Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors/Steering Committee/Elections

Throwing my name in the hat

I very much look forward to the formation of the Steering Committee and look forward to submitting myself for election to it. Basket of Puppies 00:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Approval discussion

The steering committee is recommending this proposed election process and timeline for adoption by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Let's discuss it, tweak it, and poll for support over for the next week, and hopefully by next week we'll have a consensus version that we can move forward with pretty quickly so we can hold elections in April.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Support - It's a pretty lightweight, open process, with plenty of opportunity for public comment and discussion about why people support (or oppose) individual candidates. We've tried to come up with a system that balances the interests of different stakeholders and gives a fair chance to Campus Ambassadors who have come to Wikipedia through the ambassador program and aren't already well-known Wikipedian. I think this proposed election process would do pretty well with that.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support I believe that the process, as described, would allow for those with limited Wikipedia experience to be considered equally with those of more experience. The proposed election process is open and not subjected to unnecessary bureaucracy. I believe that this is a good process, per Sage. Basket of Puppies 15:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think it's pretty balanced, makes sense, and is, as BoP said above, open but without too much bureaucratic nonsense. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - with kudos to the one(s) who added a requirement for three campus ambassadors. In an on-wiki vote, the people with the most name recognition among Wikipedians are obviously the ones who will receive the most votes – yet the campus ambassadors play as important or more important roles in our initiative. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Well, being better known may translate to more !votes, but not necessarily support !votes. -- Donald Albury 02:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support - per BoP. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support it seem simple and straightforward enough. --In actu (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am certifying that this was indeed my !vote --Guerillero | My Talk 18:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Looks like it will work. -- Donald Albury 02:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Opposed to any form of vote / poll system, and any decisions arrived at in such a manner. m:Voting is evil. I don't know what has happened to the idea of consensus and discussion recently; it would appear nobody can be bothered to read more than a single sentence any more. I fully embrace the policy statement;

  "Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. Straw votes should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision." - WP:DEMOCRACY

Why oh why is everything these days being reduced to straw-polls and votes - despite the clearly demonstrated mess it makes (e.g. 1 2) ?  Chzz  ►  08:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We vote on arbcom. We vote on seats for the board of directors. Why can't we vote on seats for the Steering Committee? --Guerillero | My Talk 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The point of straw polls is to expedite coming to consensus... it lets us identify different things that people have problems with, so that we can move forward by trying to adjust things to address as many of those problems as possible. Deciding on how (or whether) to elect a steering committee is a consensus process, and this straw poll is just a tool . Of course, if you're diametrically opposed to electing a steering committee at all, it looks like there's not much room for compromise. But the main role of the steering committee is to facilitate consensus... by coming up with coherent proposals for discussion and possible adoption by the ambassador program (like this one). So far, I think that model is pretty efficient.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

on committee structure

"but the two key groups represented by the committee are" - well, that assumption depends on the intended scope of the committee. if we are in favour of one committee (at least for en.wp generally) to sum up the spectrum, than we should take into account that this two-role-distinction was created to fix a US-specific kick off problem for ppi. the distinction does not exist - as such - in countries with national chapters nor in countries with regular nationwide (or key area) meetup structures. additionally, it is likely that the distinction will be obsolete after three or four terms of a cooperation project, anyway, because of the evolving relationship between a lecturer and his "wikipedia team" on the campus.
therefore, i would recommend to ease the wording (not the actual practice, seems reasonable to get startet) to ensure that the committee can be considered as prepared with sufficient adaptability for the global program to come, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Are you saying that the distinction between Campus and Online Ambassadors won't or shouldn't exist outside the US? I imagine there will be more people taking on both roles at once, but helping online and showing up in classrooms are still going to be two quite different roles. Even in countries with strong meetup structures, there will be Wikipedians who don't participate in meetups and wish to remain fully anonymous, but are Online Ambassadors. And I think we've had enough success with training non-Wikipedians as Campus Ambassadors that we'll want to keep doing that as the program grows and spreads. One of the exciting things about the ambassador program is that it creates roles that people can step into to support Wikipedia even if they don't have the 'editing bug' (which has been almost the only way to contribute in the past, aside from coding).--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

no, not exactly. of course, this model will be part of the game. i'm pointing out that a focus on this distinction will most likely not last long even inside the usa. that doesn't imply that there won't be online("-only") ambassadors and so on any longer but a participating university cumulates experiences locally (the chair, the campus ambassadors, the participating students won't be swallowed by the earth either, and so on). it's not only in their (the institutions) interests to recruit to out of this pool (new/other role models) to run such a project - as soon as they have enough (competent) personal around to do so within their own institution - but also, measured by the experiences with long time running class-centered projects in europe, very unlikely that they won't (try to) do so. spreading such knowhow isn't a one way story.

therefore, i'm proposing to modify the text by moving the already established roles out of the focus ("key groups represanted") into another formulation (tbd), which names them as the leading examples (they are).

that won't interfere with the current (proposed) practice but keeps the door open for the diversification processes. there is no reason why it should stop by "both roles at once". we know that and therefore: no reason why we shouldn't deal with it accordingly to what we know. an obvious candidate for a more diverse approach is the already established role of the so called "Coordinating Online Ambassador". additionally, if we are facing "both roles at once": how does affect such a case the proposed parity, which is designed for a clear separation (or impractical)? regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I see a little more clearly what you're saying. Rewording that bit would be fine; I'll try to think of a way to to do, if you don't first.

As for 'parity', the intention here is to make sure the committee doesn't end up with too few people taking part in either of the key kinds of roles. As long as there are at least three people who are active with the in-person role, and at least three who are working with students on-wiki and know the ins-and-outs of the community, then it's fine if some of the people are serving both roles. It's not about balance so much as minimum level of representation and diverse experience. As for diversification of roles, I think we've conceived of most of the more diverse specific roles as subcategories of Online or Campus Ambassador roles. The exception would be the nascent GLAM ambassador role, which I'm hoping will work closely with this program, but will in large part be a separate parallel thing.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Length of service

If elected, how long is someone expected to serve on the Ambassadors Steering Committee? McMormor (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One year. I'll note that in the proposal.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

staggered terms

I just boldly made a change to the terms and future election plans, after a conversation with Frank. We had talked about the importance of continuity, but kind of forgot about it in making this draft. I changed the proposal to include staggered terms (a la arbcom), where we replace the committee in parts, rather than all at once, with elections every six months to replace ~half the committee.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I like that Idea better then replacing everyone at once. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be a very good idea, it would make sure that the process and thoughts about the program don't get lost between committees, Sadads (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. sonia♫ 04:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Election plan approved, let's get started

Thanks, everyone who participated in this poll and discussion. I think we've worked out most of the bugs people identified, and everyone save Chzz who has weighed in is okay with the general plan. Per the plan of discussing this for about a week--and so we can keep up with the proposed timeline--I'm closing this proposal as accepted. Now it's time to move forward; the next step is a period for candidates to nominate themselves and explain whey they are running, and for others to ask questions of them. Look for an announcement tomorrow at Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors and on the Google Group, and I'll update this page with a link to the candidates page as well. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Did this ever happen? I don't see any candidates or candidate pages... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Ambassadors/Steering Committee/Elections/Candidates. sonia♫ 23:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

election has ended

See the results annoucement.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)