Thanks for the summary. I look forward to an open consultation process when the elections committee sorts itself out.
Until that time discussion here, and that over the past year, is not a good use of volunteer time, as it cannot change anything. This could have been a useful reply up front. Fae On 29 Apr 2015 14:36, "Gregory Varnum" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> hi James, > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, James Alexander < > > >> [email protected]> > > >> 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 > > >> [email protected] > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > , > > >> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > > [email protected] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
