Nathan - that is a fair opinion - but not one shared by everyone. There are many that feel staff who do not edit much should be allowed to participate - I happen to agree.
It might not address concerns brought up by others about non-staff related issues. Also, there are some that have stated they think the requirements are already too low - so even that would require some further discussion - imho. That answer is easy if you accept that everyone agrees with that point of view - but that is not the case. -greg On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:30 AM, 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 > > > Greg - I think the answer has been presented several times. I think > Dariusz' suggestion is the ideal outcome: The simplest way to treat all of > the staff the same is to remove recognition of "staff" from the election > rules and proceed on (possibly lowered) edit/commit requirements. This is > relatively easy to implement and means that many of the questions you have > posed in the last several of your posts will not need to be specifically > answered. It also reinforces that the Wikimedia movement and community is > driven by and composed of volunteers, and it is perfectly reasonable to > identify members by their volunteer contributions. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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 Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>