Topic on Talk:Code of Conduct/Committee/Candidates/2018-I

4 out of 5 members are the same people, and the last member of the current committee is under the auxiliary members section. Effectively this seems like it's the same committee. Is that the goal here?

Given that the committee is itself in charge of turning the nominations into a slate of candidates, did the committee just reject other candidates and keep themselves in power? Or did not enough new people nominate themselves?

Finally, the current "public report" is outdated, so I'm currently unable to provide support to any candidate currently on the committee due to a lack of transparency. I hope that can be changed soon.

This is a valid concern. Thank you to have raised this issue.

Candidates.

So, let's start from with candidates statistics.

We are indeed in a situation where not enough new people nominate themselves.

• We received 11 applications for 10 available positions:
  • 8 applications are from current members or auxiliary members
  • 3 applications are from person not currently serving
    • 2 applications have been made by candidates spontaneously
    • 1 application is an outreach from the committee as a moment we lacked candidates
  • all three new members have been nominated

The fact we received 11 applications for 10 available positions is worrying. We need a better outreach in the future to get candidates. We need to discuss the ways to create incentive to apply for the CoC committee.

Public report.

I share your opinion the report is outdated. We discussed in the Wiener 2017 hackathon the following:

• a dashboard with cases received/handled statistics
• after the term of the committee (ie now), a synthesis report outlining all issues thoughts and comments.

The dashboard would benefit from a statistics and infographic workflow to be able to offer statistics reporting in real time for better transparency.

This situation isn't a local issue: a lot of projects would benefit from an unified reporting framework instead of the current situation where several bodies prepare their own reporting tooling.

Did the current committe select whether nominees should be normal or auxiliary members, or did people specifically apply for one of those roles? If it's the former case, what was the thinking behind only selecting one of the three new candidates into the next committee? Do you see the normal and auxiliary committee as roughly equally important? Or was that decided based on skill, diversity etc?