[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Samuel Klein]

Pascale: you are the best  :)  Let us by all means take inspiration from
math and art.

Erik notes, about UX testing:
> it's also possible to provide volunteers with the resources to do it.

Yes, our ability to let people run A/B/Z tests, is extremely powerful.  We
should make more use of this, and teach more people to use it :
particularly the editors already spending long hours fine-tuning designs.

Lodewijk writes:
> Mostly agree with SJ here, with one exception: I do think that some
standing committee to rule on conduct issues is necessary

Yes, elected conduct-decision bodies make sense.  I'm suggesting we use a
simpler process, not be too particular about it, and iterate. The more
drawn-out and elaborate a selection, the more we filter out people who
would prefer to be doing non-bureaucratic work.

Let's combine a slate of elections into *one annual election process*.
Make the range of elections intriguing rather than daunting.

Also, as Steven notes, we need to rebuild norms for leadership /
stewardship of individual projects + decisions. Whoever is planning and
leading an initiative -- be bold and humble, responsive and iterative,
empowering others to fix what's broken.

SJ


On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 7:34 PM Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
>>> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
>>> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
>>> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
>>> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
>>> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>>>
>>> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
>>> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> scann
>>
>>
>> 100% this.
>>
>> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
>> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
>> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
>> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
>> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
>> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
>> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
>> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
>> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
>> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
>> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
>> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
>> less than five."[1]
>>
>> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
>> leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
>> things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
>> This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
>> knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
>> trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
>> is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
>> perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
>> people. It's turtles all the way down.
>>
>> 1:
>> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>>
>>
> I think that means we need to acknowledge some culpability for this
> phenomena - in environments like this list, folks learn that no decision is
> too benign to spark controversy and any actually controversial decision is
> guaranteed to garner a vitriolic backlash.
>
> Combine that with the normal tendencies of bureaucracies, magnified by the
> special nature of the WMF, and the result is explosive growth in
> distributed decision-making organs.
>
> Accurate insights from SJ and others, if not necessarily new, but unlikely
> to lead to change because all the incentives that led to this place remain.
> ___
> 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/UKFPEJYU5HYLOGFMJFTPPLVG5LBAUVI4/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Erik Moeller]

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:13 PM Steven Walling  wrote:
> What else?

In my view, User Experience research has a lot to contribute to this
conversation. Every announcement, every banner, every call to action
can be user-tested, including in multiple languages. Put it in front
of people and see how they respond. Do they get what you're trying to
say? Are they turned away? Are they able to follow the call to action?
Do they want to? How do different audiences (experienced
Wiki[mp]edians, new contributors, people in the Global North or Global
South, people with disabilities) respond?

That kind of testing is certainly possible for well-funded
organizations; it's also possible to provide volunteers with the
resources to do it.

All organizations struggle with creeping complexity over time. Hard
evidence that this complexity is stifling can be the necessary
counterweight that motivates action: user research findings,
clickthrough and completion rates for calls to action (aggregate
numbers are fine, no need to track individuals!), time series data to
optimize feedback periods, etc.

With evidence in hand, develop standards. Wording choices carry strong
connotations. Is "team" a better term than "committee"? Is "movement"
a term that fosters in-group/out-group dynamics? Are feedback periods
too long or not long enough? Do participation rates in elections go up
or down?

In short, I believe an evidence-driven approach to reducing complexity
could bear fruit quickly. I still think fondly of the A/B testing work
Maryana P. and you organized for talk page templates. [1] I don't mean
to diminish the extent to which Wikimedia is evidence-driven today!
I'm sure lots of folks are measuring, testing & comparing different
approaches for community engagement, and I'd love to hear about it.
But perhaps a more org-wide evidence-driven campaign to simplify
processes, improve communications & increase their effectiveness is
needed as well.

Warmly,
Erik

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Template_A/B_testing
___
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/WRWDAWRYISY7XGO6DASHCBPCOBIYI5UP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Pascale Camus-Walter via Wikimedia-l]

One more proposal to "decomplexify" the WMF/Community processes :

Get inspired by maths and art.

There is nothing complex that cannot be simplified for an equivalent result.

