A quick note on elections

Just a quick note on elections. I guess translating all candidate statements made me read and think about it much more than I did 6 months ago, when I first cast my vote.

My position is quite clear: Eloquence, Yann, Kim Bruning.

Eloquence because although we don't always agree on just everything I'm pleased to say that he did a grand job and even if I could be his father he's got much more competence about WMF affairs than I will ever have. Yann because I'm impressed by his curriculum in non-profit organizations. That's exactly the kind of know-how we need, and we would be stupid if we missed the opportunity of getting it for free. Besides, he has linguistic experience with Asian languages, and can be a great support in getting rid of our Western countries rule historical approach

Kim... because he seems to be the one candidate who understands exactly the kind of problems we face everyday in LangCom. Bringing different cultures to work together and breaking insularities should be a major concern for us all. If I could cast a fourth vote it would go to River. She has an impressive experience on day2day jobs, and I do agree that we should cut and cut and cut more expenses.

When you need more money than you have this should always be a first option, for families as well as foundations. I'm a bit worried of what ads in wikipedia may mean, but I guess it would still be much better to cash bucks that Coca-Cola cannot directly control than asking them to be nice to us at personal level.

I have a bit of perplexity about a German candidate who is invoking moral standards. While I'm sure he means well I wish I could understand what he means, because morals are very much related to one's native culture and making generic assertions in this field can be dangerous.

Same applies to a Polish candidate claiming he does not like some projects and would act to cut them. Which ones exactly? Why? I guess this should be much clearer. If his message gets expressed in such a mysterious form it is probably going to only damage his chances for election. I send all my solidarity to another polish candidate claiming we should have a more relative stance towards cultures. The post-soviet area does have pretty peculiar situations, yet I guess we should address this as a general world-wide stance, not simply make yet another local preference.

My solidarity goes also to those registered users who cannot edit because of the open-proxy block. But honestly I don't think this is enough to be elected to the Board. It looks like a real-life problem we have to address all toghether, not as a statement worth an election to a 2 year term.

Finally I don't like at all the idea that Frieda is bringing about: the need to power up the role of national chapters. We have more than enough trouble with nationalisms in WMF as is, we don't really need to make things worse, thanks.

What happens if Mainland China and Taiwan open two chapters and import their political conflict into WMF? What if the many political tensions among Russian speakers and native speakers in Belarus' and Ukraine get enhanced by national chapters having an organizational function in WMF? What if we have a Northern Korean Chapter fighting a Southern Korean one? What if someone founds a Moldavian chapter pretending to rule ro.wiki? Whose chapter would rule on es.wiki and pt.wiki? and that's just to name a few immediate worries...

I mean... I'm positive she simply did not think about it, but thinking world-wide should be THE main skill for a candidate since the very start. I don't really think that national chapters can have any role at WMF level. That's the road to suicide.