Agree. Our flat population of active editors [0], while the Internet
population continues to grow, suggests that we have a problem. As a part of
the upcoming WMF strategy, I hope that there will be work on growing the
population of active contributors, as well as developing the number and
skills
Yes to this: "the key issue is for us to build room for
people to emerge but also to feel entitled to run for those position"
I would say this is a key issue at the very bottom as well, for example
just getting people to become a contributor to any one of our many
projects, whether it's
On 05.09.2016 23:41, Asaf Bartov wrote:
You clearly have a strong and abiding interest in movement governance,
and
have been asking some good questions. You should have submitted your
candidacy.[1]
To your point, I guess it can be taken as a reminder, but it does not
seem
to me that the
Picking up on Christophe's idea of improving "organically". It is a
good thing to be open to gradual organic improvement, this means that
the Wikimedia ecology of organizations adopt proven improvements based
on the results of varied and experimental changes.
This is one big drawback, referred to
Hi Rogol,
The weird thing in this discussion is I kind of agree with everyone.
Yes more diversity would be awesome. But in my opinion diversity should be
something we achieve organicaly.
So, from my biased perspective, the key issue is for us to build room for
people to emerge but also to feel
I am very happy how this nowadays works out.
We have now a lot of chapters, each with a Board. And here the members
are not oldtimers and here is the appropriate first place to get into
the Wikmedia world.
And there are many bodies who you can then turn to to get further into
the Wikimedia
I think Pine's message rather illustrates my point. Pine seems to assume
that the alternative is between people experienced in the WMF ways of doing
things and novices. Actually, there are plenty of people in the world with
experience in being trustees of non-proft organisations, and technical
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, I agree that we need to work on developing new leaders.
That includes:
* On-wiki administrators
* On-wiki program leaders
* Affiliate board and committee members (including user groups, which IMO
get far too little support from WMF)
* Affiliate
You clearly have a strong and abiding interest in movement governance, and
have been asking some good questions. You should have submitted your
candidacy.[1]
To your point, I guess it can be taken as a reminder, but it does not seem
to me that the appointments were made *so as to minimize*
