[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Philip Kopetzky]

This is probably the most complete discussion on the the bug/feature that
allowed the selectors to see the election result early and adjust the
selection accordingly:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Community_election_results_leaked.
..


On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 21:05, 4nn1l2 <4nn1l2.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which bug, Philip?
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 1:58 PM Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
>
>> Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most
>> regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the
>> case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election
>> software.
>> Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be worth
>> repeating ;-)
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 11:07, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
>> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Yaroslav,
>>>
>>> Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an
>>> efficient team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation
>>> working groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a
>>> movement charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and
>>> they could have been included. If that happened, everything would not to
>>> have to be built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.
>>>
>>> Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I
>>> am sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me.
>>> The entire selection process depended on only one selector per region.
>>> There was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select
>>> people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates
>>> had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who
>>> were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most
>>> skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were
>>> ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors
>>> meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the
>>> committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the
>>> decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through
>>> selectors, that might not happened.
>>>
>>> Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate
>>> from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki
>>> was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was
>>> the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and
>>> understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely
>>> odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the
>>> same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway.
>>>
>>> Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it
>>> would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like
>>> us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against
>>> the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed
>>> drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit
>>> to encompass our movement and all its people.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bodhisattwa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>>>
 Dear Bodhisattwa,

 this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group
 I was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which
 were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter.
 Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively)
 small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative
 but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for
 representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the
 group - if it includes everybody needed for representation it would be
 unworkable. The decision, which I personally also supported, was to go for
 speed and efficiency at the expense of representation. I see your
 arguments, and they have merit, but we can not do everything at once. It
 was clear that the community elections would favor North American and East
 European candidates, as for example the board elections always do. There
 was some hope that affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of
 the world, which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and
 I am not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated
 that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even
 though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other safeguards
 in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the community
 discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. But the main
 idea 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Lane Chance]

It would have been nice to see a list without many long term "names" who
will by default be entrenched in current systems and group think.

It's great that old timers, and those who have careers within the WMF or
Affiliates are involved and help with reviews, but it is worth considering
the benefits of taking a step back, to give alternative voices some room
and which might result in more credible changes and positive outcomes.

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 12:15, Gnangarra  wrote:

> I tend to agree that this was a failed process especially around the
> affiliate selections because once the selector was chosen there was no
> input by the affiliates as to who was chosen to represent them. I think it
> would have been much better for each affiliate region to have chosen their
> representative first rather than choose one person who would have no
> obligation to consult before making any decisions. That part of the process
> might well have been to pick a dozen random people to make a choice.
>
> As for the heavy bias to North America and Europe its a self fulfilling
> prophecy as it is the same regions who get most of high profile community
> committee positions as well as get to attend most events in person with
> capacity to build reputations and personal ties. Ironically the IGC was
> intended to build the GC instead we got this some which is greater than
> than a GC and will have a deeper impact so its only fair to expect a lot of
> concerns around the process and how it will impact the outcomes.
>
> The reality is that the GC should have been created, and the Movement
> Charter should then be created by them, the items should be separate
> concepts.
>
> Where ever it goes from here my biggest concern is the MCDC doesnt have
> any practical support for record keeping and no finances to ensure its even
> able to appropriately consult yet theres still an expectation to produce
> something that will more than just represent everyone
>
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 18:28, Philip Kopetzky 
> wrote:
>
>> Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most
>> regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the
>> case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election
>> software.
>> Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be worth
>> repeating ;-)
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 11:07, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
>> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Yaroslav,
>>>
>>> Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an
>>> efficient team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation
>>> working groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a
>>> movement charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and
>>> they could have been included. If that happened, everything would not to
>>> have to be built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.
>>>
>>> Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I
>>> am sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me.
>>> The entire selection process depended on only one selector per region.
>>> There was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select
>>> people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates
>>> had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who
>>> were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most
>>> skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were
>>> ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors
>>> meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the
>>> committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the
>>> decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through
>>> selectors, that might not happened.
>>>
>>> Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate
>>> from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki
>>> was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was
>>> the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and
>>> understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely
>>> odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the
>>> same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway.
>>>
>>> Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it
>>> would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like
>>> us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against
>>> the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed
>>> drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit
>>> to encompass our movement and all its people.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bodhisattwa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>>>
 Dear 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[4nn1l2]

