[Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
73 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Gregory Varnum-2
tldr: At this point, the requirements will not be changed for this election
cycle. I recognize on one level this change seems as simple as changing the
election Meta page, but as we realized in discussion, in execution, it
requires a bit more than that. See my last thread for more information on
why that decision was made. I believe, given our time constraints, that the
right decision was made.

A few thoughts speaking for myself and not the committee. :)

As a supporter of our affiliates, I empathize with wanting them to be
included in all aspects of WMF governance. I agree that this discussion
points out a flaw in our current setup, and that is why I support the
notion of a standing elections committee. This year's committee has not yet
discussed that topic, but it is on the agenda to discuss when we are able
to do so.

Ultimately, we had about 72 hours to decide on the many nuances of this
issue, and even with this thread having taken place, it turned out that was
not enough to do the topic justice. Practically speaking, the committee had
to prioritize a lot of tasks and topics very quickly. Figuring out how to
handle nominations, which was a part of our mandate and we felt had much
broader implications (and so far I think has worked well) consumed much of
that valuable time, and I think fairly so. I agree this is a flaw in our
current process, but at this point, that was not an issue the committee is
able to address.

Having reviewed this discussion again, and based on some committee
conversations, I think there are a few questions and tasks which would need
to be addressed before the next election - and were not possible in the
timeline this year's committee had to work with.

   - Affiliates, and many affiliate staff, are already able to engage in a
   board election. That was in part why including them in the community board
   election was not as urgent. However, that is not true for the FDC
   elections. Should the requirements be split for that reason? How much
   additional work would that require for the technical support staff?
   - There is existing precedent on what qualifies as WMF involved
   individuals - the staff, current and former board, as well as current and
   former advisors. That is not as easily applied to all affiliates. It is
   easier with chapters, but much harder with user groups. Should user groups
   therefore just be left out? That seems unfair. There are user groups with
   staff, and there are some currently more active than some chapters. So the
   arguments in segregating them for the purposes of this conversation, in my
   opinion, do not hold up. Which brings us to...
   - If affiliate staff are included, then following the WMF example, that
   implies other key leaders should be allowed to vote as well. That then
   raises the question of who is in and who is out. That is easy to define
   with WMF, we have clear lists available based on clear processes. However,
   when considering nearly 75 different affiliates, there are commonalities,
   but not universal terms and groups that can be easily applied to a
   requirement. Some have advisory bodies, some do not. Some have staffs, some
   do not. Some have governing boards, some do not. Some have designated
   leaders, some do not.
   - Many of the volunteer leaders are active editors, but as this election
   has shown, that is not always the case. There was a chapter board member
   that was ineligible, but may have qualified by all other practical
   measurements, but that would not really have been addressed even if
   affiliate staff were allowed to vote. If we had let in board members as
   well, what about affiliates without elected or structured boards? Are they
   just out of luck? So should affiliates then decide individually who
   qualifies and submit those lists to WMF before the elections? That was not
   possible this time, but is a possibility next time. And again, should some
   of this just apply to the FDC elections and not board elections?
   - How is WMF going to be able to verify "staff" and what does that
   include for affiliates? The term is clearly defined for WMF, but not as
   much for all 70 some affiliates spread across many countries with different
   legal definitions of staff. Is someone doing pro-bono work staff? Some
   would say yes, others no. So how will WMF go about verifying employment
   status of each affiliate staff member that requests a vote? Is there one
   easy method that is legal in every country an affiliate is based in? How up
   to date are the existing public lists?
   - Do we attempt to come up with a broad qualifying definition that then
   allows for case by case determinations of the Elections Committee? How
   would that work? Would there be an appeals process? How would that work?
   - Ideally, these issues would be discussed more in-depth by the
   committee, and a public RFC based on their initial findings would give the
   community a chance to weigh in. That simply was not possible this time. I
   recognize that is annoying given the issue came up months ago, but the
   group charged with addressing it was not created until days before the
   election process had to formally begin. That is not a problem we can
   address right now, and I think the solution rests with a standing elections
   committee.

