On 14 March 2014 00:54, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The job of the
"Community Advocacy" bit of "Legal and Community
Advocacy" is, as I understand it, to advocate for the community's
need within the Foundation, and act as a conduit to the community
for legal stuff.
That department and its predecessors have hired professional attorneys
to lobby on copyright and patent issues for several years on multiple
continents. Recently they have been active in many other legal
advocacy areas including international trade, for example. The process
by which those issues was selected has in the past had more to do than
what the Board of Trustees could agree on, resulting in a common
denominator fare less inclusive than typical volunteer opinions on
what is an is not important to them, their families, their local
communities, and the factors which determine the time and effort they
are able to contribute. Willful ignorance of such factors is not good
volunteer recruiting practice.
Can you give an example of international trade lobbying?
The department lobbying on copyright and patent issues doesn't shock me.
It's the /legal/ department. Copyright is kind of important to us ;).
Their job is
not to advocate for "reduction in public school
class sizes"....
Is there any reason to think that reduction of public school class
sizes is not likely to result in more productive editors, with more
time to contribute, or that it would not attract quality volunteers
relative to taking no position on the question?
Not in the slightest, but that's not the test for whether we should plow
movement/foundation money and time into it. Pretty much *everything* that
is a Good Idea could, by your standards, fall into 'things we should
consider lobbying on'. To take this to its logical extreme; let's campaign
on the issues necessary for a zero cost economy! If everything is
incredibly cheap and/or free, everyone can be an artist or a philosopher or
an editor instead of having to do pesky things like 'working', and that way
we'll have all the editors we could possibly need.
That doesn't mean it's a thing we should spend time on, though. When I look
at the list of things I see a lot of stuff, such as reduction in public
school class sizes, that would help the community indirectly. I don't see a
lot of things that are likely enough to (a) succeed and (b) provide a
meaningful impact that we should spend limited movement resources and time
on them. Even assuming that people did say "yes, we want the Wikimedia
Foundation, which runs a website, to campaign on child working hours and
rights!", you note yourself that the lawyers would likely consider this
absolutely anathema to our legal restrictions around lobbying - so even
were this unlikely outcome to occur, it wouldn't go anywhere. Since it
won't go anywhere, and it's unlikely to occur in the first place, it's a
waste of volunteer time to find out how much they think we should do
something we absolutely cannot do.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Oliver Keyes
Product Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation