[Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Nicole Ebber
Dear Wikimedians,

Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]

Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
outreach efforts and accept additional applications.

We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.

== Wikimania Strategy Space ==
At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed
schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
forward to seeing many of you.

Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as
well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
hearing from you during future consultations.

In the name of the Core Team
Kaarel & Nicole


[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
[2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030


--
Nicole Ebber
Adviser International Relations
Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

David Cuenca Tudela
 Dear Kaarel & Nicole,

It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
not directly represented.
Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have
members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
discussions away from the volunteer community.

You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that
represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
know what the participants think of their assigned area?

Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
members?

Cheers,
Micru


On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
> for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
> exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
>
> Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
>
> We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
> the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
> their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
> we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
>
> == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
> seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed
> schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> forward to seeing many of you.
>
> Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as
> well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> hearing from you during future consultations.
>
> In the name of the Core Team
> Kaarel & Nicole
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
>
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Kaarel Vaidla-2
 Dear Micru,

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
current status of the process.

>It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from
our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...?
It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to
have members chosen by those communities.
>I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
discussions away from the volunteer community.

The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would
like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not
interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
would be really interested in hearing them.

The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
collective process.

>You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
know what the participants think of their assigned area?

With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations
are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
strategic discussions.

We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps
us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.

We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling
these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
letter.

>Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
members?

In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept
further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions
will change

Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a
more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to
the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the
strategy process.

Have a great weekend!
Kaarel

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>  Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
>
> It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
> not directly represented.
> Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities like
> Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have
> members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
> those communities.
> I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do
> not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> discussions away from the volunteer community.
>
> You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that
> represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is
> lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> know what the participants think of their assigned area?
>
> Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
> a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> members?
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
> > for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
> > exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> > round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> > all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
> >
> > Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> > Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> > movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> > outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
> >
> > We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> > processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> > their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
> > the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
> > their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
> > we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
> >
> > == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> > At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> > hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
> > seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> > questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed
> > schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> > forward to seeing many of you.
> >
> > Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as
> > well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> > advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> > contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> > hearing from you during future consultations.
> >
> > In the name of the Core Team
> > Kaarel & Nicole
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> > [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > http://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Yaroslav Blanter
Dear Kaarel,

with all respect, it would be great if you could name the issues first
before soliciting further feedback.

In my particular case, well, I have seen a message on this list which I
interpreted as a call for help. I have generally many things which interest
me, but I though that if WMF needs help, I could help, so I applied. I am a
volunteer.

Two days ago, I got a impersonalized mail saying that my application was
not accepted. Fine with me, I am sure there are people with tons of more
experience than me, and I have a lot of work on the projects. I was not
planning to react on this in any way.

But now you are saying you do not have enough volunteers and ask (us?
whom?) to encourage more people to apply?

So that they could get back impersonalized rejection messages?

I am not sure how specifically you want to solicit more applications but if
you want to get any help from the community you probably need to be very
specific on what exactly roles you need to ensure the diversity, and
specifically address people in these roles. Unless this has been done, I
will discourage everybody to apply.

Cheers
Yaroslav



On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>  Dear Micru,
>
> Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
> the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
> offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
> different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
> current status of the process.
>
> >It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
> not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from
> our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...?
> It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to
> have members chosen by those communities.
> >I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do
> not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> discussions away from the volunteer community.
>
> The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
> was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
> Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would
> like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not
> interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
> would be really interested in hearing them.
>
> The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
> engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
> collective process.
>
> >You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> know what the participants think of their assigned area?
>
> With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations
> are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
> strategic discussions.
>
> We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps
> us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
>
> We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
> Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling
> these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
> also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
> letter.
>
> >Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
> a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> members?
>
> In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept
> further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
> expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions
> will change
>
> Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a
> more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
> interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to
> the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the
> strategy process.
>
> Have a great weekend!
> Kaarel
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
> >
> > It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
> are
> > not directly represented.
> > Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
> like
> > Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have
> > members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
> > those communities.
> > I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
> do
> > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> >
> > You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> that
> > represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect
> is
> > lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> >
> > Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> movement
> > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> > members?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
> > > for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
> > > exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> > > round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> > > all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
> > >
> > > Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> > > Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> > > movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> > > outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
> > >
> > > We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> > > processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> > > their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
> > > the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
> > > their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
> > > we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
> > >
> > > == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> > > At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> > > hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
> > > seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> > > questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed
> > > schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> > > forward to seeing many of you.
> > >
> > > Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as
> > > well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> > > advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> > > contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> > > hearing from you during future consultations.
> > >
> > > In the name of the Core Team
> > > Kaarel & Nicole
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> > > [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nicole Ebber
> > > Adviser International Relations
> > > Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > http://wikimedia.de
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> *Kaarel Vaidla*
> Process Architect for
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> 2030.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Kaarel Vaidla-2
​Dear Kaarel,

​I am especially concerned that with the Portuguese language being the most
spoken language in the Southern Hemisphere, ranking 5th/6th globally, among
the dozens of members of the Strategy Working Groups that appear there,
there is not a single native speaker of Portuguese. And, as far as I know,
it was not for lack of applications.

All the best,

Paulo


2018-07-21 18:13 GMT+01:00 Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>:

>  Dear Micru,
>
> Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
> the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
> offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
> different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
> current status of the process.
>
> >It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
> not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from
> our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...?
> It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to
> have members chosen by those communities.
> >I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do
> not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> discussions away from the volunteer community.
>
> The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
> was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
> Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would
> like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not
> interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
> would be really interested in hearing them.
>
> The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
> engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
> collective process.
>
> >You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> know what the participants think of their assigned area?
>
> With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations
> are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
> strategic discussions.
>
> We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps
> us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
>
> We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
> Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling
> these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
> also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
> letter.
>
> >Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
> a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> members?
>
> In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept
> further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
> expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions
> will change
>
> Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a
> more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
> interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to
> the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the
> strategy process.
>
> Have a great weekend!
> Kaarel
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
> >
> > It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
> are
> > not directly represented.
> > Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
> like
> > Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have
> > members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
> > those communities.
> > I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
> do
> > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> >
> > You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> that
> > represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect
> is
> > lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> >
> > Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> movement
> > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> > members?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
> > > for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
> > > exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> > > round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> > > all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
> > >
> > > Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> > > Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> > > movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> > > outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
> > >
> > > We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> > > processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> > > their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
> > > the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
> > > their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
> > > we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
> > >
> > > == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> > > At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> > > hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
> > > seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> > > questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed
> > > schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> > > forward to seeing many of you.
> > >
> > > Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as
> > > well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> > > advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> > > contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> > > hearing from you during future consultations.
> > >
> > > In the name of the Core Team
> > > Kaarel & Nicole
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> > > [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nicole Ebber
> > > Adviser International Relations
> > > Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > http://wikimedia.de
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> *Kaarel Vaidla*
> Process Architect for
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> 2030.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Pine W
Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a challenging
topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by
"diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That
discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on the
definitions.

If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as possible,
that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment
required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to
expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are
paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for
many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of
important activities to do.

There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process
could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I
personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I
could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be
sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the culture
and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers, so
there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of the
conversations.

What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic
expectations.

I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups
were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can
respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private
communications.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Dennis Tobar
In reply to this post by Nicole Ebber
HI Nicole and Kaarel:

Thanks for your efforts. Can you add a new column per WG if the member is
"speaking" for a meta group of Affiliates (such as Iberocoop or MENA)?.
This could help us to understand some elections and the *possible*
under-representation of groups in some themes.

Thanks in advance!