Which bug, Philip?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 1:58 PM Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most
> regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the
> case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election
> software.
> Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be worth
> repeating ;-)
>
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 11:07, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yaroslav,
>>
>> Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an
>> efficient team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation
>> working groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a
>> movement charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and
>> they could have been included. If that happened, everything would not to
>> have to be built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.
>>
>> Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I am
>> sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me. The
>> entire selection process depended on only one selector per region. There
>> was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select
>> people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates
>> had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who
>> were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most
>> skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were
>> ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors
>> meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the
>> committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the
>> decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through
>> selectors, that might not happened.
>>
>> Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate
>> from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki
>> was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was
>> the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and
>> understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely
>> odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the
>> same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway.
>>
>> Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it
>> would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like
>> us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against
>> the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed
>> drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit
>> to encompass our movement and all its people.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bodhisattwa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Bodhisattwa,
>>>
>>> this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group
>>> I was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which
>>> were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter.
>>> Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively)
>>> small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative
>>> but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for
>>> representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the
>>> group - if it includes everybody needed for representation it would be
>>> unworkable. The decision, which I personally also supported, was to go for
>>> speed and efficiency at the expense of representation. I see your
>>> arguments, and they have merit, but we can not do everything at once. It
>>> was clear that the community elections would favor North American and East
>>> European candidates, as for example the board elections always do. There
>>> was some hope that affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of
>>> the world, which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and
>>> I am not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated
>>> that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even
>>> though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other safeguards
>>> in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the community
>>> discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. But the main
>>> idea was to elect/appoint people who understand what they are doing and who
>>> would implement what is best for the movement, taking into account that the
>>> Charter is for evetrybody, and not their personal vision. Those drafting
>>> committee members I know fit this definition. This is now our turn, as a
>>> community, to make sure that we read the draft - when it is out - carefully
>>> and make sure it is acceptable for everybody.
>>>
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[pavan santhosh]

>
> we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election software.

Wow. I am definitely missing something. Can you please point me to a
reference/resource to learn more about this?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:58 PM Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most
> regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the
> case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election
> software.
> Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be worth
> repeating ;-)
>
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 11:07, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yaroslav,
>>
>> Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an
>> efficient team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation
>> working groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a
>> movement charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and
>> they could have been included. If that happened, everything would not to
>> have to be built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.
>>
>> Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I am
>> sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me. The
>> entire selection process depended on only one selector per region. There
>> was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select
>> people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates
>> had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who
>> were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most
>> skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were
>> ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors
>> meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the
>> committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the
>> decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through
>> selectors, that might not happened.
>>
>> Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate
>> from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki
>> was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was
>> the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and
>> understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely
>> odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the
>> same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway.
>>
>> Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it
>> would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like
>> us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against
>> the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed
>> drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit
>> to encompass our movement and all its people.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bodhisattwa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Bodhisattwa,
>>>
>>> this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group
>>> I was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which
>>> were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter.
>>> Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively)
>>> small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative
>>> but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for
>>> representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the
>>> group - if it includes everybody needed for representation it would be
>>> unworkable. The decision, which I personally also supported, was to go for
>>> speed and efficiency at the expense of representation. I see your
>>> arguments, and they have merit, but we can not do everything at once. It
>>> was clear that the community elections would favor North American and East
>>> European candidates, as for example the board elections always do. There
>>> was some hope that affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of
>>> the world, which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and
>>> I am not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated
>>> that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even
>>> though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other safeguards
>>> in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the community
>>> discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. But the main
>>> idea was to elect/appoint people who understand what they are doing and who
>>> would implement what is best for the movement, taking into account that the
>>> Charter is for evetrybody, and not their personal vision. Those drafting
>>> committee members I know fit this 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Gnangarra]

>
> I'm curious as to what the ideal distribution of members might have

been?


To me I would have thought that each region picked 2 representatives giving
each equality with the WMF, not that it would be equity given the
difference in numbers and purpose.   I accept that with more than 300
languages, 170 affiliates, 13 projects, the WMF/BoT, no combination of 15
is going to be able to represent the community with anything near equity.

The biggest issue was how much the process changed once it commenced and
that in part contributed to the numbers and the lack assurity in the
process.

 I also think that a Movement Charter is something entirely different to
creating governance for the Global Council despite how its been worded.
Ideally the MCDC would split into working groups to focus on each aspect
this out comes means that people from 4 regions will have to chose where
the community they represent will best heard and served while 4 other
regions and the WMF will have voice in each