Let's find the good degree of complexity at all stages and not just take the 
first raw equation that comes out.
 It may be exact, but just need to be reworked to get pertinent and easy to use.

Maths
What does simplify mean in math? 

https://howtodiscuss.com/t/simplify-math-definition/108309
 

Art
Simplify images to their core elements.
https://simplify.thatsh.it/


Pascale

……
Pascale Camus-Walter


Le 18 mai 2022 à 22:46, Samuel Klein  a écrit :


Dear Board (and all),

The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process creep is 
an existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if not 
actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess process. 
There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous titles.

Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's try 
to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least somewhat confusing:

Global Council: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  After 6 months 
of work in private, we know the charter will cover governance, resourcing, & 
community.  A ratifiable charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then 
another group may draft an election process. Council elections would start 
mid-2024.

Conduct: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review & revision 
process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement by another group 
(U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual elections for it [starting in 
2023?].

WMF Board: A four-stage election, with a new complex nomination template. 
Nominees evaluated by another elected 9-person Analysis Committee, followed by 
a two-stage vote.
Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.  
 
Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be different, 
complex affairs. 
And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti through a 
straw. 
 
~ ~ ~
Four short proposals for your consideration:

1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical reasons. 
What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What major issues + nuances 
are at play?

2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent. 
Build tools and frameworks that conserve rather than soak up community time.  
Make longer processes capture proportionately detailed results. Empower a 
standing election committee.

3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization, 
regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies. Support 
organizers + facilitators rather than hiring them out of their communities to 
facilitate on behalf of a central org.

4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate design and implementation.
Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against arbitrary 
mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or exaggerate 
staff-community division.

풲♡,  SJ

-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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/7UVDBQTEWTR3ZNYLEP5TWAOVHF372OEL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org___
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/SQXQCAQSJ7O3W7BYZDQPKXEJO2T3TZTR/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What is the point of diversity when the agenda for everyone is insisted to
be the same. What is the point of much of what we do as volunteers when it
will not be considered as the basis for use by a public?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 12:26, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> Thanks SJ for setting out the problem, re your second point, simplifying
> electoral processes:
>
> One very easy simplification of the governance process is to take the
> skillset issue out of the community elections for the WMF board. The board
> already has a number of "independent" members, and one reason for having
> them is to add skills and experience that haven't emerged in the elections
> from the community. We should go back to that principle. If the board
> decides it needs a member who is an expert on horology, campanology or  the
> making of stroopwaffels, and it doesn't have such a member, then recruit an
> independent member who fills that gap. As for diversity of community
> members, you can always create a separate constituency for a particular
> election. For example, in this year we want to make sure that the board has
> its first member from sub saharan Africa, so we are reserving one seat for
> someone from that part of the world. You can still set some basics, for
> legal and insurance reasons candidates will need to be legally adult, not
> currently in jail etc. But otherwise the election result should be up to
> the community.
>
> WSC
>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:44:08 -0400
>> From: Samuel Klein 
>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Simplifying governance processes
>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> caatu9w+zjapb-3olf3poka92de30krub8wqbcl8gmcgfyhg...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> boundary="cc355205df4f53c9"
>>
>> Dear Board (and all),
>>
>> The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process
>> creep
>>  is an
>> existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if not
>> actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess process.
>> There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous titles.
>>
>> Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's
>> try to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least somewhat
>> confusing:
>>
>> *Global Council*: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  After 6
>> months of work in private, we know the charter will cover governance,
>> resourcing, & community
>> .  A ratifiable
>> charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then *another* group may
>> draft an election process. Council elections would start mid-2024.
>>
>> *Conduct*: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review &
>> revision process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement by
>> *another* group (U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual
>> elections
>> for it [starting in 2023?].
>>
>> *WMF Board*: A *four*-stage election, with a new complex nomination
>> template. Nominees evaluated by *another* elected 9-person Analysis
>> Committee, followed by a two-stage vote.
>> Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.
>>
>> Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be
>> different,
>> complex affairs.
>> And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti
>> through a straw.
>>
>> ~ ~ ~
>> Four short proposals for your consideration:
>>
>> 1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
>> We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical
>> reasons.
>> What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What major issues +
>> nuances are at play?
>>
>> 2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent.
>> Build tools and frameworks that *conserve* rather than soak up community
>> time.  Make longer processes capture proportionately detailed results.
>> Empower a standing election committee.
>>
>> 3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization,
>> regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies.
>> *Support* organizers + facilitators rather than *hiring* them out of their
>> communities to facilitate on behalf of a central org.
>>
>> 4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate *design* and
>> *implementation*.
>> Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against arbitrary
>> mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or
>> exaggerate staff-community division.
>>
>> 풲♡,  SJ
>>
>
>>
>> ___
> 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
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[WereSpielChequers]