On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 4:12 AM Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
> for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
> exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
>
> Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
>
> We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
> the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
> their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
> we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
>
> == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
> seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed
> schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> forward to seeing many of you.
>
> Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as
> well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> hearing from you during future consultations.
>
> In the name of the Core Team
> Kaarel & Nicole
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
>
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Dennis Tobar Calderón
Ingeniero en Informática UTEM
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Pine W
Hello,

"*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the
WGs, I think that it's reasonable to  expect that a significant percentage
of the members will be staff who are  paid to participate because the time
commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (

2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
​​
Pine W )

Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups
favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to look
after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why
would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement is
mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by
his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions for
other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia
Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of the
Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still
be very limited in scope.

All the best,

Paulo


​​
2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
​​
Pine W <[hidden email]>:

> Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a challenging
> topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by
> "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That
> discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on the
> definitions.
>
> If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as possible,
> that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment
> required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to
> expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are
> paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for
> many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of
> important activities to do.
>
> There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process
> could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I
> personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I
> could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be
> sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the culture
> and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers, so
> there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of the
> conversations.
>
> What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic
> expectations.
>
> I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups
> were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can
> respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private
> communications.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Chris Keating-2
Hi Paolo,

In my experience Wikimedia staff are always just as committed and
enthusiastic as volunteers - it's not a job anyone takes if all they
care about is collecting their paycheque. :)

But where I share some of your concern is with the balance of some of
the working groups. Staff and board members of large organisations are
much more represented in some WGs than others.

Roles and Responsibilities has 8 members, including three Chapter EDs,
two staff and one board member from the WMF, and two volunteers drawn
from FDC and AffCom.

Resource Allocation has 11 members presently, of whom 9 are from the
WMF, from large chapters, or from the existing FDC.

Are these groups really going to be considering significant changes to
the way things happen at the moment?

By contrast the Diversity WG is wonderfully volunteer-led and diverse,
but then I suspect the Diversity Working Group isn't going to be the
one making important governance recommendations.

Chris


On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:20 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> "*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the
> WGs, I think that it's reasonable to  expect that a significant percentage
> of the members will be staff who are  paid to participate because the time
> commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (
>
> 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
>
> Pine W )
>
> Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups
> favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to look
> after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why
> would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement is
> mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by
> his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions for
> other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia
> Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of the
> Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still
> be very limited in scope.
>
> All the best,
>
> Paulo
>
>
>
> 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
>
> Pine W <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a challenging
> > topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by
> > "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That
> > discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on the
> > definitions.
> >
> > If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as possible,
> > that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment
> > required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to
> > expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are
> > paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for
> > many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of
> > important activities to do.
> >
> > There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process
> > could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I
> > personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I
> > could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be
> > sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the culture
> > and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers, so
> > there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of the
> > conversations.
> >
> > What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic
> > expectations.
> >
> > I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups
> > were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can
> > respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private
> > communications.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Paulo Santos Perneta
Hi Chris,

That is precisely what concerns me the most: That the system seems to be
designed to not bring significant changes to the current situation, by
assumedly being focused on what is already done, and the way it was done.

I am part of a Wikimedia group of communities that only has "emerging
communities" and countries where Wikimedia penetration approaches zero,
despite being one of the largest in the world. When I read "Our focus was
indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.", I read
"Wikimedia First World" designing strategies and approaches for "Wikimedia
3rd World", most probably based on their own experiences. If that approach
has failed here in the last 17 years, why would it be bringing something
new now? It's ironic that at the same time we had that wonderful
"Decolonizing the Internet" conference in Wikimania, we are faced with this
kind of "colonial" approach.

I can't help but feeling that Strategy approach do not includes us, not
resonates in any visible way among our communities. That was pretty much
evident in the last round of Strategy discussions that was being published
in our Village Pump, at the Portuguese Wikipedia, where the interaction of
the community was minimal. Everybody I talked to perceived it as something
alien to our reality, about which there was nothing to say at all.

It may be a wonderful set of Strategy Working Groups for many things, but
I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to bring any significant guidance
that could help us changing our reality.