On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 20:24, Mike Peel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm curious as to what the ideal distribution of members might have
> been? NWE has 3 members, which seems like an outlier, but all the others
> were 1 or 2 - so which would you have picked to have 1 member rather
> than 2? Or should there just be more members overall (good for the
> global council itself, less good for a drafting committee)?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 1/11/21 14:13:53, Bodhisattwa Mandal wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Coming from South Asia and looking at ESEAP, I am not at all excited
> > considering the geographical representation of the committee as per
> > Wikimedia regions[1], excluding WMF appointed candidates who will
> > represent WMF instead of the regions itself, we have
> >
> >   o United States and Canada - 2 members
> >   o Western & Northern Europe - 3 members
> >   o Central and Eastern Europe & Central Asia - 1 member
> >   o Sub-Saharan Africa - 1 member
> >   o Middle East and North Africa - 2 members
> >   o East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific - 1 member
> >   o South Asia - 1 member
> >   o Latin America & Caribbean - 2 members
> >
> > I am so surprised to see only 1 representation from ESEAP which has such
> > a thriving group of affiliates and which had talked about and tried to
> > materialise to build a hub in the region so passionately. If movement
> > strategy wants Wikimedia to reach the next billion users in future, they
> > are in South Asia and ESEAP and without hearing the voices from those
> > regions, that target will be very hard to achieve.
> >
> > Anyway, good luck and best wishes for the drafting process. Hope it will
> > echo our voices.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Affiliate-chosen_members
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Affiliate-chosen_members
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bodhisattwa
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 18:32, Mardetanha  > > wrote:
> >
> > Congratulations to all elected, selected and appointed
> >
> > Mohsen
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 3:47 PM Kaarel Vaidla  > > wrote:
> >
> > Dear movement colleagues,
> >
> >
> > I am happy to announce that the Movement Charter Drafting
> > Committee election and selection processes are complete.
> >
> >   *
> >
> > 1018 participants voted to elect
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Set_Up_Process#Election_process
> >seven
> > members to the committee:
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Richard Knipel (Pharos)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Richard_Knipel_(Pharos)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Anne Clin (Risker)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Anne_Clin_(Risker)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Alice Wiegand (Lyzzy)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Alice_Wiegand_(lyzzy)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Micha%C5%82_Buczy%C5%84ski_(Aegis_Maelstrom)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Richard (Nosebagbear)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Richard_(Nosebagbear)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Ciell (Ciell)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Ciell_(Ciell)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Ravan J Al-Taie (Ravan)
> >  

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Yaroslav Blanter]

People with multiple expertise and background would have been the way to
go, but unless we have decided for the fully appointed body (which was
opposed by pretty much everybody) it is unclear how this could be realized.

Best
Yaroslav

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 1:24 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm curious as to what the ideal distribution of members might have
> been? NWE has 3 members, which seems like an outlier, but all the others
> were 1 or 2 - so which would you have picked to have 1 member rather
> than 2? Or should there just be more members overall (good for the
> global council itself, less good for a drafting committee)?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 1/11/21 14:13:53, Bodhisattwa Mandal wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Coming from South Asia and looking at ESEAP, I am not at all excited
> > considering the geographical representation of the committee as per
> > Wikimedia regions[1], excluding WMF appointed candidates who will
> > represent WMF instead of the regions itself, we have
> >
> >   o United States and Canada - 2 members
> >   o Western & Northern Europe - 3 members
> >   o Central and Eastern Europe & Central Asia - 1 member
> >   o Sub-Saharan Africa - 1 member
> >   o Middle East and North Africa - 2 members
> >   o East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific - 1 member
> >   o South Asia - 1 member
> >   o Latin America & Caribbean - 2 members
> >
> > I am so surprised to see only 1 representation from ESEAP which has such
> > a thriving group of affiliates and which had talked about and tried to
> > materialise to build a hub in the region so passionately. If movement
> > strategy wants Wikimedia to reach the next billion users in future, they
> > are in South Asia and ESEAP and without hearing the voices from those
> > regions, that target will be very hard to achieve.
> >
> > Anyway, good luck and best wishes for the drafting process. Hope it will
> > echo our voices.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Affiliate-chosen_members
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Affiliate-chosen_members
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bodhisattwa
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 18:32, Mardetanha  > > wrote:
> >
> > Congratulations to all elected, selected and appointed
> >
> > Mohsen
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 3:47 PM Kaarel Vaidla  > > wrote:
> >
> > Dear movement colleagues,
> >
> >
> > I am happy to announce that the Movement Charter Drafting
> > Committee election and selection processes are complete.
> >
> >   *
> >
> > 1018 participants voted to elect
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Set_Up_Process#Election_process
> >seven
> > members to the committee:
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Richard Knipel (Pharos)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Richard_Knipel_(Pharos)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Anne Clin (Risker)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Anne_Clin_(Risker)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Alice Wiegand (Lyzzy)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Alice_Wiegand_(lyzzy)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Micha%C5%82_Buczy%C5%84ski_(Aegis_Maelstrom)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Richard (Nosebagbear)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Richard_(Nosebagbear)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Ciell (Ciell)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Ciell_(Ciell)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Ravan J Al-Taie (Ravan)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Ravan_J_Al-Taie_(Ravan)
> >
> >
> >   *
> >
> > The affiliate process
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Set_Up_Process#Selection_process
> >has
> > selected six members:
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Anass Sedrati (Anass Sedrati)
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Anass_Sedrati_(Anass_Sedrati)
> >
> >
> >   o
> >
> > Érica Azzellini (EricaAzzellini)
> > <
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Mike Peel]

Hi all,

I'm curious as to what the ideal distribution of members might have 
been? NWE has 3 members, which seems like an outlier, but all the others 
were 1 or 2 - so which would you have picked to have 1 member rather 
than 2? Or should there just be more members overall (good for the 
global council itself, less good for a drafting committee)?