I personally feel that there are answers to each of these questions - I
pose them not as a "this cannot be overcome" statement, but more to suggest
that 72 hours was not enough time to hash out each of these details. I also
offer them because I do not know who will be working on answering them - so
figure I might as well "brain dump" while it is present in my mind. ;)

-greg (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee (not
speaking in that capacity, except in "tldr" - but obviously influenced by
it)
Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee (not speaking in that capacity
on this thread - but partly why I give affiliate topics so much thought)

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:08 PM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, James Alexander <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any response or input from the Election Committee?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think Greg said it relatively well earlier as the coordinator for the
> > > committee (I am it's staff advisor). At this point the committee has
> > > decided on the voting requirements and it is highly unlikely to change
> > for
> > > the current election cycle. They did have serious discussions about
> > > everything mentioned in this thread both on their list and during the
> > first
> > > committee meeting but in the end decided that they did not believe
> there
> > > was a strong need for change right now. When this conversation came
> back
> > up
> > > it was broached whether we wanted to revisit and no one said expressed
> a
> > > desire to.
> > >
> > > Also as Greg said I think this is a good topic for a permanent election
> > > committee which I very much think should exist.
> > >
> > > James Alexander
> > > Community Advocacy
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> >
> >
> > This is a weakness in the process. Itzik raised an issue and was told it
> > was too early to discuss. He raised it again when the elections
> approached,
> > and is being told its too late. Obviously the "committee" conducted its
> > deliberations on this question in secret, which is a strange approach
> > considering there have been requests and a desire for open discussion
> from
> > the community.
> >
>
> I agree, I also wish that the committee had more time to make the decision.
> I had hoped to seat them in January and they would have had a lot of time
> to discuss this both here and elsewhere. Sadly we were waiting for the
> board on a couple things and were unable to seat them until recently and at
> that point there was a time crunch and things needed to be decided quickly.
> As both Greg and I said however, these arguments were in no way ignored,
> when I introduced the topic (in one of the very first emails to the
> committee) I listed all of the questions here about staff voting, chapter
> staff/board, edit requirements etc and then backed off. The committee
> discussed all of those and decided, in the end, that this was the right
> decision.
>
>
>
> > It's also worth pointing out that many of the people in this discussion
> > agreed that the community requirements are so low that there should be no
> > reason any interested employee (of the WMF or elsewhere) can't qualify
> > under other criteria, eliminating the need for a special franchise for
> WMF
> > employees.
> >
>
> On a completely personal level I actually think the requirements could be
> lowered. We already had at least 1 individual who I think was a perfect fit
> for the FDC for example but was unable to run and had to move himself to
> ineligible because of the edit requirements (he may have had over 150 edits
> this year and be very active in the movement as a whole but he did not have
> the 20 edits in the past 6 months required).  However the committee decided
> not to do so and that is their prerogative.
>
> Unfortunately it appears that anyone interested in adjusting the criteria
> > will need perfecting timing while broaching this subject next year.
>
>
> This is why Greg (and myself. and the election committee from last
> year who made
> a proposal <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Standing_Election_Committee>,
> and from what I've seen the election committee from this year)  want to
> have the board create a standing committee. That standing committee would
> be empowered to have this discussion at any point and to discuss the
> positives and negatives both themselves and with the community and make a
> decision. They are much less likely to run into the problem that a one off
> committee has where decisions need to be discussed and made and quickly so
> that they can get other logistics in place.
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by James Alexander-4
Hi James, is there any good reason to keep the exception? Imo it is a wrong
signal we send out. At the end of the day all good governance rules suggest
to minimize administrative tasks. And by definition everything which a
"client " does not see,  I.e
Content or software, is administrative.