Thanks SJ for setting out the problem, re your second point, simplifying
electoral processes:

One very easy simplification of the governance process is to take the
skillset issue out of the community elections for the WMF board. The board
already has a number of "independent" members, and one reason for having
them is to add skills and experience that haven't emerged in the elections
from the community. We should go back to that principle. If the board
decides it needs a member who is an expert on horology, campanology or  the
making of stroopwaffels, and it doesn't have such a member, then recruit an
independent member who fills that gap. As for diversity of community
members, you can always create a separate constituency for a particular
election. For example, in this year we want to make sure that the board has
its first member from sub saharan Africa, so we are reserving one seat for
someone from that part of the world. You can still set some basics, for
legal and insurance reasons candidates will need to be legally adult, not
currently in jail etc. But otherwise the election result should be up to
the community.

WSC

>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:44:08 -0400
> From: Samuel Klein 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Simplifying governance processes
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Message-ID:
> <
> caatu9w+zjapb-3olf3poka92de30krub8wqbcl8gmcgfyhg...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="cc355205df4f53c9"
>
> Dear Board (and all),
>
> The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process creep
>  is an
> existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if not
> actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess process.
> There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous titles.
>
> Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's
> try to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least somewhat
> confusing:
>
> *Global Council*: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  After 6
> months of work in private, we know the charter will cover governance,
> resourcing, & community
> .  A ratifiable
> charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then *another* group may
> draft an election process. Council elections would start mid-2024.
>
> *Conduct*: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review &
> revision process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement by
> *another* group (U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual elections
> for it [starting in 2023?].
>
> *WMF Board*: A *four*-stage election, with a new complex nomination
> template. Nominees evaluated by *another* elected 9-person Analysis
> Committee, followed by a two-stage vote.
> Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.
>
> Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be different,
> complex affairs.
> And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti
> through a straw.
>
> ~ ~ ~
> Four short proposals for your consideration:
>
> 1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
> We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical reasons.
> What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What major issues +
> nuances are at play?
>
> 2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent.
> Build tools and frameworks that *conserve* rather than soak up community
> time.  Make longer processes capture proportionately detailed results.
> Empower a standing election committee.
>
> 3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization,
> regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies.
> *Support* organizers + facilitators rather than *hiring* them out of their
> communities to facilitate on behalf of a central org.
>
> 4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate *design* and
> *implementation*.
> Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against arbitrary
> mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or
> exaggerate staff-community division.
>
> 풲♡,  SJ
>

>
>
___
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/ZUKNP4EWILPRGGW4P7WXIZG6KG4QUVIW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Andreas Kolbe]

Hi all,

A couple of thoughts.

Lodewijk said: "It would be nice if we can somehow still lower the stakes
by making processes more iterative, and accepting that the outcome does not
have to be the same for a long period of time."

This encapsulates *exactly* what wikis are all about. Wikipedia was
revolutionary because it trusted this process. Giving everything to
multiple layers of committees working behind closed doors feels
disempowering, like being dragged back into the 20th century.

Gnangarra said: "These long process development cycles necessitate paid
opportunities just following the trail of meetings ..."

This is my feeling as well. The new management structures that have been
proposed, or are in the process of being created, seem designed to insert a
layer of paid career Wikimedians between the Foundation and the volunteer
community. This, too, feels like a break with the very ideas that brought
the Wikimedia projects into being.