Thanks,
Mike

On 1/11/21 14:13:53, Bodhisattwa Mandal wrote:

Hello,

Coming from South Asia and looking at ESEAP, I am not at all excited 
considering the geographical representation of the committee as per 
Wikimedia regions[1], excluding WMF appointed candidates who will 
represent WMF instead of the regions itself, we have


  o United States and Canada - 2 members
  o Western & Northern Europe - 3 members
  o Central and Eastern Europe & Central Asia - 1 member
  o Sub-Saharan Africa - 1 member
  o Middle East and North Africa - 2 members
  o East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific - 1 member
  o South Asia - 1 member
  o Latin America & Caribbean - 2 members

I am so surprised to see only 1 representation from ESEAP which has such 
a thriving group of affiliates and which had talked about and tried to 
materialise to build a hub in the region so passionately. If movement 
strategy wants Wikimedia to reach the next billion users in future, they 
are in South Asia and ESEAP and without hearing the voices from those 
regions, that target will be very hard to achieve.


Anyway, good luck and best wishes for the drafting process. Hope it will 
echo our voices.


[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Affiliate-chosen_members 



Regards,
Bodhisattwa


On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 18:32, Mardetanha > wrote:


Congratulations to all elected, selected and appointed

Mohsen

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 3:47 PM Kaarel Vaidla mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:

Dear movement colleagues,


I am happy to announce that the Movement Charter Drafting
Committee election and selection processes are complete.

  *

1018 participants voted to elect

seven
members to the committee:

  o

Richard Knipel (Pharos)



  o

Anne Clin (Risker)



  o

Alice Wiegand (Lyzzy)



  o

Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom)



  o

Richard (Nosebagbear)



  o

Ciell (Ciell)



  o

Ravan J Al-Taie (Ravan)



  *

The affiliate process

has
selected six members:

  o

Anass Sedrati (Anass Sedrati)



  o

Érica Azzellini (EricaAzzellini)



  o

Jamie Li-Yun Lin (Li-Yun Lin)



  o

Georges Fodouop (Geugeor)



  o

Manavpreet Kaur (Manavpreet Kaur)



  o

Pepe Flores (Padaguan)

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Gnangarra]

I tend to agree that this was a failed process especially around the
affiliate selections because once the selector was chosen there was no
input by the affiliates as to who was chosen to represent them. I think it
would have been much better for each affiliate region to have chosen their
representative first rather than choose one person who would have no
obligation to consult before making any decisions. That part of the process
might well have been to pick a dozen random people to make a choice.

As for the heavy bias to North America and Europe its a self fulfilling
prophecy as it is the same regions who get most of high profile community
committee positions as well as get to attend most events in person with
capacity to build reputations and personal ties. Ironically the IGC was
intended to build the GC instead we got this some which is greater than
than a GC and will have a deeper impact so its only fair to expect a lot of
concerns around the process and how it will impact the outcomes.

The reality is that the GC should have been created, and the Movement
Charter should then be created by them, the items should be separate
concepts.

Where ever it goes from here my biggest concern is the MCDC doesnt have any
practical support for record keeping and no finances to ensure its even
able to appropriately consult yet theres still an expectation to produce
something that will more than just represent everyone

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 18:28, Philip Kopetzky 
wrote:

> Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most
> regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the
> case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election
> software.
> Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be worth
> repeating ;-)
>
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 11:07, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yaroslav,
>>
>> Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an
>> efficient team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation
>> working groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a
>> movement charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and
>> they could have been included. If that happened, everything would not to
>> have to be built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.
>>
>> Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I am
>> sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me. The
>> entire selection process depended on only one selector per region. There
>> was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select
>> people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates
>> had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who
>> were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most
>> skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were
>> ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors
>> meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the
>> committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the
>> decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through
>> selectors, that might not happened.
>>
>> Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate
>> from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki
>> was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was
>> the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and
>> understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely
>> odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the
>> same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway.
>>
>> Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it
>> would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like
>> us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against
>> the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed
>> drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit
>> to encompass our movement and all its people.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bodhisattwa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Bodhisattwa,
>>>
>>> this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group
>>> I was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which
>>> were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter.
>>> Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively)
>>> small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative
>>> but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for
>>> representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the
>>> group - if it includes everybody 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Philip Kopetzky]

Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most
regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the
case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election
software.
Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be worth
repeating ;-)

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 11:07, Bodhisattwa Mandal 
wrote:

> Hi Yaroslav,
>
> Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an efficient
> team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation working
> groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a movement
> charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and they could
> have been included. If that happened, everything would not to have to be
> built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.
>
> Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I am
> sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me. The
> entire selection process depended on only one selector per region. There
> was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select
> people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates
> had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who
> were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most
> skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were
> ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors
> meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the
> committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the
> decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through
> selectors, that might not happened.
>
> Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate
> from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki
> was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was
> the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and
> understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely
> odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the
> same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway.
>
> Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it
> would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like
> us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against
> the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed
> drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit
> to encompass our movement and all its people.
>
> Regards,
> Bodhisattwa
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
>> Dear Bodhisattwa,
>>
>> this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group I
>> was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which
>> were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter.
>> Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively)
>> small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative
>> but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for
>> representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the
>> group - if it includes everybody needed for representation it would be
>> unworkable. The decision, which I personally also supported, was to go for
>> speed and efficiency at the expense of representation. I see your
>> arguments, and they have merit, but we can not do everything at once. It
>> was clear that the community elections would favor North American and East
>> European candidates, as for example the board elections always do. There
>> was some hope that affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of
>> the world, which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and
>> I am not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated
>> that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even
>> though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other safeguards
>> in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the community
>> discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. But the main
>> idea was to elect/appoint people who understand what they are doing and who
>> would implement what is best for the movement, taking into account that the
>> Charter is for evetrybody, and not their personal vision. Those drafting
>> committee members I know fit this definition. This is now our turn, as a
>> community, to make sure that we read the draft - when it is out - carefully
>> and make sure it is acceptable for everybody.
>>
>> Best
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:08 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
>> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Samuel,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 21:35, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hi Yaroslav,

Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an efficient
team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation working
groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a movement
charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and they could
have been included. If that happened, everything would not to have to be
built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.

Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I am
sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me. The
entire selection process depended on only one selector per region. There
was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select
people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates
had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who
were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most
skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were
ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors
meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the
committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the
decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through
selectors, that might not happened.

Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate from
South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki was
English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was the
best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and
understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely
odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the
same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway.

Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it
would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like
us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against
the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed
drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit
to encompass our movement and all its people.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa





On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Dear Bodhisattwa,
>
> this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group I
> was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which
> were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter.
> Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively)
> small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative
> but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for
> representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the
> group - if it includes everybody needed for representation it would be
> unworkable. The decision, which I personally also supported, was to go for
> speed and efficiency at the expense of representation. I see your
> arguments, and they have merit, but we can not do everything at once. It
> was clear that the community elections would favor North American and East
> European candidates, as for example the board elections always do. There
> was some hope that affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of
> the world, which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and
> I am not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated
> that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even
> though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other safeguards
> in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the community
> discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. But the main
> idea was to elect/appoint people who understand what they are doing and who
> would implement what is best for the movement, taking into account that the
> Charter is for evetrybody, and not their personal vision. Those drafting
> committee members I know fit this definition. This is now our turn, as a
> community, to make sure that we read the draft - when it is out - carefully
> and make sure it is acceptable for everybody.
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:08 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Samuel,
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 21:35, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe the idea is for anyone to explicitly represent their
>>> geography, affiliations, or organizations -- rather to draft a meaningful
>>> and empowering starting point for us all.
>>>
>>
>> People develop their perspectives based on their environment, culture and
>> surroundings and it is almost impossible for anyone to understand
>> comprehensively about what is going on in other places without dealing with
>> their real situation there. It doesn't matter how honest or how 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Anders Wennersten]

Well stated Yaroslav, and congratulation to the people 
elected/selected/appointed


I see this election process as the best yet in the movement. I believe 
the election/selection/ appointed worked very well and gave a well 
balanced group. Looking through the stages of the Single Transferable 
Vote method  I think it worked very well. Raven was 18 at beginning but 
became elected at the end, she being a very good candidate but not so 
well known


Anders

Den 2021-11-02 kl. 09:43, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:

Dear Bodhisattwa,

this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition 
group I was part of, and also during the events following these 
discussions which were intended to shape the specific process to draft 
the Charter. Basically, the choice was between two options - either 
have a (relatively) small group elected/appointed fast which would not 
be fully representative but would be efficient and would draft the 
Charter quickly, or to go for representation at the expense of the 
time and possibly also size of the group - if it includes everybody 
needed for representation it would be unworkable. The decision, which 
I personally also supported, was to go for speed and efficiency at the 
expense of representation. I see your arguments, and they have merit, 
but we can not do everything at once. It was clear that the community 
elections would favor North American and East European candidates, as 
for example the board elections always do. There was some hope that 
affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of the world, 
which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and I am 
not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated 
that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even 
though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other 
safeguards in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the 
community discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. 
But the main idea was to elect/appoint people who understand what they 
are doing and who would implement what is best for the movement, 
taking into account that the Charter is for evetrybody, and not their 
personal vision. Those drafting committee members I know fit this 
definition. This is now our turn, as a community, to make sure that we 
read the draft - when it is out - carefully and make sure it is 
acceptable for everybody.


