Fae, I should be clearer - I do not expect the community to address these issues before the topic of a standing elections committee is addressed first. I think that is my main point here. These issues are not as simple as some are presenting, and that does not mean the ultimate answers are not easy, but there should be more time allotted to discussion by a group tasked with reviewing these things than is available to the temporary committees. I would not support the idea of a public RFC with no clear plan on how to implement any of the proposed changes. Much of this discussion feels like we are putting the cart before the horse - so to speak.
-greg On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