Similarly, while I appreciate office hours, zoom calls etc. – it's nice to
be able to put a face to a name – such meetings are very time-consuming.
What is said in a one-hour meeting can be read in 5 or 10 minutes once it's
written down. Attending such meetings involves significant disruptions of
work and family life (actually more so than IRC did). I wish there were
more discussions on-wiki, where everyone can contribute and make an
effective input whenever they have time. This is how the projects were
built.

Andreas
___
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/LYAN4URGCA72IYEXEKUKTC42X2IQAIR4/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Gnangarra]

I would hope the UCoC gives us the tools to address many of these long
delays. In all cases no matter how long the process  when it is completed,
the goals have shifted, there's new people, and they will one day want
their say.

It all comes down to one simple little idea that was the foundation of what
we have created "Assume Good Faith" .Once we moved away from that we
had to replace it with something that was process orientated with each
process we became better at identifying holes so we built more complex
processes but processes can never achieve the ideals we once reached for.
We have now become so scared to make a decision without everyone being ask,
so we hold a meetings, talk, then the outcome is always lets do a survey,
then lets check with the affiliates so goes to the regional hubs they hold
their meeting, then do another survey, then send it back to local
affiliates to give an opinion then the local affiliate sends out its own
survey.   All we have done is kicked the ball 6 months down the road with
no decision, then someone its often when just one that disagrees it gets
kicked back for another attempt.  In that first meeting the people there
could have decided with the same outcome thats taken 2 years to reach.


These long process development cycles necessitate paid opportunities just
following the trail of meetings and making sure the ball has gone down
every road whether the people along that road are really invested in the
individual product, and now the consideration of stipends for various
community guides; perhaps now the WMF has grown in size its worth looking
into how this growth is impacting community development.

It always amazes everyone what Wikimedians can do when left to just make it
happen.





On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 11:43, Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 6:25 PM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> The proposals that you list are a bit double edged. It may be necessary,
>> but they have downsides. For example, there are in a few cases very good
>> reasons to go back to the drawing board when we're talking about
>> foundational documents. It is annoying that it takes so long, but with time
>> we also should see increased ownership and an increased support base.
>> Having a single phase reduces the number of messages and time spent, but it
>> also reduces the process to a single point of failure, making it much
>> higher stakes. If you don't participate, you're too late. It would be nice
>> if we can somehow still lower the stakes by making processes more
>> iterative, and accepting that the outcome does not have to be the same for
>> a long period of time. But there is a fundamental tension between speed and
>> perceived pressure.
>>
>
> Do we really think that the dramatic increase in process has resulted in
> commensurately better community participation and buy-in? Doesn’t seem like
> it. Seems like we still get the same relatively tiny number voices who care
> a lot about global governance structure, and everyone else in the community
> mostly just votes when advertised to.
>
> In any case, taking multiple years to do things like even outline what
> say, a code of conduct committee or global council (I still have no clue
> WTF that really is) will even look like and do is egregiously slow by any
> standard.
>
> I'm less concerned about elections, if only one of these rounds involves
>> the community. If having an additional round of filtering helps to make the
>> ballot easier to digest (reduced to six candidates for three positions
>> sounds great to me!) that also means less mental effort for voters. The
>> real question is: how much cumulative time are we spending on this process
>> (or rather: should we be spending on this, if we want a good outcome). If
>> 100 people spend an extra 2 hour to trim down from 30 to 6 candidates, that
>> is worth it, because 10,000 people don't have to read 30 statements, bio's,
>> Q's etc. If we go from 7 to 6 candidates, maybe less so.
>> If doing another drafting round means 30 people spend an extra 10 hours
>> drafting, that may be worth it, if it means that 1000 people don't have to
>> be frustrated for a year because they constantly run into consequences of
>> the policy and have to go through protests to get it changed. If the
>> iteration for things that don't work is more lightweight, maybe we can just
>> try it for a year, and evaluate after that.
>>
>> Maybe it's worth it to sometimes take a napkin and do the math: how much
>> collective time are we going to spend on this?
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:12 PM Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Nathan  wrote:
>>>


 On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling <
 steven.wall...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's
>> + staff 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Steven Walling]

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 6:25 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> The proposals that you list are a bit double edged. It may be necessary,
> but they have downsides. For example, there are in a few cases very good
> reasons to go back to the drawing board when we're talking about
> foundational documents. It is annoying that it takes so long, but with time
> we also should see increased ownership and an increased support base.
> Having a single phase reduces the number of messages and time spent, but it
> also reduces the process to a single point of failure, making it much
> higher stakes. If you don't participate, you're too late. It would be nice
> if we can somehow still lower the stakes by making processes more
> iterative, and accepting that the outcome does not have to be the same for
> a long period of time. But there is a fundamental tension between speed and
> perceived pressure.
>

Do we really think that the dramatic increase in process has resulted in
commensurately better community participation and buy-in? Doesn’t seem like
it. Seems like we still get the same relatively tiny number voices who care
a lot about global governance structure, and everyone else in the community
mostly just votes when advertised to.

In any case, taking multiple years to do things like even outline what say,
a code of conduct committee or global council (I still have no clue WTF
that really is) will even look like and do is egregiously slow by any
standard.

I'm less concerned about elections, if only one of these rounds involves
> the community. If having an additional round of filtering helps to make the
> ballot easier to digest (reduced to six candidates for three positions
> sounds great to me!) that also means less mental effort for voters. The
> real question is: how much cumulative time are we spending on this process
> (or rather: should we be spending on this, if we want a good outcome). If
> 100 people spend an extra 2 hour to trim down from 30 to 6 candidates, that
> is worth it, because 10,000 people don't have to read 30 statements, bio's,
> Q's etc. If we go from 7 to 6 candidates, maybe less so.
> If doing another drafting round means 30 people spend an extra 10 hours
> drafting, that may be worth it, if it means that 1000 people don't have to
> be frustrated for a year because they constantly run into consequences of
> the policy and have to go through protests to get it changed. If the
> iteration for things that don't work is more lightweight, maybe we can just
> try it for a year, and evaluate after that.
>
> Maybe it's worth it to sometimes take a napkin and do the math: how much
> collective time are we going to spend on this?
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:12 PM Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Nathan  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
 wrote:

> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>
> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current
> initiatives are not even a good aim to begin with.
>
> cheers,
> scann


 100% this.

 The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
 they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
 limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
 include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
 multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
 review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
 intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
 people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
 manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
 perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
 possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
 consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
 less than five."[1]

 The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of
 strong leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or
 safety to do things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations
 possible. This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no
 one really knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck
 because we're trying to reset our governance to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[effe iets anders]

The proposals that you list are a bit double edged. It may be necessary,
but they have downsides. For example, there are in a few cases very good
reasons to go back to the drawing board when we're talking about
foundational documents. It is annoying that it takes so long, but with time
we also should see increased ownership and an increased support base.
Having a single phase reduces the number of messages and time spent, but it
also reduces the process to a single point of failure, making it much
higher stakes. If you don't participate, you're too late. It would be nice
if we can somehow still lower the stakes by making processes more
iterative, and accepting that the outcome does not have to be the same for
a long period of time. But there is a fundamental tension between speed and
perceived pressure.

I'm less concerned about elections, if only one of these rounds involves
the community. If having an additional round of filtering helps to make the
ballot easier to digest (reduced to six candidates for three positions
sounds great to me!) that also means less mental effort for voters. The
real question is: how much cumulative time are we spending on this process
(or rather: should we be spending on this, if we want a good outcome). If
100 people spend an extra 2 hour to trim down from 30 to 6 candidates, that
is worth it, because 10,000 people don't have to read 30 statements, bio's,
Q's etc. If we go from 7 to 6 candidates, maybe less so.
If doing another drafting round means 30 people spend an extra 10 hours
drafting, that may be worth it, if it means that 1000 people don't have to
be frustrated for a year because they constantly run into consequences of
the policy and have to go through protests to get it changed. If the
iteration for things that don't work is more lightweight, maybe we can just
try it for a year, and evaluate after that.

Maybe it's worth it to sometimes take a napkin and do the math: how much
collective time are we going to spend on this?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:12 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
 staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
 results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
 process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
 allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
 for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.