Rupert
On Apr 28, 2015 9:08 PM, "James Alexander" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, James Alexander <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any response or input from the Election Committee?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think Greg said it relatively well earlier as the coordinator for the
> > > committee (I am it's staff advisor). At this point the committee has
> > > decided on the voting requirements and it is highly unlikely to change
> > for
> > > the current election cycle. They did have serious discussions about
> > > everything mentioned in this thread both on their list and during the
> > first
> > > committee meeting but in the end decided that they did not believe
> there
> > > was a strong need for change right now. When this conversation came
> back
> > up
> > > it was broached whether we wanted to revisit and no one said expressed
> a
> > > desire to.
> > >
> > > Also as Greg said I think this is a good topic for a permanent election
> > > committee which I very much think should exist.
> > >
> > > James Alexander
> > > Community Advocacy
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> >
> >
> > This is a weakness in the process. Itzik raised an issue and was told it
> > was too early to discuss. He raised it again when the elections
> approached,
> > and is being told its too late. Obviously the "committee" conducted its
> > deliberations on this question in secret, which is a strange approach
> > considering there have been requests and a desire for open discussion
> from
> > the community.
> >
>
> I agree, I also wish that the committee had more time to make the decision.
> I had hoped to seat them in January and they would have had a lot of time
> to discuss this both here and elsewhere. Sadly we were waiting for the
> board on a couple things and were unable to seat them until recently and at
> that point there was a time crunch and things needed to be decided quickly.
> As both Greg and I said however, these arguments were in no way ignored,
> when I introduced the topic (in one of the very first emails to the
> committee) I listed all of the questions here about staff voting, chapter
> staff/board, edit requirements etc and then backed off. The committee
> discussed all of those and decided, in the end, that this was the right
> decision.
>
>
>
> > It's also worth pointing out that many of the people in this discussion
> > agreed that the community requirements are so low that there should be no
> > reason any interested employee (of the WMF or elsewhere) can't qualify
> > under other criteria, eliminating the need for a special franchise for
> WMF
> > employees.
> >
>
> On a completely personal level I actually think the requirements could be
> lowered. We already had at least 1 individual who I think was a perfect fit
> for the FDC for example but was unable to run and had to move himself to
> ineligible because of the edit requirements (he may have had over 150 edits
> this year and be very active in the movement as a whole but he did not have
> the 20 edits in the past 6 months required).  However the committee decided
> not to do so and that is their prerogative.
>
> Unfortunately it appears that anyone interested in adjusting the criteria
> > will need perfecting timing while broaching this subject next year.
>
>
> This is why Greg (and myself. and the election committee from last
> year who made
> a proposal <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Standing_Election_Committee>,
> and from what I've seen the election committee from this year)  want to
> have the board create a standing committee. That standing committee would
> be empowered to have this discussion at any point and to discuss the
> positives and negatives both themselves and with the community and make a
> decision. They are much less likely to run into the problem that a one off
> committee has where decisions need to be discussed and made and quickly so
> that they can get other logistics in place.
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

James Alexander-4
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:03 AM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi James, is there any good reason to keep the exception? Imo it is a wrong
> signal we send out. At the end of the day all good governance rules suggest
> to minimize administrative tasks. And by definition everything which a
> "client " does not see,  I.e
> Content or software, is administrative.
>
> Rupert


[ended up being long, sorry :( ]

Are you speaking about the staff rule only or all of them? I had one of the
committee members call me out for calling it an 'exception' before and
their argument made sense to me, so I'm currently trying to think of them
all as they recommended as different ways to be enfranchised. That may
sound a bit like word play but... the more I've thought about it the more I
agreed the exception word sounded wrong.