Best
Yaroslav

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:08 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal 
 wrote:



Hi Samuel,

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 21:35, Samuel Klein  wrote:


I don't believe the idea is for anyone to explicitly represent
their geography, affiliations, or organizations -- rather to
draft a meaningful and empowering starting point for us all.


People develop their perspectives based on their environment,
culture and surroundings and it is almost impossible for anyone to
understand comprehensively about what is going on in other places
without dealing with their real situation there. It doesn't matter
how honest or how experienced a person might be, an Western
European will have hard times to understand all the real issues in
South Asia, A South Asian will have little understanding about
what is really happening in Latin America and that is why
geographical representation is needed. If the question or process
is about something global, then it is needed even more. To draft a
document for us all, it is essential to get voices from as many as
possible, if not all. How can a movement charter be drafted if it
does not echo the concerns of all our existing communities clearly?

We chose to follow popular elections which have always brought
North Americans and Europeans on the top of the table and
historically abandoned other parts of the world, even though there
are capable people in those parts too but do not have the voter
base. We have seen it repeated in this election process too. Here
we had 7 seats through community elections, so its almost futile
for Global South candidates to compete there, the proof of my
statement is that only 1 candidate from the Global South actually
made through this election. So, they only have 6 affiliate
selected positions from 8 Wikimedia regions (and 1 Thematic hub),
where they have minimal chance because 6 seats from 8 regions
count to < 1 candidate per hub. So, regions like South Asia,
ESEAP, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. was extremely lucky to get 1
candidate in the committee, 2 is not at all expected. Don't you
think that this is a totally unfair process from the start for
under-represented communities and affiliates? No wonder, people
here are getting aloof from the movement strategy process.

Of course broad geographic and project backgrounds, and good
language diversity (within the drafting group and through
available tools to support 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Dear Bodhisattwa,

this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group I
was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which
were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter.
Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively)
small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative
but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for
representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the
group - if it includes everybody needed for representation it would be
unworkable. The decision, which I personally also supported, was to go for
speed and efficiency at the expense of representation. I see your
arguments, and they have merit, but we can not do everything at once. It
was clear that the community elections would favor North American and East
European candidates, as for example the board elections always do. There
was some hope that affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of
the world, which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and
I am not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated
that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even
though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other safeguards
in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the community
discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. But the main
idea was to elect/appoint people who understand what they are doing and who
would implement what is best for the movement, taking into account that the
Charter is for evetrybody, and not their personal vision. Those drafting
committee members I know fit this definition. This is now our turn, as a
community, to make sure that we read the draft - when it is out - carefully
and make sure it is acceptable for everybody.

Best
Yaroslav

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:08 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Samuel,
>
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 21:35, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't believe the idea is for anyone to explicitly represent their
>> geography, affiliations, or organizations -- rather to draft a meaningful
>> and empowering starting point for us all.
>>
>
> People develop their perspectives based on their environment, culture and
> surroundings and it is almost impossible for anyone to understand
> comprehensively about what is going on in other places without dealing with
> their real situation there. It doesn't matter how honest or how experienced
> a person might be, an Western European will have hard times to understand
> all the real issues in South Asia, A South Asian will have little
> understanding about what is really happening in Latin America and that is
> why geographical representation is needed. If the question or process is
> about something global, then it is needed even more. To draft a document
> for us all, it is essential to get voices from as many as possible, if not
> all. How can a movement charter be drafted if it does not echo the concerns
> of all our existing communities clearly?
>
> We chose to follow popular elections which have always brought North
> Americans and Europeans on the top of the table and historically abandoned
> other parts of the world, even though there are capable people in those
> parts too but do not have the voter base. We have seen it repeated in this
> election process too. Here we had 7 seats through community elections, so
> its almost futile for Global South candidates to compete there, the proof
> of my statement is that only 1 candidate from the Global South actually
> made through this election. So, they only have 6 affiliate selected
> positions from 8 Wikimedia regions (and 1 Thematic hub), where they have
> minimal chance because 6 seats from 8 regions count to < 1 candidate per
> hub. So, regions like South Asia, ESEAP, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. was
> extremely lucky to get 1 candidate in the committee, 2 is not at all
> expected. Don't you think that this is a totally unfair process from the
> start for under-represented communities and affiliates? No wonder, people
> here are getting aloof from the movement strategy process.
>
> Of course broad geographic and project backgrounds, and good language
>> diversity (within the drafting group and through available tools to support
>> work with others) are important for this work.  But please don't exclude
>> any participant from that, based on the experimental mix of selection
>> processes.  We are all wikimedians.  Runa and Jorge for instance have been
>> advancing the global movement towards free knowledge, culture and tools for
>> a very long time.  And having a translation expert actively involved should
>> help amplify different voices :).
>>
>
> Sorry for my English, I am not a native English speaker, so maybe there is
> a misunderstanding. I have not excluded anyone as you are saying. Runa and
> Jorge are amazing 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hi Samuel,