 It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
 are not even a good aim to begin with.

 cheers,
 scann
>>>
>>>
>>> 100% this.
>>>
>>> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
>>> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
>>> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
>>> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
>>> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
>>> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
>>> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
>>> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
>>> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
>>> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
>>> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
>>> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
>>> less than five."[1]
>>>
>>> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of
>>> strong leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or
>>> safety to do things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations
>>> possible. This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no
>>> one really knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck
>>> because we're trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where
>>> it's unclear who is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to
>>> solve that by perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or
>>> council of people. It's turtles all the way down.
>>>
>>> 1:
>>> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>>>
>>>
>> I think that means we need to acknowledge some culpability for this
>> phenomena - in environments like this list, folks learn that no decision is
>> too benign to spark controversy and any actually controversial decision is
>> guaranteed to garner a vitriolic backlash.
>>
>> Combine that with the normal tendencies of bureaucracies, magnified by
>> the special nature of the WMF, and the result is explosive 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Steven Walling]

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
>>> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
>>> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
>>> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
>>> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
>>> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>>>
>>> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
>>> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> scann
>>
>>
>> 100% this.
>>
>> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
>> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
>> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
>> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
>> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
>> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
>> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
>> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
>> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
>> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
>> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
>> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
>> less than five."[1]
>>
>> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
>> leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
>> things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
>> This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
>> knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
>> trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
>> is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
>> perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
>> people. It's turtles all the way down.
>>
>> 1:
>> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>>
>>
> I think that means we need to acknowledge some culpability for this
> phenomena - in environments like this list, folks learn that no decision is
> too benign to spark controversy and any actually controversial decision is
> guaranteed to garner a vitriolic backlash.
>
> Combine that with the normal tendencies of bureaucracies, magnified by the
> special nature of the WMF, and the result is explosive growth in
> distributed decision-making organs.
>
> Accurate insights from SJ and others, if not necessarily new, but unlikely
> to lead to change because all the incentives that led to this place remain.
>

Yes completely true.

Some of the other bullet points in that guide to sabotage are things like
“argue over precise wordings of things” that are endemic to the culture of
the projects for reasons that may be  unfixable.

Coming back to SJ’s original point, the tangible immediate kind of changes
the Board and Maryana could enforce are:

- Set more aggressive deadlines for forming new governance bodies and
policies. None of these processes should take multiple years to get
running.
- Reduce the number of pre-planned stages of duplicative feedback /
drafting periods.
- Where elections are necessary just do a single round of ranked choice
voting after an open call for candidates.

What else?

___
> 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/UKFPEJYU5HYLOGFMJFTPPLVG5LBAUVI4/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/OFOOIXKTBQDHIYT473MKR4UL35VHBFNW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Bodhisattwa]

+1 to this. The constant bombardment of messages to call for volunteers to
engage in different highly complicated and bureaucratic top down processes
are wasting valuable volunteer time and resources and over-stretching
already thinned lines of global south communities. It needs to be
understood, that there are many other serious priorities for Wikimedia
volunteers than to spend time in all kinds of time consuming governance
processes.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa



On Fri, May 20, 2022, 03:08 Steven Walling  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
>> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
>> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
>> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
>> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
>> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>>
>> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
>> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>>
>> cheers,
>> scann
>
>
> 100% this.
>
> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
> less than five."[1]
>
> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
> leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
> things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
> This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
> knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
> trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
> is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
> perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
> people. It's turtles all the way down.
>
> 1:
> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>
>
>
>> ___
>> 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/4ZXLHIUOCI4BCCH4PC5DZT4W2ACIWF5L/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> 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/I45LFY7H3BYBZXVH3GQAQGBPN4DTTRJN/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/D7OTYLSQ7WI65VGG6IIYVA43L56IGWTX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
>> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
>> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
>> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
>> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
>> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>>
>> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
>> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>>
>> cheers,
>> scann
>
>
> 100% this.
>
> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
> less than five."[1]
>
> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
> leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
> things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
> This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
> knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
> trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
> is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
> perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
> people. It's turtles all the way down.
>
> 1:
> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>
>
I think that means we need to acknowledge some culpability for this
phenomena - in environments like this list, folks learn that no decision is
too benign to spark controversy and any actually controversial decision is
guaranteed to garner a vitriolic backlash.

Combine that with the normal tendencies of bureaucracies, magnified by the
special nature of the WMF, and the result is explosive growth in
distributed decision-making organs.

Accurate insights from SJ and others, if not necessarily new, but unlikely
to lead to change because all the incentives that led to this place remain.
___
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/UKFPEJYU5HYLOGFMJFTPPLVG5LBAUVI4/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Steven Walling]

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
wrote:

> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>
> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>
> cheers,
> scann


100% this.

The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
less than five."[1]

The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
people. It's turtles all the way down.

1:
https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html



> ___
> 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/4ZXLHIUOCI4BCCH4PC5DZT4W2ACIWF5L/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
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/I45LFY7H3BYBZXVH3GQAQGBPN4DTTRJN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[effe iets anders]

Mostly agree with SJ here, with one exception: I do think that some
standing committee to rule on conduct issues is necessary to be community
elected (not sure if I understood SJ correctly that he was not in favor of
this though). Lets call it some version of separation of powers, and a
necessary process effort to ensure trust in that system.

But in general, I agree that while consultations and community decisions
are important, we have to get smarter at them. This is in part being
selective with how we advertise things (be cautious with the use of your
megaphone), more structured and accessible off-cycle engagement (reducing
the all-importance of formal processes) and indeed better delegation.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
wrote:

> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>
> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>
> cheers,
> scann
> ___
> 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/4ZXLHIUOCI4BCCH4PC5DZT4W2ACIWF5L/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
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/LNV55WCN745BYLASXR4CUSE3HXWZOEC7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Evelin Heidel]

+1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's + staff 
time + resources into complex governance processes without clear results. In 
theory, the reason why you want this much transparency & process is to make 
sure decision making (and in turn resources) are allocated fairly, but in 
practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard for people to participate, 
leading to even more inequality. 

It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives are not 
even a good aim to begin with.

cheers,
scann
___
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/4ZXLHIUOCI4BCCH4PC5DZT4W2ACIWF5L/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Newyorkbrad]

I haven't steeped myself in WMF governance details in the past couple of
years, but SJ's observation strikes me as sensible.

For example, after 15+ years of board governance, we shouldn't have to
spend time every year debating how the Board is to be selected, each time
resulting in a more complicated process than before.

The situation reminds me of the sort of rules-creep we frequently see on
English WIkipedia.  Each individual change is well-intentioned and on its
own may make sense, but the cumulative effect is much too complicated, and
to newcomers sometimes virtually impenetrable.  (Cf.
https://slate.com/technology/2014/06/wikipedias-bureaucracy-problem-and-how-to-fix-it.html
, which as it happens was written by a current WMF board member.)

That being said, I'm not sure what specifically should be done to address
this problem.  In particular, let's not create a committee and process to
decide whether we have too many committees and processes.

Best regards,
Newyorkbrad/IBM

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 4:45 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Dear Board (and all),
>
> The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process
> creep  is
> an existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if
> not actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess
> process. There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous
> titles.
>
> Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's
> try to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least somewhat confusing:
>
> *Global Council*: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  After 6
> months of work in private, we know the charter will cover governance,
> resourcing, & community
> .  A ratifiable
> charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then *another* group may
> draft an election process. Council elections would start mid-2024.
>
> *Conduct*: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review &
> revision process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement by
> *another* group (U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual
> elections for it [starting in 2023?].
>
> *WMF Board*: A *four*-stage election, with a new complex nomination
> template. Nominees evaluated by *another* elected 9-person Analysis
> Committee, followed by a two-stage vote.
> Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.
>
> Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be
> different, complex affairs.
> And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti
> through a straw.
>
> ~ ~ ~
> Four short proposals for your consideration:
>
> 1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
> We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical
> reasons. What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What major
> issues + nuances are at play?
>
> 2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent.
> Build tools and frameworks that *conserve* rather than soak up community
> time.  Make longer processes capture proportionately detailed results.
> Empower a standing election committee.
>
> 3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization,
> regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies.
> *Support* organizers + facilitators rather than *hiring* them out of
> their communities to facilitate on behalf of a central org.
>
> 4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate *design* and
> *implementation*.
> Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against arbitrary
> mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or
> exaggerate staff-community division.
>
> 풲♡,  SJ
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> 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/7UVDBQTEWTR3ZNYLEP5TWAOVHF372OEL/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
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/YRALVPPHAWMMATDUSUTZVBHG2CXOKAU6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Florence Devouard]

