Hi Greg,

Yes these are questions.

I suggest that if you expect the community to address them, that a
meaningful open process of consultation is run. As discussion of this
proposal has already taken a year, and may take months rather than
weeks going forward, it would be great if someone who has taken a
leadership role by becoming a Elections Committee member were to take
responsibility for leading the process.

This email discussion is already TLDR level, and so it is more
frustrating than edifying, it would be neat to move over to a managed
set of wiki pages for clear proposals for change, feedback and votes.
This to be implemented well in advance of the 2016 election.

PS my viewpoint of "people without interest in contributing to any
Wikimedia projects even at a newbie level, should not have an
automatic vote in an election for a board to govern Wikimedia" is
unlikely to change much, but I have not read a solid proposal yet.

Fae

On 29 April 2015 at 12:30, Gregory Varnum <gregory.var...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
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