Speaking just for myself I would say yes to generally all of the different
rules (though I would, personally, lower the edit requirements). This
because I do not think the "community" is one group and until and unless we
parcel out seats to different groups (which I'm not actually sure we should
do, I'd prefer them all to be more general 'community' seats). As part of
that I don't think we should be strict with what we consider the community
because I think, in a very real sense, each of the "how to vote" options
represent a way to ensure the community and the stakeholders can be
involved. I think that having the other options actually sends a better
message then not having them.

*Editing: *Obviously editors are the biggest group here, and the vast
majority of staff who would be so inclined to vote will fall here too (I
qualify on both my volunteer account and my staff account for example,
though given my election role I don't vote at all). That's how it should
be, and I honestly don't see that changing. It's also why I probably
wouldn't "fight" too hard if the other options were remove simply

*Staff: *I have always thought that the Staff need to be considered part of
the community. While they have different roles at times (and at times share
roles with volunteers) the Us v Them mentality that can become part of the
thinking for both groups is poisonous to the projects as a whole. In order
for it to succeed everyone needs to be seen as on the same side. There are
never going to be many people who would qualify as Staff but don't qualify
as Editors (at least with their staff account and we've never drawn a
distinction for voting historically) and still want to vote but I think
encouraging them to think of themselves as part of the community (and to
send the message that they are) is important. [I also think it's good to
involve staff in governance wherever possible, though not exclusively
obviously, they need to feel part of it. Similar reasons why a corporation
often gives out stock to their employees which allows them to own part of
the company and to, indeed, vote for the Board of Directors.]

*Developers*: Again we've historically had very few people who met this
requirement, wanted to vote, and didn't qualify through some other means
(usually editing) but MediaWiki is not just the software we run it's also,
essentially, a full fledged project that an enormous amount of 3rd parties
use. I would love to find good ways to encourage the community of 3rd party
developers to take part in this governance.

*Current/Old Board/FDC/Advisory Board: *I see this mostly as not booting
those who have been in the trenches and know what the work actually entails.

I could certainly see other groups, including affiliates, who might make
sense to be in this list (though with the current structure I have some
concerns of double enfranchisement even if I personally wouldn't choose the
current structure) but I don't currently see great reasons to get rid of
the options we have other then just 'simplicity'. That isn't a horrible
reason of course, I'm just not sure it's necessary.

(obviously not speaking for the committee or with my staff hat on though
obviously, as Greg said, those roles influence me.. though most of it
hasn't changed since long before I was staff)

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Dariusz Jemielniak-3
hi James,


On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Katie Chan
On 29/04/2015 10:57, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> 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"

The problem with that is the assumption that just because an
organisation (whether it be WMF, WMDE, WMFR, WMUK, WMAT, ...) has a
voice in the affiliate seats, that their employees/members have a say in
how their organisation vote for those seats. Different organisation will
come to their conclusion differently, whether that be an open discussion
within their community, internal board discussion, vote amongst its
members, or even possibly delegation to a sub-committee/person to decide.

KTC

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
      - Heinrich Heine


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Gregory Varnum-2
In reply to this post by Dariusz Jemielniak-3
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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> hi James,
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, James Alexander <
> [hidden email]>
> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Gregory Varnum-2
In reply to this post by James Alexander-4
Again, this email is not speaking officially for the committee, see my
earlier messages for more "official" thoughts. This is a long-winded
personal opinion.

As James said, "exceptions" is a technical term and not really the best way
to think of these groups. Which is why it is not one that we use on the
election pages.

There are groups within the Wikimedia community entrusted to participate in
elections. I get very uncomfortable implying that one group is "lesser
than" another group in regards to that role in the community. Although for
technical and realistic reasons, there are groups not able to vote (such as
readers). Does that not make them members of our community? I do not think
so, but there are practical reasons that is not possible (needing an
account we can track as an example). Perhaps one day we just open it to the
world, but that has not been the community consensus thus far as the
committee sees it.

