Hello
Last week, I attended Wikimedia France General Assembly, which was followed by some interesting discussions. And the Offline UserGroup was actually nominaly mentionned as one of the contentious UG for the future WMF board elections. Contentious because it is a transversal thematic organisation, where most members are also likely to be members of other UG and/or chapters. There are also such UG, such as WikiWomen, Art and Feminism, Whose Knowledge etc. though a strong minority in the 100 UG.
So, what's the deal....
Recently, the WMF has approved the fact all UserGroups will participate in the election of WMF board seats. The next occurence will be in a few weeks. This include our UserGroup.
As part of the currently discussion, it is suggested that it would be highly inappropriate that people vote or even discuss in several UG, when they are members of several UG/Chapters. It is also considered that the UG should have a public clear process to make decisions as it would not be okay that contact groups choose nominees and vote nominees without getting members feedback. It also raises the issue of why contacts are contacts precisely and what their roles and responsibilities are. It is also suggested that UG could also decide not to vote on the WMF board elections if they chose not to participate. But on one hand, group members should decide that, and on the other hand, offline UG could provide a relevant input to the discussion (the largest majority of UG are defined by their geographies, and there are not so many UG that are defined by their activity focus... so strategically speaking, I think the Offline group should speak up).
I'd like to note that, at this point, Offline has two parallel membership lists... not a big deal, but probably something to clarify at some point.
Additionaly, at some point, our UG will have to submit an annual report. This is mandatory to stay a UG. I do not know when the deadline is... perhaps our current group contacts do.
And last, I'd like to raise the issue of our contacts precisely. The UG was created nearly a year ago, using the opportunity of the Berlin Conf. Thank you for those who made it happen ! Yet, the UG contacts were self-appointed, rather than selected by the (vague) members (that was completely logical given the situation, I do not criticize this process). Today, it would probably be more appropriate to have contacts who are chosen by members and to have contacts that are actually *active* in the UG. At the moment, one contact is active, whilst I have never heard anything from the second. Well, I met him once at Wikimania, but I have never seen him active either on this list, or on the wiki (he did not even list his name himself, Sj did it for him).
Being an affiliate comes with some obligations (even if they are very very light). And it also comes with some benefits (even if it is not entirely always clear which they are).
I know we are part of this group mostly because we are simply sharing a belief that offline is part of our mouvement and benefit the global community. Some are mostly observers and supporters, whilst it is a daily job for others. We can not meet very often (contrariwise to geographically-based UG), and we have to thank those who made it happened that offline members meet, such as after Wikimania Montreal. And I am sure most of us would agree that this is what the role of the UG should be. Sharing info, common opportunities, and so on.
Yet... an WMF affiliate has some obligations... so how should we deal with that in the least time-consuming, least-bureaucratic, least-expensive way, yet playing our role in representing, recruting and promoting offline in the mouvement ?
Flo
Thanks for raising the point.
Florence Devouard, 27/02/19 14:17:
Yet... an WMF affiliate has some obligations... so how should we deal with that in the least time-consuming, least-bureaucratic, least-expensive way, yet playing our role in representing, recruting and promoting offline in the mouvement ?
From my point of view as a supporter of offline projects, the ideal solution is that all affiliates agree that only incorporated entities will have a formal vote (whatever its weight) in the final phase of the selection of 2 board seats, to avoid creating new unwanted work about internal governance.
Alternatively, a simple method might be to decide that all user groups will have a discussion/vote on a certain wiki page where all their members can join (Meta-Wiki may be enough if it can be public), so that it's easy to identify unwanted patterns. (And establish a quorum or whatever other criteria is decided.)
Federico
For group contacts + reports : It would be good to have an annual nomination thread, and short wiki vote, a few months before our annual report? (*August* each year) That way we can use the same energy to summarize what's been happening; those involved in active projects should feel welcome to be liaisons; and we keep the meta pages up to date.
On board voting: + Arranging private votes has been a perennial weakness for the movement. Would others be interested in public discussion of pros/cons of different candidates? + I respect the concerns around voting multiple times: we want people to be comfortable joining many groups while only voting once. Is there any proposal yet re: how to do this? + Say that, per Nemo, only incorporated groups vote in the final selection. Perhaps we could share formal recommendations with that group, before their vote (and sort those out on Meta).
SJ
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for raising the point.
Florence Devouard, 27/02/19 14:17:
Yet... an WMF affiliate has some obligations... so how should we deal with that in the least time-consuming, least-bureaucratic, least-expensive way, yet playing our role in representing, recruting and promoting offline in the mouvement ?
From my point of view as a supporter of offline projects, the ideal solution is that all affiliates agree that only incorporated entities will have a formal vote (whatever its weight) in the final phase of the selection of 2 board seats, to avoid creating new unwanted work about internal governance.
Alternatively, a simple method might be to decide that all user groups will have a discussion/vote on a certain wiki page where all their members can join (Meta-Wiki may be enough if it can be public), so that it's easy to identify unwanted patterns. (And establish a quorum or whatever other criteria is decided.)
Federico
Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
First of all, I would like to thank Florence for bringing this subject up.
I must admit that I did not know of the group's existence until one day I "happened" upon it about one month ago. I was researching the possibility of creating an Offline User Group, and had even created a logo for a user group back in December 2018: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Offline_Logo.svg
I therefore propose this logo for the group.
I am also willing to work to get this User Group more active.
Best regards Gabriel
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 8:31 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
For group contacts + reports : It would be good to have an annual nomination thread, and short wiki vote, a few months before our annual report? (*August* each year) That way we can use the same energy to summarize what's been happening; those involved in active projects should feel welcome to be liaisons; and we keep the meta pages up to date.
On board voting:
- Arranging private votes has been a perennial weakness for the movement.
Would others be interested in public discussion of pros/cons of different candidates?
- I respect the concerns around voting multiple times: we want people to
be comfortable joining many groups while only voting once. Is there any proposal yet re: how to do this?
- Say that, per Nemo, only incorporated groups vote in the final
selection. