Some questions though - if WMUK staff are included, should WUG staff also
be included? If they are included, why not include the people doing
staff-level volunteer work for non-staffed affiliates? If those volunteers
are included, what about user group leaders who are not active editors?
User groups are not currently a part of the affiliation seat elections, so
what should be done about their leaders? Are we punishing affiliates that
are being more creative in finding ways to accomplish tasks without staff
support? I see a lot of flaws with leaving this conversation at "staff" and
not extending it beyond that, and as I said previously, doing so is rather
complex.

To keep the election "fair" - these questions would need to be answered
first. It is not as simple as saying "okay - affiliate staff are now in" -
as even the term "affiliate staff" is not universally agreed upon yet. Does
staff mean they are on a payroll of some sort? This conversation is easy if
we are talking about 5-6 of the larger chapters, it is more complex if we
are talking about nearly 75 affiliates.

The assumption that WMF impacts the affiliates so much they are paying as
close attention as WMF staff does not hold up in my opinion. People ask why
treat them differently, and I think there are relatively clear reasons. WMF
staff are arguably just as impacted by WMUK business, but are not eligible
to vote in their board elections, and I think with good reason. I recognize
that WMF is very different as it is the "hub" - but most of the arguments I
have seen are about "impact" and based on unproven assumptions based on
experience with 1-2 affiliates rather than thinking about all 70 of them. I
recognize allowing someone to vote does not require them to, but in some
cultures and work environments, that might play out differently.

As KTC pointed out - each affiliate handles their voting in the affiliate
seats differently. So even some of our assumptions about involvement in
affiliate election are broad and not fully researched yet. Which is the
"norm" - is there a norm? In short, we need to do more research on this
topic, and that will take time we do not have (as a committee anyway) right
now.

-greg

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> hi James,
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, James Alexander <
> jalexan...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > *Staff: *I have always thought that the Staff need to be considered part
> of
> > the community.
>
>
> I think the main thing is why should WMF staff be treated any differently
> than WMDE, WMFR, or WMUK staff. All are engaged (although through
> employment) in the community. I understand that the argument is that the
> chapters have their seats secured from a separate poll, while WMF does not.
>
> I'm inclined to agree with your previous view: since most of the staffers
> satisfy other requirements anyway, and since there are many
> chapters/affiliate groups of different levels of involvement, and also
> since these groups have their seats secured from a separate poll (unlike
> WMF), the easiest way would probably be to introduce low, uniform
> editing/involvement requirements, well ahead of time, and stop
> distinguishing employment status.
>
> In fact, one could experiment with adding WMF as an organization equal to
> chapters to elections of "chapter seats", and banning WMF/chapters
> employees from "community seats" elections altogether ;) But seriously, I
> think the practical thing to do would be to start working on the rules of
> next elections right after the current ones are over, and introduce
> eligibility based on actual activity only (with possible lower
> requirements).
>
> best,
>
> dj "pundit"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> __________________________
> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i centrum badawczego CROW
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>
> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>
> Recenzje
> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> Pacific Standard:
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
> The Wikipedian:
> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to