User talk:Barkeep49/U4CBC

"Can sitting members of ArbCom and other high level decision making bodies be elected to the U4C"
You may be interested in Village pump (policy)/Archive 159 - I would expect the answer to be "no" for the same reasons. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Pppery I would think it is likely enwiki to make that decision as well for the U4C. But that is a different question if it should be a rule at the U4C level that would apply to all projects/affiliates/etc. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This also reminded me of a concern I have about this where it's a community desire but something ArbCom has set for itself. So I've suggested we incorporate it into ACE rules and also discuss extending to the U4C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see why that discussion would apply to any arbcom other than that of the English Wikipedia. Maybe having some recusal criteria would be appropriate if an (in)action in which one participated or made by a body on which one presently serves is being evaluated, but I don't see why we would want this to be a per se bar to participation more broadly—particularly when bodies like the Ombuds Commission have been able to create recusal rules that prevent individuals from taking actions when a conflict-of-interest may arise. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 15:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Like Hawk, I don't think this needs to be U4C level when considering arbcoms - COI rules would suffice at that point. Communities can create their own rules (which I agree would make more sence at an ACE/ACE-equivalent level, rather than by arbcom itself). Where it does make more sense to consider is high-level decision-making bodies & U4C at a cross-project level. This could be the GC, it could be Ombuds, etc. I'm highly sceptical about whether an individual could find time to do the GC and U4C at the same time, and I definitely don't think Ombuds & U4C should be concurrently held. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Should there be term limits?"
If individuals are regularly subject to a community vote, I don't see term limits being needed. The basic reason for term limits in most democratic institutions is to prevent specific individuals from consolidating power and becoming de-facto dicators. Since all members of the U4C are going to be truly equal in their voting powers (I don't think that there's any provision to grant sole powers to any individual person in the U4C, though please do correct me if I'm wrong), I don't see it as a huge risk.

On the flipside, if the U4C does go drunk with power (the thing term limits intended to prevent in the long-run), what would probably be a better method is the ability for a recall election to be held given specific criteria. Perhaps some clause along the (very rough) lines of If X were to be set at something high-enough-to-dissuade-trolls-but-low-enough-to-be-attainable-by-the-global-community (like 300) I think that this would provide a balanced check on the U4C. Obviously, there are things like "good standing", "eligible voters", etc. to work out, but I think that having the same people who are eligible to vote in U4C elections being eligible to vote in recalls would make sense here. It would also need some clause around who oversees the elections and who scrutineers it (I think having the Stewards serve in this capacity would be reasonable), and it might be reasonable to say something like "[i]ndividuals removed from the U4C following a recall election shall be ineligible to run for the U4C in the next ordinary U4C election." But, in any case, I do think that the availability of recall would be a better tool than term limits for keeping the U4C's members consistently and immediately accountable to the community than term limits would. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"Can affiliates nominate people for election to the U4C?"
I do like the idea that affiliates, etc. should not be permitted to nominate/endorse candidates in their capacity as an organization, as I worry that allowing this would create the foundational conditions for political partisanship to arise—something that we should seek to avoid at all costs for a committee like this. Any such restriction should exempt the individual directors of affiliates from acting in their individual capacity in publicly stating support for someone, however.

If the question is more about "can people only involved in affiliates run for the U4C", I don't see a convincing reason to bar them from running; the UCOC applies to affiliates just as it does to the wikis. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * What is meant by the nomination aspect here? Are editors needing to do more than self-nominate to be voted upon? What would affiliates nominating individuals be replacing in terms of the (to be) status quo? Or is it meant as Hawk's first interpretation? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I wasn't so clear here. Current discussion is around the idea that there might be criteria A, B, C in order to run for the U4C but that if nominated by an affiliate you might only need A, B. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah right. I guess that sort of depends what's being traded off - I imagine it might be something like "prior functionary experience, or affiliate nomination" or "X active editors backing nomination, or affiliate nomination". If the latter, that's likely fine. If something akin to the former, then I think the affiliate should have to show how the experience has been comparable - if someone has been handling conduct cases within a chapter for years, that could certainly be an interesting alternate perspective. But an unjustified affiliate nomination shouldn't replace an experiential criteria. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)