotate off the Board all at once, but is staggered. Brianwc (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pjthepiano (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DStrassmann (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Place opposing votes here.

Vote on Proposal

Please vote on this proposal by Tuesday, December 3rd.

Support

  1. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DStrassmann (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jgmikulay (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pharos (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sgelbman (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rjensen (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pjthepiano (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rburdette (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comment

Proposal

I made some edits to this page as suggestions (diff) at Mike Cline's invitation – a copy edit and a proposal that the new board include "three community representatives, who are Wikipedians with significant experience of contributing content, who have not been involved with the education program, and who are specifically tasked with representing the community's interests, to be elected by Wikipedians by secret ballot."

I was reverted, as I expected to be. What is the procedure for having this proposal considered? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I would suspect, but won't be able to confirm this until we embark on Phase II under continuing guidance from the WMF. The new EP By-laws will codify the board composition and selection process. This involves lawyers to get it right, but I am confident there will an opportunity for Community comment and suggestion once we begin working on the By-laws. The working group has two days to finalize the proposal, resolve some critical WMF questions and get the document to the WMF. Phase I is essentially over except for the shouting (yeah!) or crying (oh shit!!). Trust me, this idea will not get overlooked if we make it to Phase II. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I suppose my concern is that the Foundation has asked for this, but there is an important thing missing from it (i.e. community reps not connected to the program). Is there a description anywhere of Phase II? Also, who is the proposal (Phase I) being submitted to? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just go to the Strategic Plan and the proposed Phase II action plan is included. The proposal goes to Frank Schulenberg on Monday --Mike Cline (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Mike , it would help give the impression of transparency if this and everything related to it were moved to the set of ed group pages, not to a sub page of your individual user page. We have WP space for a purpose, and page moves are very easy. Which of your several hundred subpages are the ones which have the actual current strategic plan and action plan that SV asks about? DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and Phase I final proposal will be moved to Education wiki space once it is submitted to WMF. Not sure yet how we will ensure transparency of any Phase II efforts if we get there. --Mike Cline (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Cline/USCAN_Working_Group_Drafts/Phase_I_Task_Forces/U.S._Canada_Education_Program_Board_Composition_Proposal"