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 21:35, Samuel Klein  wrote:

>
> I don't believe the idea is for anyone to explicitly represent their
> geography, affiliations, or organizations -- rather to draft a meaningful
> and empowering starting point for us all.
>

People develop their perspectives based on their environment, culture and
surroundings and it is almost impossible for anyone to understand
comprehensively about what is going on in other places without dealing with
their real situation there. It doesn't matter how honest or how experienced
a person might be, an Western European will have hard times to understand
all the real issues in South Asia, A South Asian will have little
understanding about what is really happening in Latin America and that is
why geographical representation is needed. If the question or process is
about something global, then it is needed even more. To draft a document
for us all, it is essential to get voices from as many as possible, if not
all. How can a movement charter be drafted if it does not echo the concerns
of all our existing communities clearly?

We chose to follow popular elections which have always brought North
Americans and Europeans on the top of the table and historically abandoned
other parts of the world, even though there are capable people in those
parts too but do not have the voter base. We have seen it repeated in this
election process too. Here we had 7 seats through community elections, so
its almost futile for Global South candidates to compete there, the proof
of my statement is that only 1 candidate from the Global South actually
made through this election. So, they only have 6 affiliate selected
positions from 8 Wikimedia regions (and 1 Thematic hub), where they have
minimal chance because 6 seats from 8 regions count to < 1 candidate per
hub. So, regions like South Asia, ESEAP, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. was
extremely lucky to get 1 candidate in the committee, 2 is not at all
expected. Don't you think that this is a totally unfair process from the
start for under-represented communities and affiliates? No wonder, people
here are getting aloof from the movement strategy process.

Of course broad geographic and project backgrounds, and good language
> diversity (within the drafting group and through available tools to support
> work with others) are important for this work.  But please don't exclude
> any participant from that, based on the experimental mix of selection
> processes.  We are all wikimedians.  Runa and Jorge for instance have been
> advancing the global movement towards free knowledge, culture and tools for
> a very long time.  And having a translation expert actively involved should
> help amplify different voices :).
>

Sorry for my English, I am not a native English speaker, so maybe there is
a misunderstanding. I have not excluded anyone as you are saying. Runa and
Jorge are amazing people in the movement but I was talking about
geographical representation of the communities and they are appointed by
WMF as their representative, so geographical representation does not stand
there.

>
> PS - There are still many, many systemic gaps and biases in our
> communities and our knowledge.  The focus on elevating and connecting
> regional hubs may help address this, and I dearly hope to see thriving hubs
> in Asia. But I wouldn't say the next billion participants, editors, and
> learners will come from any one region; rather from underserved communities
> everywhere in the world! (And by stats like readership
> ,
> communities in Africa are still the least reached, including proportional
> to connectivity.)
>

More than 4 billion people live here in South Asian and ESEAP countries. If
our next billion readers will not come from here by 2030, then where will
it come from? These are developing countries embracing technology at a high
rate. (Anyway, my opinion concerns Africa too. There is only 1
representative from the entire Sub-Saharan Africa.)

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7RNSNN3F2UMKVDK7S3KEJIT5X4ZCXSYF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Samuel Klein]

Thank you Kaarel, and kudos to the committee; may the work get off to a
solid start.

Bodhisattwa Mandal  writes:

> Coming from South Asia and looking at ESEAP, I am not at all excited
> considering the geographical representation of the committee as per
> Wikimedia regions[1], excluding WMF appointed candidates who will represent
> WMF instead of the regions itself
>

Hi Bodhisattwa,

I don't believe the idea is for anyone to explicitly represent their
geography, affiliations, or organizations -- rather to draft a meaningful
and empowering starting point for us all.

Of course broad geographic and project backgrounds, and good language
diversity (within the drafting group and through available tools to support
work with others) are important for this work.  But please don't exclude
any participant from that, based on the experimental mix of selection
processes.  We are all wikimedians.  Runa and Jorge for instance have been
advancing the global movement towards free knowledge, culture and tools for
a very long time.  And having a translation expert actively involved should
help amplify different voices :).

SJ.

