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
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 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
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
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
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
>
> 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
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
I would also find that helpful (if this isn't a policy that's been
completely rewritten). The legal text isn't especially easy to read and
understand either, so my only question would be if this new policy would
prevent past events that happened because this kind of policy did not exist
back then.
Greetings,
We hope this email finds you well.
It is already the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the
Months of African Contest 2021 [1] achievements so far! We want to extend
our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested.
If you have not yet
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,
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
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
Hi everyone,
We have published strategies for the Linked Open Data activities around
Wikidata and the Wikibase Ecosystem, and would like to get your feedback on
the proposals!
You can find them at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LinkedOpenData/Strategy2021 and we would
love to hear your feedback
>
> 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
Hm, a lot of the text has been reworded and re-ordered, but without that
much difference in practical content. Complex enough that
automatically-generated diffs aren't much use, so I put together a (quite
messy) diff by hand:
16 matches
Mail list logo