All the best,

Paulo


2018-07-23 16:54 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Paolo,
>
> In my experience Wikimedia staff are always just as committed and
> enthusiastic as volunteers - it's not a job anyone takes if all they
> care about is collecting their paycheque. :)
>
> But where I share some of your concern is with the balance of some of
> the working groups. Staff and board members of large organisations are
> much more represented in some WGs than others.
>
> Roles and Responsibilities has 8 members, including three Chapter EDs,
> two staff and one board member from the WMF, and two volunteers drawn
> from FDC and AffCom.
>
> Resource Allocation has 11 members presently, of whom 9 are from the
> WMF, from large chapters, or from the existing FDC.
>
> Are these groups really going to be considering significant changes to
> the way things happen at the moment?
>
> By contrast the Diversity WG is wonderfully volunteer-led and diverse,
> but then I suspect the Diversity Working Group isn't going to be the
> one making important governance recommendations.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:20 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > "*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the
> > WGs, I think that it's reasonable to  expect that a significant
> percentage
> > of the members will be staff who are  paid to participate because the
> time
> > commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (
> >
> > 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
> >
> > Pine W )
> >
> > Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups
> > favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to
> look
> > after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why
> > would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement
> is
> > mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by
> > his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions
> for
> > other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia
> > Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of
> the
> > Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still
> > be very limited in scope.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> >
> > 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
> >
> > Pine W <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a
> challenging
> > > topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean
> by
> > > "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That
> > > discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus
> on the
> > > definitions.
> > >
> > > If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as
> possible,
> > > that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time
> commitment
> > > required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to
> > > expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who
> are
> > > paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy
> for
> > > many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of
> > > important activities to do.
> > >
> > > There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development
> process
> > > could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I
> > > personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides
> that I
> > > could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be
> > > sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the
> culture
> > > and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the
> volunteers, so
> > > there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of
> the
> > > conversations.
> > >
> > > What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic
> > > expectations.
> > >
> > > I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups
> > > were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel
> can
> > > respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private
> > > communications.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Pine W
Hi Paulo,

Let me ask a question. What suggestions do you have for Nicole and Kaarel
about how to improve the strategy process? I hope that they will be
receptive to your input.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
Hoi,
An other problem with participation by proxy is that you are likely to
strengthen current bias. Wikimania 2018 has come and gone and we want more
and better information about subjects like Africa, There are many
approaches possible. Crucial is what it is we are to achieve.

* Do we want a better representation on "our" Wikipedia for the subject at
hand
* Do we want sufficient information for best practices like all the places
related from lowest to highest level of administrative and territorial
representation
* Do we want the information gap that has not even one percent of humans
coming from Africa to be filled
* Do we want our projects to be available for the people in Africa
* Do we want the projects in African language to thrive

The problem is that in order to make these things happen, truly happen, you
have to make it happen. By killing Wikipedia Zero for "obvious" reasons, we
will not have a second generation of students in Africa benefiting from
what we provided. It does not matter that we celebrate the first
generation, we failed them.

When we are to celebrate African academia, it is to be found in Africa, not
on American universities. The African American have sources, our sources to
their name, making them notable. When we are to accept African academia it
should be on their terms, their notability. When we want to see African
language Wikipedias thrive, we have to invest in their education, in
African education and not start at universities but at high schools, the
children of that first and second generation. When they write articles in
their language, never mind the subject of their class, there is room for
new articles. There is room for many students, classes, schools to make a
difference.

The mayors of Africa are as notable as "our" mayors. We need pictures in a
same manner like the Geograph project in the UK. But we have to leave it to
them what they write. Without them it is not for them.

The gender gap is important and yes, it exists at least in the same measure
in Africa. However, the #AfricaGap is at least as discriminatory and they
have to come from much father behind.

