[Foundation-l] Inviting some 'outsider candidates' into the movement in the way they wanted
A few candidates are what I might call 'outsider candidates' in that they weren't well known across projects before the election and thus may not be likely to win election to such a democratically-elected position-- but they seem to have quite a lot to offer us. If they are elected, we'll have their skills and their contributions at the foundation level. But why deprive ourselves of their skills and contributions at the foundation level just because they weren't a perfect fit for board member? To me, this question was prompted by the skills of Jane S. Richardson (Dcrjsr) and William H. DuBay (Bdubay). Both have special expertise, both propose specific projects that I think are utterly non-controversial and they don't necessarily need the 'full force of the office' to help the foundation with them. An election is always an emotional risk, not winning sometimes feels like a rejection. For most candidates, they're already 'hooked in' to our movement and I hope and expect that the election results won't deter them from further participation. For Dcrjsr and Bdubay, if they aren't elected, we might want to take the extra effort to make sure that they get what they need to still contribute at the foundation level-- Perhaps have someone from foundation/staff/leadership actively work with them to help them find their role within the movement. Dcrjsr's a scientist, and free content desperately wants to capture science and scientists in particular. WM's well-positioned to help enable this revolution-already-in-progress away from 'closed' journals. Science is one of our key specialties, the place where our projects shine, and I feel like Dcrjsr could be very helpful in a million unforeseen ways through her experience in this sphere. If she isn't elected, perhaps we could ask her to become our science liason / ambassador. Bdubay similarly cites a background in readability consulting and expertise on communications across languages. If this election has shown anything, it's that we definitely could use more communications skills. He's interested in working on a Plain Language project, working with Simple Wikipedia, and improving readability. If he's not elected, perhaps the foundation/staff could ask him to study of how our movement can improve inter-community communication? or something similar? These may not be the only two who we should consider actively recruiting post-election, the list may not be exhaustive. These people volunteered to do an insane amount of work for us-- let's make sure they understand you didn't win is absolutely NOT you're fired-- and in fact, if we could 'hire' them into volunteer positions at the movement level if they don't win, so much the better. Alec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Inviting some 'outsider candidates' into the movement in the way they wanted
Finding ways to get people involved in the movement that wouldn't normally do so is definitely something we need to do (and are starting to do, through various schemes - for example, the Campus Ambassadors programme). Don't forget that we do already have routes onto the board (chapter selected and expert seats) other than the elections for precisely the reason that the elections don't necessary get the breadth the board needs. On 12 June 2011 20:12, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote: A few candidates are what I might call 'outsider candidates' in that they weren't well known across projects before the election and thus may not be likely to win election to such a democratically-elected position-- but they seem to have quite a lot to offer us. If they are elected, we'll have their skills and their contributions at the foundation level. But why deprive ourselves of their skills and contributions at the foundation level just because they weren't a perfect fit for board member? To me, this question was prompted by the skills of Jane S. Richardson (Dcrjsr) and William H. DuBay (Bdubay). Both have special expertise, both propose specific projects that I think are utterly non-controversial and they don't necessarily need the 'full force of the office' to help the foundation with them. An election is always an emotional risk, not winning sometimes feels like a rejection. For most candidates, they're already 'hooked in' to our movement and I hope and expect that the election results won't deter them from further participation. For Dcrjsr and Bdubay, if they aren't elected, we might want to take the extra effort to make sure that they get what they need to still contribute at the foundation level-- Perhaps have someone from foundation/staff/leadership actively work with them to help them find their role within the movement. Dcrjsr's a scientist, and free content desperately wants to capture science and scientists in particular. WM's well-positioned to help enable this revolution-already-in-progress away from 'closed' journals. Science is one of our key specialties, the place where our projects shine, and I feel like Dcrjsr could be very helpful in a million unforeseen ways through her experience in this sphere. If she isn't elected, perhaps we could ask her to become our science liason / ambassador. Bdubay similarly cites a background in readability consulting and expertise on communications across languages. If this election has shown anything, it's that we definitely could use more communications skills. He's interested in working on a Plain Language project, working with Simple Wikipedia, and improving readability. If he's not elected, perhaps the foundation/staff could ask him to study of how our movement can improve inter-community communication? or something similar? These may not be the only two who we should consider actively recruiting post-election, the list may not be exhaustive. These people volunteered to do an insane amount of work for us-- let's make sure they understand you didn't win is absolutely NOT you're fired-- and in fact, if we could 'hire' them into volunteer positions at the movement level if they don't win, so much the better. Alec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Inviting some 'outsider candidates' into the movement in the way they wanted
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Don't forget that we do already have routes onto the board (chapter selected and expert seats) other than the elections for precisely the reason that the elections don't necessary get the breadth the board needs. And now http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_visitors ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Inviting some 'outsider candidates' into the movement in the way they wanted
This is a great point, Alec - something on my mind as well. It is great that we had such a diversity of candidates, and we need more ways to invite people to participate in the future of the movement. To me, this question was prompted by the skills of Jane S. Richardson (Dcrjsr) and William H. DuBay (Bdubay). Both have special expertise, both propose specific projects that I think are utterly non-controversial and they don't necessarily need the 'full force of the office' to help the foundation with them. Not only is it not needed, being on the Board of the Foundation may not help such projects happen. To realize a content-related project, what is needed is a clear plan, and support from interested participants. Then you have something the Foundation can facilitate. This is especially true in a movement like ours where the central foundation plays a supporting role rather than a project-defining role. The closest thing I've seen to a specific request that talented people help realize a project they care about is the advisory board for the Public Policy initiative: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2010/08/06/announcing-the-public-policy-initiative-advisory-board/ That has been active and successful, and may be sustainable after the initial WMF-funded project moves on. I would like to see something like this in many subject areas, to help us improve [for inetance, in literacy readability, and in science in general]. These may not be the only two who we should consider actively recruiting post-election, the list may not be exhaustive. These people volunteered to do an insane amount of work for us It would be good to have ways to engage all participants -- and others who were following the election but for whatever reason not interested in running -- in acting on the issues that people think and care about when voting. Again, most of the issues that people care about are driven by community project decisions and roadmaps more than by the opinions of Trustees on the Board. Perhaps a 'clerking' process during election season could help pull out related strategic issues as they come up in discussion, and make progress towards resolving them. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
