> > we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election software.
Wow. I am definitely missing something. Can you please point me to a reference/resource to learn more about this? On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:58 PM Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopet...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most > regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the > case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election > software. > Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be worth > repeating ;-) > > On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 11:07, Bodhisattwa Mandal < > bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Yaroslav, >> >> Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an >> efficient team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation >> working groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a >> movement charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and >> they could have been included. If that happened, everything would not to >> have to be built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen. >> >> Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I am >> sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me. The >> entire selection process depended on only one selector per region. There >> was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select >> people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates >> had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who >> were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most >> skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were >> ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors >> meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the >> committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the >> decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through >> selectors, that might not happened. >> >> Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate >> from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki >> was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was >> the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and >> understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely >> odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the >> same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway. >> >> Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it >> would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like >> us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against >> the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed >> drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit >> to encompass our movement and all its people. >> >> Regards, >> Bodhisattwa >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear Bodhisattwa, >>> >>> this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group >>> I was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which >>> were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter. >>> Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively) >>> small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative >>> but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for >>> representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the >>> group - if it includes everybody needed for representation it would be >>> unworkable. The decision, which I personally also supported, was to go for >>> speed and efficiency at the expense of representation. I see your >>> arguments, and they have merit, but we can not do everything at once. It >>> was clear that the community elections would favor North American and East >>> European candidates, as for example the board elections always do. There >>> was some hope that affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of >>> the world, which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and >>> I am not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated >>> that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even >>> though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other safeguards >>> in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the community >>> discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. But the main >>> idea was to elect/appoint people who understand what they are doing and who >>> would implement what is best for the movement, taking into account that the >>> Charter is for evetrybody, and not their personal vision. Those drafting >>> committee members I know fit this definition. This is now our turn, as a >>> community, to make sure that we read the draft - when it is out - carefully >>> and make sure it is acceptable for everybody. >>> >>> Best >>> Yaroslav >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:08 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal < >>> bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Samuel, >>>> >>>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 21:35, Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe the idea is for anyone to explicitly represent their >>>>> geography, affiliations, or organizations -- rather to draft a meaningful >>>>> and empowering starting point for us all. >>>>> >>>> >>>> People develop their perspectives based on their environment, culture >>>> and surroundings and it is almost impossible for anyone to understand >>>> comprehensively about what is going on in other places without dealing with >>>> their real situation there. It doesn't matter how honest or how experienced >>>> a person might be, an Western European will have hard times to understand >>>> all the real issues in South Asia, A South Asian will have little >>>> understanding about what is really happening in Latin America and that is >>>> why geographical representation is needed. If the question or process is >>>> about something global, then it is needed even more. To draft a document >>>> for us all, it is essential to get voices from as many as possible, if not >>>> all. How can a movement charter be drafted if it does not echo the concerns >>>> of all our existing communities clearly? >>>> >>>> We chose to follow popular elections which have always brought North >>>> Americans and Europeans on the top of the table and historically abandoned >>>> other parts of the world, even though there are capable people in those >>>> parts too but do not have the voter base. We have seen it repeated in this >>>> election process too. Here we had 7 seats through community elections, so >>>> its almost futile for Global South candidates to compete there, the proof >>>> of my statement is that only 1 candidate from the Global South actually >>>> made through this election. So, they only have 6 affiliate selected >>>> positions from 8 Wikimedia regions (and 1 Thematic hub), where they have >>>> minimal chance because 6 seats from 8 regions count to < 1 candidate per >>>> hub. So, regions like South Asia, ESEAP, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. was >>>> extremely lucky to get 1 candidate in the committee, 2 is not at all >>>> expected. Don't you think that this is a totally unfair process from the >>>> start for under-represented communities and affiliates? No wonder, people >>>> here are getting aloof from the movement strategy process. >>>> >>>> Of course broad geographic and project backgrounds, and good language >>>>> diversity (within the drafting group and through available tools to >>>>> support >>>>> work with others) are important for this work. But please don't exclude >>>>> any participant from that, based on the experimental mix of selection >>>>> processes. We are all wikimedians. Runa and Jorge for instance have been >>>>> advancing the global movement towards free knowledge, culture and tools >>>>> for >>>>> a very long time. And having a translation expert actively involved >>>>> should >>>>> help amplify different voices :). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry for my English, I am not a native English speaker, so maybe there >>>> is a misunderstanding. I have not excluded anyone as you are saying. Runa >>>> and Jorge are amazing people in the movement but I was talking about >>>> geographical representation of the communities and they are appointed by >>>> WMF as their representative, so geographical representation does not stand >>>> there. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> PS - There are still many, many systemic gaps and biases in our >>>>> communities and our knowledge. The focus on elevating and connecting >>>>> regional hubs may help address this, and I dearly hope to see thriving >>>>> hubs >>>>> in Asia. But I wouldn't say the next billion participants, editors, and >>>>> learners will come from any one region; rather from underserved >>>>> communities >>>>> everywhere in the world! (And by stats like readership >>>>> <https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/animations/wivivi/wivivi.html>, >>>>> communities in Africa are still the least reached, including proportional >>>>> to connectivity.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> More than 4 billion people live here in South Asian and ESEAP >>>> countries. If our next billion readers will not come from here by 2030, >>>> then where will it come from? These are developing countries embracing >>>> technology at a high rate. (Anyway, my opinion concerns Africa too. There >>>> is only 1 representative from the entire Sub-Saharan Africa.) >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bodhisattwa >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, >>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7RNSNN3F2UMKVDK7S3KEJIT5X4ZCXSYF/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>> Public archives at >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/NUA5VXLAIQKBDLY7WTCDFT4GPETE3U4I/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JRMASCNRTR3ZVZ7S2RGX2YRHBNLXSLX7/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/D4CMIPLK6H45V2GMD4DXSWA3WTIMDEAW/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org -- Pavan Santhosh.
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6ZBBZKZGUO7HB47YDCPXVNURCIY4QBXR/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