When the professionals are to take care of "our" interest and make a
difference, they might find it interesting that (probably) the first GLAM
project was to share material outside of our own comfort zone. Its major
impact was Indonesia, not the Netherlands. <grin> it might "inspire"
</grin>.
Thanks,
        GerardM


On 23 July 2018 at 15:20, Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> "*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the
> WGs, I think that it's reasonable to  expect that a significant percentage
> of the members will be staff who are  paid to participate because the time
> commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (
> ​
> 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
> ​​
> Pine W )
>
> Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups
> favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to look
> after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why
> would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement is
> mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by
> his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions for
> other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia
> Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of the
> Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still
> be very limited in scope.
>
> All the best,
>
> Paulo
>
>
> ​​
> 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
> ​​
> Pine W <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a
> challenging
> > topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by
> > "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That
> > discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on
> the
> > definitions.
> >
> > If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as
> possible,
> > that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment
> > required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to
> > expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are
> > paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for
> > many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of
> > important activities to do.
> >
> > There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process
> > could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I
> > personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I
> > could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be
> > sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the
> culture
> > and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers,
> so
> > there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of
> the
> > conversations.
> >
> > What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic
> > expectations.
> >
> > I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups
> > were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can
> > respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private
> > communications.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Pine W
Hello Pine,

I know for a fact that some of the more knowledgeable and experienced
members of our communities have applied to those WGs - at least about 10
candidatures have been sent. Not a single one was chosen, I believe because
most of us are not on the "organized part of the movement", are not
staffers nor habitués at the Wikimedia events. But every one of them is an
active and historic member of our communities.

Having someone from the Portuguese speaking communities there would be a
big improvement already. We do exist, we're 220 million native speakers -
almost all of them in the "Global South" - and will certainly evolve and be
part of the process, with or without the support of the Strategy Working
Groups. But I think we deserve some effort in order to be included and
involved in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy process.

All the best,

Paulo

2018-07-23 21:02 GMT+01:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Paulo,
>
> Let me ask a question. What suggestions do you have for Nicole and Kaarel
> about how to improve the strategy process? I hope that they will be
> receptive to your input.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Felipe da Fonseca
 Hi,

I agree with Paulo, I have applied myself for it and the answer was that
the WMF is looking for diversities ... here's a good chance ...

Best,
Felipe


2018-07-23 18:40 GMT-03:00 Paulo Santos Perneta <[hidden email]>:

> Hello Pine,
>
> I know for a fact that some of the more knowledgeable and experienced
> members of our communities have applied to those WGs - at least about 10
> candidatures have been sent. Not a single one was chosen, I believe because
> most of us are not on the "organized part of the movement", are not
> staffers nor habitués at the Wikimedia events. But every one of them is an
> active and historic member of our communities.
>
> Having someone from the Portuguese speaking communities there would be a
> big improvement already. We do exist, we're 220 million native speakers -
> almost all of them in the "Global South" - and will certainly evolve and be
> part of the process, with or without the support of the Strategy Working
> Groups. But I think we deserve some effort in order to be included and
> involved in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy process.
>
> All the best,
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-07-23 21:02 GMT+01:00 Pine W <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi Paulo,
> >
> > Let me ask a question. What suggestions do you have for Nicole and Kaarel
> > about how to improve the strategy process? I hope that they will be
> > receptive to your input.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

David Cuenca Tudela
In reply to this post by Kaarel Vaidla-2
> The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.

"The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the
whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1]. It
is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global
movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not
organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being
organised, yet they might want to participate.
I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new
ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted) do
the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the
status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps more
inclusive, approaches.

> We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have
ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.

Ideas:
- Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
- Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less frequent
updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
- Blog posts every 3-6 months
- Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
participants and community members
- Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing WG
participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language
and participation barriers
- Ask working groups to document arguments on meta

> We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
communities.

I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of
applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they were
not fulfilling.

> As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts
regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.

"Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the
participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the
motivation letters of the participants?
I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to know
the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to
format/structure it, I can help there.

I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the
working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas
they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the
value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and
there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity
within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is
that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement,
because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.

Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take place,
and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have
been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the
resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply
once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also
forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in Wikimania.

Have a nice day!
Micru

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  Dear Micru,
>
> Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
> the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
> offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
> different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
> current status of the process.
>
> >It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects are
> not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from
> our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...?
> It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to
> have members chosen by those communities.
> >I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do
> not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> discussions away from the volunteer community.
>
> The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
> was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
> Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would
> like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not
> interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
> would be really interested in hearing them.
>
> The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
> engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
> collective process.
>
> >You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> know what the participants think of their assigned area?
>
> With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations
> are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
> strategic discussions.
>
> We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps
> us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
>
> We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
> Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling
> these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
> also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
> letter.
>
> >Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
> a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> members?
>
> In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept
> further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
> expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions
> will change
>
> Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a
> more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
> interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to
> the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the
> strategy process.
>
> Have a great weekend!
> Kaarel
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
> >
> > It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
> are
> > not directly represented.
> > Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
> like
> > Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to have
> > members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
> > those communities.
> > I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
> do
> > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> >
> > You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> that
> > represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect
> is
> > lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> >
> > Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> movement
> > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> > members?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > >
> > > Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
> > > for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
> > > exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> > > round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> > > all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
> > >
> > > Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> > > Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> > > movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> > > outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
> > >
> > > We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> > > processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> > > their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
> > > the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
> > > their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
> > > we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
> > >
> > > == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> > > At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> > > hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
> > > seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> > > questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed
> > > schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> > > forward to seeing many of you.
> > >
> > > Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as
> > > well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> > > advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> > > contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> > > hearing from you during future consultations.
> > >
> > > In the name of the Core Team
> > > Kaarel & Nicole
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> > > [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nicole Ebber
> > > Adviser International Relations
> > > Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > http://wikimedia.de
> > >
> > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> *Kaarel Vaidla*
> Process Architect for
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> 2030.wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Paulo Santos Perneta
 ​
Hello David,

> I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the
working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas
they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the
value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and
there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity
within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is
that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement,
because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.

​Indeed, asking for native Portuguese speakers on the groups is a bit
simplistic and not granted​, and I generally agree with you in theory.
However, when we are talking about the language with the highest number of
speakers in the South Hemisphere, ranking 5th/6th in the world, with the
native speakers almost entirely distributed through the "Global South", in
South America, Africa and the Far East, with only "emerging communities" or
no communities at all, I fail to understand why, among the dozens of people
chosen to be part of the Working Groups, there's not a single one that can
be identified as a representative of that community.

My feeling, when I see those lists, is that we have been excluded from the
WMF Strategy objectives for 2030.

All the best,

Paulo



2018-07-24 10:03 GMT+01:00 David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>:

> > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
> was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
> Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
>
> "The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the
> whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1]. It
> is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global
> movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not
> organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being
> organised, yet they might want to participate.
> I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new
> ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted) do
> the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the
> status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps more
> inclusive, approaches.
>
> > We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
> people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have
> ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
>
> Ideas:
> - Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
> - Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less frequent
> updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
> - Blog posts every 3-6 months
> - Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
> participants and community members
> - Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing WG
> participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language
> and participation barriers
> - Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
>
> > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> communities.
>
> I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of
> applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they were
> not fulfilling.
>
> > As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
> published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts
> regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
>
> "Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the
> participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the
> motivation letters of the participants?
> I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to know
> the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to
> format/structure it, I can help there.
>
> ​​
> I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the
> working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas
> they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the
> value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and
> there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity
> within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is
> that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement,
> because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
>
> Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take place,
> and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have
> been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the
> resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply
> once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also
> forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in Wikimania.
>
> Have a nice day!
> Micru
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Micru,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
> > the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
> > offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
> > different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
> > current status of the process.
> >
> > >It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
> are
> > not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from
> > our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource,
> Wiktionary...?
> > It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that
> to
> > have members chosen by those communities.
> > >I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
> do
> > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
> > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> >
> > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
> > distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
> focus
> > was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
> the
> > Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
> > those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We
> would
> > like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not
> > interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
> > would be really interested in hearing them.
> >
> > The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
> > engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
> > collective process.
> >
> > >You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> > that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> > aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
> > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> >
> > With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity
> considerations
> > are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
> > strategic discussions.
> >
> > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
> > communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups
> helps
> > us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
> >
> > We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
> > Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on
> filling
> > these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
> > also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
> > thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
> > letter.
> >
> > >Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> movement
> > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> > members?
> >
> > In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we
> accept
> > further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
> > expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these
> proportions
> > will change
> >
> > Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up
> in a
> > more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
> > interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to
> > the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in
> the
> > strategy process.
> >
> > Have a great weekend!
> > Kaarel
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
> > >
> > > It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
> > are
> > > not directly represented.
> > > Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
> > like
> > > Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to
> have
> > > members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
> > > those communities.
> > > I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
> > > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
> > > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
> Groups
> > do
> > > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
> having
> > > discussions away from the volunteer community.
> > >
> > > You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
> > that
> > > represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
> aspect
> > is
> > > lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
> > > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition
> of
> > > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
> > > know what the participants think of their assigned area?
> > >
> > > Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
> > > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
> > > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
> > movement
> > > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
> > > members?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Micru
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Wikimedians,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
> > > > for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
> > > > exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
> > > > round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
> > > > all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
> > > >
> > > > Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
> > > > Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
> > > > movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
> > > > outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
> > > >
> > > > We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
> > > > processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
> > > > their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
> > > > the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
> > > > their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
> > > > we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
> > > >
> > > > == Wikimania Strategy Space ==
> > > > At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
> > > > hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
> > > > seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
> > > > questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the
> detailed
> > > > schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
> > > > forward to seeing many of you.
> > > >
> > > > Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date,
> as
> > > > well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
> > > > advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
> > > > contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
> > > > hearing from you during future consultations.
> > > >
> > > > In the name of the Core Team
> > > > Kaarel & Nicole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
> > > > [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nicole Ebber
> > > > Adviser International Relations
> > > > Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > > > http://wikimedia.de
> > > >
> > > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> > > > V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> > > > Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> > > > anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> > > > Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Kaarel Vaidla*
> > Process Architect for
> > Wikimedia Movement Strategy
> > 2030.wikimedia.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Etiamsi omnes, ego non
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

David Cuenca Tudela
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:34 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I fail to understand why, among the dozens of people
> chosen to be part of the Working Groups, there's not a single one that can
> be identified as a representative of that community.
>

Well, you can slice the community in many ways. If you consider the number
of contributors to the Portuguese Wikipedia with more than 5 edits per
month, the number it is at about 1500 editors [1], however Wikidata is at
8200 editors [2] and it doesn't have representation either. I'm not trying
to belittle the issue of lack of representation that you brought forward, I
just want to illustrate that it is not an uncommon problem, perhaps because
never before it had to be addressed.


> My feeling, when I see those lists, is that we have been excluded from the
> WMF Strategy objectives for 2030.


I don't like to think in drastic terms like these because it fails to
recognize the amount of good will that has been poured into the process and
the selection of participants by the Strategy team. It is perhaps more
interesting to think in terms of opportunities. The issues have been
already pointed out, some possible solutions have been put forward, and
perhaps there are even more options for participation that we are not aware
of. I trust that the Strategy team will come up with ways to close the
gaps, and the best we can do is offer our assistance to make things better.
In the end this is a matter of work... work to have discussions, work to
make them productive, work to find consensuses, work to make the
consensuses legitimate, work to inform about it... so I see plenty of
opportunities to give a hand anywhere and make life easier to those
involved.

