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

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.


On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Nathan <> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Gregory Varnum <>
> 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.
> > 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:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to