Jump to content

User talk:Peteforsyth

From Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Peteforsyth in topic Board of Trustees term limits

If you'd like to contact me, see my English Wikipedia page:

w:en:User talk:Peteforsyth

or my contact web form:


Board of Trustees term limits

Hi. Since you noticed my edits to Board of Trustees and I was looking for someone to talk to about them... I think the reason some of the term limits at Board of Trustees were marked as July instead of September is explained by m:Special:Permalink/15286278#Current members. My guess is that some members are appointed to seats that will presumably be filled/re-appointed at Wikimania. Wikimania usually takes place in July, but if for some reason Wikimania doesn't take place in July or if the Board doesn't have a suitable candidate by then, there are a few extra months of padding in the appointment resolutions before the seats go vacant. That's my working theory, anyway.

I was trying to figure out if we needed to capture this potential nuance in the infobox and/or if each Board member entry on Board of Trustees should reference their relevant appointment resolutions. If you have any thoughts, let me know.

(Yes, I'm posting to your talk page here. It feels weird to post about this on your English Wikipedia talk page. We already have cross-wiki notifications in the form of an e-mail inbox, as I like to point out. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, @MZMcBride:, that's exactly the theory I had come to as well -- the appointment is probably "padded" to account for the possibility of a later Wikimania. It would be great to get a definite answer on that, but I think it's the best assumption for the moment.
I'd say we shouldn't include it explicitly (e.g. in the infobox) unless it can be explicitly confirmed. But linking to the appointment resolution seems entirely appropriate.
I'm fine with you contacting me here; I suppose I'd mildly prefer my Meta Wiki talk page (which would allow others to join in the discussion), but that's a minor point. Thanks for taking an interest in this. (I wish the organization itself would take an interest in getting this stuff well documented.) -Pete F (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
This is stupid, but pings only work if the same edit includes a timestamp. That is, currently if you add a link to someone's username in a follow-up edit, after already signing your post, the person won't get an Echo notification.
More substantively, I tried to add footnotes to Board of Trustees without making it look tacky. Here's what I came up with: Board of Trustees#Patricio Lorente. Part of the "Member until: September 2016" text now links to Board of Trustees#pl-refs. This seems decent enough. The remaining work would be to just do all the other members. What do you think? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and implemented this for all of the current Board members. It looks decentish. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I didn't reply @MZMcBride:. I didn't fully understand what you were proposing before, but now that I can see it fully implemented it looks good. Great work! -Pete F (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply