I shared a few times already that change was unlikely this year and that this should be left to a standing committee. I believe James did the same thing as well. Other text was offering explanation on why and thoughts for that group - as I stated. Apologies if that was not clearer.
-greg _______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later. > On Apr 29, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Fæ <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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> _______________________________________________ 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>