If there were a group tasked with much more time to address these bigger
questions, it seems very likely to me that the voter base could be
expanded. The temporary committees that in theory could do so are given
such a massive existing workload that taking on these bigger picture issues
is simply not practical. Until that happens, many of these conversations
will remain in a loop as there is no one tasked with addressing them who
has the WMF resources and mandate to do so with any authority.

The current restrictions are often practical or technical more than they
are philosophical. The "how" becomes a bigger issue than the "if" and as
has been said, that is a problem we should address. The groups that are
able to vote now are largely the easiest for us to universally define and
verify with our existing resources. People outside of our community may
argue that not allowing donors to vote is unusual. I feel dangerously close
to a "if you prick a reader - do they not bleed?" statement - but I hope
you get my point that there are a lot of very good and reasonable questions
which an empowered group should address after giving it the necessary
discussion and research time. If anyone is hoping that will be the
committees created for each individual election, and as someone who went in
thinking that might be possible, let me assure you speaking now from some
experience, that is not going to happen. I will write more later on why
that is, but I think many (myself included at one time) do not realize all
the work involved with the committee - and how mildly insane the timeline
is. In my mind, that is the conversation that should happen before any
other big picture questions can realistically move from discussion stage to
actionable stage.

All of this said, I do think there are some good and necessary changes are
being made this year. There are open nominations in addition to the
self-nominations, and that has so far been a positive thing. We lowered the
age requirement for the FDC to match the board age requirements. Given a
tight timeline, we are taking many steps to make translations easier and
get as many of them as possible. Several improvements to the actual voting
process are being made (no more going to your home wiki to vote and no more
copying and pasting of links). We both expanded the committee and delegated
some specific tasks (such as mine) to help with committee process and
workload management. I do not want to leave you with the impression that
the individual elections committees are helpless to make any changes, that
is not true. I think each committee has taken on big changes and chipped
away at some big picture issues (the 2013 committee resulted in the on-wiki
proposal for a standing elections committee). However, there are some
limitations to how much we can each do in any given cycle. Perhaps based on
this conversation, and what comes of it, the next committee could simply
implement the changes to affiliate voter group as the research might be
done and questions answered by then. However, it is also possible they will
instead also just come to another set of questions that need to be answered
and other challenges that must be addressed first. My personal opinion is
that a more ongoing approach to these issues (such as a standing committee)
is a more logical and "wiki like" solution to addressing very reasonable
questions like these that come up from time to time.

-greg (User:Varnent)

