Nominating Committee/Selection criteria

This page is used for developing selection criteria for four "expert seats" of the WMF Board.

If you are not a member of Nominating Committee, please use talk page for comments.

Also, please see this sample candidate rating form.

---

I've been thinking about what process we could use to develop and finalize our selection criteria. How about this, below.

Sue Gardner 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's say we want eight criteria total, because any more would tend to get unwieldy when scoring multiple candidates. And let's say we allocate half the criteria to generic "good trustee" traits that all trustees ideally would have, and half to specific needed expertise/skills.

If that basic premise makes sense, here's a process we could use to get there.

1. Brainstorm as many potential criteria as possible. (We've been doing that already, but we can continue to add new criteria for let's say an additional week.)
2. Classify the criteria as "general trustee traits" and "specifically-required expertise." (I took a first crack at that; feel free to refine.)
3. Discuss the criteria on the talk page for a week or so - which ones we think are most important, and why. (That conversation should be open to anyone who wants to participate, not just us.)
4. Finally, based on the discussion and our own thinking, we can each allocate a bunch of votes to the criteria we think are most important. Let's say six votes each, for each of the two classifications. We can add up which get the most votes, and they will be final selection criteria.

Obviously we can modify this proposal if anything appears to not be working, or if we think of ways to improve it.

Next steps:

• I've started, by sorting the current criteria into the two groups. Next, the NomCom should discuss (on the mailing list and/or talk page) which we think are most important and why. (We should explicitly invite others to participate in that.) And in about a week, we should vote,

• None of this should preclude us from continuing to brainstorm candidate names on the mailing list and NomCom wiki: both tracks can move forward in tandem.

General needed traits

• Overall enthusiasm and interest in serving on the Board | BSB Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann
• Commitment to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission, vision and values | BSB Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann
• Demonstrated ability to work productively as part of a team | BSB
• Time availability and time constraints | BSB Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann
• Representation from as many regions as possible Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann
• Experience with a grassroots organization | BSB
• Experience with an international organization Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann
• Membership in the Wikimedia community
• Fit with the development stage of the existing Board
• Fit with the short and long-term goals of the organization
• Fit with any special projects or initiatives the organization is planning
• Ability to influence, persuade and lead
• Good command of English language

Specific needed expertise[1]

• Financial expertise/ability to chair audit committee/business experience | BSB Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann
• Non-profit Board experience, governance, NGO experience | BSB Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann
• Legal understanding/experience/knowledge of US corporate law/knowledge of international (pick one: copyright, contract, slander) law | BSB Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann (specifically for me, international non-profit law)
• Fundraising experience/expertise to provide oversight to staff fundraising/ability to support fundraising Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann
• Technical experience/experience with the developer community | BSB
• Public relations experience
• Organizational structure experience
• Board development experience | BSB Sue Gardner Melissa Hagemann
• Community relations
• Demonstrated ability to think strategically and to plan
• Academia / education (added from the previous document; Milos)

[1] Note that JB and Stu are included in the expertise seats. So we cannot say for example that we already have financial skills due to Stu's presence on the board, because that assumes his continued presence in an expertise seat. In other words, if we think a particular skill is essential, it needs to be listed under "specific needed expertise."