PS - There are still many, many systemic gaps and biases in our communities
and our knowledge.  The focus on elevating and connecting regional hubs may
help address this, and I dearly hope to see thriving hubs in Asia. But I
wouldn't say the next billion participants, editors, and learners will come
from any one region; rather from underserved communities everywhere in the
world! (And by stats like readership
,
communities in Africa are still the least reached, including proportional
to connectivity.)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JVVWOFPNJGZ45M5ZEPSPAKC767S3NI6E/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hello,

Coming from South Asia and looking at ESEAP, I am not at all excited
considering the geographical representation of the committee as per
Wikimedia regions[1], excluding WMF appointed candidates who will represent
WMF instead of the regions itself, we have

   - United States and Canada - 2 members
  - Western & Northern Europe - 3 members
  - Central and Eastern Europe & Central Asia - 1 member
  - Sub-Saharan Africa - 1 member
  - Middle East and North Africa - 2 members
  - East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific - 1 member
  - South Asia - 1 member
  - Latin America & Caribbean - 2 members

I am so surprised to see only 1 representation from ESEAP which has such a
thriving group of affiliates and which had talked about and tried to
materialise to build a hub in the region so passionately. If movement
strategy wants Wikimedia to reach the next billion users in future, they
are in South Asia and ESEAP and without hearing the voices from those
regions, that target will be very hard to achieve.

Anyway, good luck and best wishes for the drafting process. Hope it will
echo our voices.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Affiliate-chosen_members

Regards,
Bodhisattwa


On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 18:32, Mardetanha  wrote:

> Congratulations to all elected, selected and appointed
>
> Mohsen
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 3:47 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear movement colleagues,
>>
>> I am happy to announce that the Movement Charter Drafting Committee
>> election and selection processes are complete.
>>
>>-
>>
>>1018 participants voted to elect
>>
>> 
>>seven members to the committee:
>>-
>>
>>   Richard Knipel (Pharos)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Anne Clin (Risker)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Alice Wiegand (Lyzzy)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Richard (Nosebagbear)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Ciell (Ciell)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Ravan J Al-Taie (Ravan)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>The affiliate process
>>
>> 
>>has selected six members:
>>-
>>
>>   Anass Sedrati (Anass Sedrati)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Érica Azzellini (EricaAzzellini)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Jamie Li-Yun Lin (Li-Yun Lin)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Georges Fodouop (Geugeor)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Manavpreet Kaur (Manavpreet Kaur)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Pepe Flores (Padaguan)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>The Wikimedia Foundation has appointed
>>
>> 
>>two members:
>>-
>>
>>   Runa Bhattacharjee (Runab WMF)
>>   
>> 
>>   -
>>
>>   Jorge Vargas (JVargas WMF)
>>   
>> 
>>
>>
>> The committee will convene soon to start its work. The committee can
>> appoint up to three more members  to bridge diversity and expertise gaps.
>>
>> We are also in the process of creating the meta pages with more details
>> regarding 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

[Mardetanha]

Congratulations to all elected, selected and appointed

Mohsen

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 3:47 PM Kaarel Vaidla  wrote:

> Dear movement colleagues,
>
> I am happy to announce that the Movement Charter Drafting Committee
> election and selection processes are complete.
>
>-
>
>1018 participants voted to elect
>
> 
>seven members to the committee:
>-
>
>   Richard Knipel (Pharos)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Anne Clin (Risker)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Alice Wiegand (Lyzzy)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Richard (Nosebagbear)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Ciell (Ciell)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Ravan J Al-Taie (Ravan)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>The affiliate process
>
> 
>has selected six members:
>-
>
>   Anass Sedrati (Anass Sedrati)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Érica Azzellini (EricaAzzellini)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Jamie Li-Yun Lin (Li-Yun Lin)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Georges Fodouop (Geugeor)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Manavpreet Kaur (Manavpreet Kaur)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Pepe Flores (Padaguan)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>The Wikimedia Foundation has appointed
>
> 
>two members:
>-
>
>   Runa Bhattacharjee (Runab WMF)
>   
> 
>   -
>
>   Jorge Vargas (JVargas WMF)
>   
> 
>
>
> The committee will convene soon to start its work. The committee can
> appoint up to three more members  to bridge diversity and expertise gaps.
>
> We are also in the process of creating the meta pages with more details
> regarding the election and selection processes. I will follow-up in this
> thread when they are available.
>
> If you are interested in engaging with the Movement Charter drafting
> process , follow the
> updates on Meta
>  and
> join the Telegram group .
>
> With thanks from the Movement Strategy and Governance team
> --
>
> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
>
> Movement Strategy 
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WPL4AL3J3T2ZRMANNV4PYFNIOOU7DYVC/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

-- 
Sent from iphone using Gmail mobile
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at