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 <fae...@gmail.com> 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" <gregory.var...@gmail.com> 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 <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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>

Reply via email to