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:06 AM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:03 AM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi James, is there any good reason to keep the exception? Imo it is a
> wrong
> > signal we send out. At the end of the day all good governance rules
> suggest
> > to minimize administrative tasks. And by definition everything which a
> > "client " does not see,  I.e
> > Content or software, is administrative.
> >
> > Rupert
>
>
> [ended up being long, sorry :( ]
>
> Are you speaking about the staff rule only or all of them? I had one of the
> committee members call me out for calling it an 'exception' before and
> their argument made sense to me, so I'm currently trying to think of them
> all as they recommended as different ways to be enfranchised. That may
> sound a bit like word play but... the more I've thought about it the more I
> agreed the exception word sounded wrong.
>
> Speaking just for myself I would say yes to generally all of the different
> rules (though I would, personally, lower the edit requirements). This
> because I do not think the "community" is one group and until and unless we
> parcel out seats to different groups (which I'm not actually sure we should
> do, I'd prefer them all to be more general 'community' seats). As part of
> that I don't think we should be strict with what we consider the community
> because I think, in a very real sense, each of the "how to vote" options
> represent a way to ensure the community and the stakeholders can be
> involved. I think that having the other options actually sends a better
> message then not having them.
>
> *Editing: *Obviously editors are the biggest group here, and the vast
> majority of staff who would be so inclined to vote will fall here too (I
> qualify on both my volunteer account and my staff account for example,
> though given my election role I don't vote at all). That's how it should
> be, and I honestly don't see that changing. It's also why I probably
> wouldn't "fight" too hard if the other options were remove simply
>
> *Staff: *I have always thought that the Staff need to be considered part of
> the community. While they have different roles at times (and at times share
> roles with volunteers) the Us v Them mentality that can become part of the
> thinking for both groups is poisonous to the projects as a whole. In order
> for it to succeed everyone needs to be seen as on the same side. There are
> never going to be many people who would qualify as Staff but don't qualify
> as Editors (at least with their staff account and we've never drawn a
> distinction for voting historically) and still want to vote but I think
> encouraging them to think of themselves as part of the community (and to
> send the message that they are) is important. [I also think it's good to
> involve staff in governance wherever possible, though not exclusively
> obviously, they need to feel part of it. Similar reasons why a corporation
> often gives out stock to their employees which allows them to own part of
> the company and to, indeed, vote for the Board of Directors.]
>
> *Developers*: Again we've historically had very few people who met this
> requirement, wanted to vote, and didn't qualify through some other means
> (usually editing) but MediaWiki is not just the software we run it's also,
> essentially, a full fledged project that an enormous amount of 3rd parties
> use. I would love to find good ways to encourage the community of 3rd party
> developers to take part in this governance.
>
> *Current/Old Board/FDC/Advisory Board: *I see this mostly as not booting
> those who have been in the trenches and know what the work actually
> entails.
>
> I could certainly see other groups, including affiliates, who might make
> sense to be in this list (though with the current structure I have some
> concerns of double enfranchisement even if I personally wouldn't choose the
> current structure) but I don't currently see great reasons to get rid of
> the options we have other then just 'simplicity'. That isn't a horrible
> reason of course, I'm just not sure it's necessary.
>
> (obviously not speaking for the committee or with my staff hat on though
> obviously, as Greg said, those roles influence me.. though most of it
> hasn't changed since long before I was staff)
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Fæ
In reply to this post by Gregory Varnum-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> hi James,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, James Alexander <
>> [hidden email]>
>> 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
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Gregory Varnum-2
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Gregory Varnum <[hidden email]>
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


Greg - I think the answer has been presented several times. I think
Dariusz' suggestion is the ideal outcome: The simplest way to treat all of
the staff the same is to remove recognition of "staff" from the election
rules and proceed on (possibly lowered) edit/commit requirements. This is
relatively easy to implement and means that many of the questions you have
posed in the last several of your posts will not need to be specifically
answered.  It also reinforces that the Wikimedia movement and community is
driven by and composed of volunteers, and it is perfectly reasonable to
identify members by their volunteer contributions.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Gregory Varnum-2
Nathan - that is a fair opinion - but not one shared by everyone. There are
many that feel staff who do not edit much should be allowed to participate
- I happen to agree.

It might not address concerns brought up by others about non-staff related
issues.

Also, there are some that have stated they think the requirements are
already too low - so even that would require some further discussion - imho.

That answer is easy if you accept that everyone agrees with that point of
view - but that is not the case.

-greg

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Gregory Varnum <[hidden email]>
> 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
>
>
> Greg - I think the answer has been presented several times. I think
> Dariusz' suggestion is the ideal outcome: The simplest way to treat all of
> the staff the same is to remove recognition of "staff" from the election
> rules and proceed on (possibly lowered) edit/commit requirements. This is
> relatively easy to implement and means that many of the questions you have
> posed in the last several of your posts will not need to be specifically
> answered.  It also reinforces that the Wikimedia movement and community is
> driven by and composed of volunteers, and it is perfectly reasonable to
> identify members by their volunteer contributions.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Gregory Varnum-2
In reply to this post by Fæ
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> hi James,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, James Alexander <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> 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
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Fæ
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> hi James,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, James Alexander <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> 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
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > --
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

Gregory Varnum-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>> 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 <[hidden email]
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi James,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:06 AM, James Alexander <
>>>>> [hidden email]>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> ,
>>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>> --
>>> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
1234