+1

Florence

(the WMF board elections Analysis Committee selection process... 
really... ugh)



Le 19/05/2022 à 13:50, Peter Southwood a écrit :


+1

P

*From:*Samuel Klein [mailto:meta...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 18 May 2022 22:44
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Simplifying governance processes

Dear Board (and all),

The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process 
creep 
 is 
an existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating 
if not actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess 
process. There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have 
unglamorous titles.


Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. 
Let's try to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least 
somewhat confusing:


*Global Council*: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  
After 6 months of work in private, we know the charter will cover 
governance, resourcing, & community 
.  A 
ratifiable charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then 
*another* group may draft an election process. Council elections would 
start mid-2024.


*Conduct*: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review & 
revision process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement 
by *another* group (U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual 
elections for it [starting in 2023?].


*WMF Board*: A /four/-stage election, with a new complex nomination 
template. Nominees evaluated by *another* elected 9-person Analysis 
Committee, followed by a two-stage vote.

Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.

Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be 
different, complex affairs.
And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti 
through a straw.


~ ~ ~

Four short proposals for your consideration:

1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical 
reasons. What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What 
major issues + nuances are at play?


2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent.
Build tools and frameworks that /conserve/ rather than soak up 
community time.  Make longer processes capture proportionately 
detailed results. Empower a standing election committee.


3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization, 
regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies. 
/Support/ organizers + facilitators rather than /hiring/ them out of 
their communities to facilitate on behalf of a central org.


4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate /design/ and 
/implementation/.


Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against 
arbitrary mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or 
exaggerate staff-community division.


풲♡,  SJ

--

Samuel Klein          @metasj w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266





Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines 
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines  
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives 
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TRFX5636NPWQ2Z4PVREVG7SNOAPPVUMW/
To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org___
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/PQQDOIQ6LU22OYLKIXJ6STPRWJRA44XT/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Peter Southwood]

+1

P

 

From: Samuel Klein [mailto:meta...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 18 May 2022 22:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Simplifying governance processes

 

Dear Board (and all),

 

The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process creep 
  is an 
existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if not 
actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess process. 
There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous titles.

 

Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's try 
to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least somewhat confusing:

 

Global Council: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  After 6 months 
of work in private, we know the charter will cover governance, resourcing,  
 & community.  A 
ratifiable charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then another group may 
draft an election process. Council elections would start mid-2024.

 

Conduct: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review & revision 
process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement by another group 
(U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual elections for it [starting in 
2023?].

 

WMF Board: A four-stage election, with a new complex nomination template. 
Nominees evaluated by another elected 9-person Analysis Committee, followed by 
a two-stage vote.
Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.  

 

Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be different, 
complex affairs. 
And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti through a 
straw. 

 

~ ~ ~

Four short proposals for your consideration:

 

1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical reasons. 
What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What major issues + nuances 
are at play?

2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent. 
Build tools and frameworks that conserve rather than soak up community time.  
Make longer processes capture proportionately detailed results. Empower a 
standing election committee.

 

3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization, 
regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies. Support 
organizers + facilitators rather than hiring them out of their communities to 
facilitate on behalf of a central org.

 

4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate design and implementation.

Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against arbitrary 
mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or exaggerate 
staff-community division.

 

풲♡,  SJ

 

-- 

Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

 


 

 

Virus-free.  

 www.avg.com 

 

___
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/TRFX5636NPWQ2Z4PVREVG7SNOAPPVUMW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org