Lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an abiding commitment to
self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth? Isn't that what every
maturing community with more than a handful of participants grows up to be?
:P

The strategy process is certainly not except from these flaws. Why would it
be? They are endemic across the movement throughout it's history and seen
at all levels today. But the strategy process is, like many other
processes, attempting to operate in a good faith manner and it is
definitely trying to take the movement in a better direction that it has
travelled so far (from an organisational standpoint). It consists of smart
people, working together in a good faith manner to effect positive change
within the movement.

For people like yourself who are dubious about the processes merits I think
you should still engage. Ensuring that it has the right focuses doesn't
necessitate prolonged engagement with the process. You don't need to go
through the slog of coming up with solutions necessarily, just make sure
someone will.

Regards
Seddon


On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 2:35 AM Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think questioning the strategy for sustaining the movement's projects is
> worthwhile, particularly as part of the strategy discussion. I'm not sure
> if sniping on this list is as fruitful.
>
> I considered Fae's question as well; not just the mechanical "do we need an
> archive site" that seemed implicit, but the fundamental question of whether
> new action needs to be taken to ensure the Wikimedia projects can be
> preserved. I hadn't considered that the strategy process would abrogate the
> core promise of these projects, that worthwhile content would be largely
> preserved to make that worth perpetually available to others.
>
> If that's truly in question I find it hard to imagine what else the
> strategy discussion could find as a substitute. I haven't engaged in the
> strategy discussion for lots of reasons, but one is that I long ago
> acquired a deep skepticism of movement bureaucracy, whether within the
> projects or without. The entire edifice seems to have adopted the worst
> attributes of bureaucracy - lethargy, indecision, internal strife, and an
> abiding commitment to self-enrichment and constant bureaucratic growth.
>
> All that rescues the movement is the persistent desire of its contributors
> to add, improve and conserve and the simple demand that the bureaucracy -
> if it does nothing else - keep the lights on and stay out of the way. If
> that changes, then perhaps we will need the Internet Archive to step in
> after all.
>
> PS: Thanks, Seddon, for your thoughtful reconsideration of your earlier
> post. To muddle the words of Michelle Obama, always go high. You can't go
> wrong.
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:49 PM Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, I think perhaps Fae's question may be considered more generally.
> Fae
> > is knowledgeable about the structure of the Wikimedia movement as well as
> > the WMF, and I think it might be best to work from the assumption that
> > their core question is probably more along the lines of whether (and how)
> > the current long-term strategy development process will, in fact, make
> > recommendations that are in line with ensuring that there will be (at
> > minimum) a publicly accessible archive of the Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > The movement strategy process is very broad, and  contains a lot of
> diverse
> > ideas about how the movement/WMF/chapters/other entities/projects can be
> > improved, maintained, developed and supported.  I'm pretty deep in the
> > strategy stuff, and as far as I know, at this point there's no clear path
> > to maintaining (or dissolving) any of the existing structures; more to
> the
> > point, there's no guarantee that the final summary recommendations of the
> > combined strategy groups will continue to support the current WMF mission
> > statement - that is, the part that says " [t]he [Wikimedia] Foundation
> will
> > make and keep useful information from its projects available on the
> > internet free of charge, in perpetuity."
> >
> > I don't think that's really a bad question to ask - in fact, it may be
> one
> > of the more important ones.  I hope I am not presuming too much, but I
> > think Fae is saying that this is something that is really important and
> > valuable, and that continuity/perpetuation of that particular aspect of
> the
> > mission statement should be a recommendation that gets included in the
> > final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it
> or
> > who pays for it.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of
> > > Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity.
> > Additionally,
> > > the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to
> > its
> > > projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites
> > and
> > > media that might have ephemeral access due to their nature as
> short-term
> > > tools need the IA to be preserved, but the WMF's projects seem to
> occupy
> > a
> > > different space. It's sort of like asking if the Library of Congress
> > needs
> > > to invest in some external project to preserve and organize its
> > > collections. No, that is its actual raison d'etre.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 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 and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Seddon

*Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
*Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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