Enjoy your day,
Micru

[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm
[2] https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaWIKIDATA.htm
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Yaroslav Blanter
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> I don't like to think in drastic terms like these because it fails to
> recognize the amount of good will that has been poured into the process and
> the selection of participants by the Strategy team. It is perhaps more
> interesting to think in terms of opportunities. The issues have been
> already pointed out, some possible solutions have been put forward, and
> perhaps there are even more options for participation that we are not aware
> of. I trust that the Strategy team will come up with ways to close the
> gaps, and the best we can do is offer our assistance to make things better.
> In the end this is a matter of work... work to have discussions, work to
> make them productive, work to find consensuses, work to make the
> consensuses legitimate, work to inform about it... so I see plenty of
> opportunities to give a hand anywhere and make life easier to those
> involved.
>
>
I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said
here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are not
associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend
real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.

If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have net
see even an acknowledgement of its existence.

Cheers
Yaroslav
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Anders Wennersten-2
As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects
are not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people
running worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not
the hard core contributes.

This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully
in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a
weakness, as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture
in our communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being
accepted.

Facts

The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries

The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries

The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include
(only) functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of
candidates should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual
selection was not done transparent as is the culture of the communities
but by "boss" selection (I only feel the movement is starting to
resemble a big company, not the vibrant communities)

Anders



Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:

> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said
> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are not
> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend
> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
>
> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have net
> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [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] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

Jane Darnell
Hmm. Yes and no. Yes the May 2017 conference suffered from some interesting
selection bias, but no the people there were not all brainwashed into
forgetting their "wildness". We are all still wild wild Wikipedians at
heart, speaking for the 2006 cohort in its entirety. I really doubt whether
the WMF is trying to shove us all in a direction of their choosing. I think
that we are in fact split down the middle into parties that believe "some
languages are better than others" and "let's save all existing languages on
the planet, including all of their fonts ever used on- and offline". Then
there is a huge discrepancy in workflow for these people and the folks who
work in just one language and never think of language as a movement topic
at all. Among this monolingual crowd (many of whom do not subscribe to any
mailing list or other communication outlets) are the overlapping groups
between the "field workers" and the "library workers". The field workers
tend to operate more by a "drive-by" methodology, and the "library workers"
tend to operate more by a "step-by-step" methodology. I respectfully submit
that we have all dabbled in all of these worlds and therefore we all have
enough common sense to shout "Whoa!" if something really really wrong gets
proposed. But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was
really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being
unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others. So e.g. personally
I was against the idea of "protected pages" but have come around to seeing
they are useful - even on Wikidata.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Anders Wennersten <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> As I see it the strategy process is run for the functionaries in the
> movement and by them. People with focus on contributing to the projects are
> not involved, when volunteers is mentioned it is mostly people running
> worskhops for beginners etc, a kind of semi functionaries, not the hard
> core contributes.
>
> This could be a good thing and foster a new set of moment leaders, fully
> in agreement with goals and strategy. It could also be seen as a weakness,
> as we do not recognize the more "wild" (but creative)y culture in our
> communities and only have the "nice" and obedient culture being accepted.
>
> Facts
>
> The vision  was really created in Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
>
> The way forward was defined by Wikiconf 2017 by functionaries
>
> The set up of work groups was from the beginning set up  to include (only)
> functionaries (time requirement, and first it was also talked of candidates
> should be endorsed by local chapters). And the actual selection was not
> done transparent as is the culture of the communities but by "boss"
> selection (I only feel the movement is starting to resemble a big company,
> not the vibrant communities)
>
> Anders
>
>
>
> Den 2018-07-24 kl. 21:29, skrev Yaroslav Blanter:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:16 PM, David Cuenca Tudela <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I do not know what really happened but if I listen to what has been said
>> here and earlier on similar occasions, my conclusion is that for the
>> Strategy Team we - volunteers who are working on the projects but are not
>> associated with the chapters, do not show up at Wikimania, do not attend
>> real-life tutorials organized by WMF - just do not exist.
>>
>> If this is the case, this is a serious gap to be bridged. So far I have
>> net
>> see even an acknowledgement of its existence.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [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/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12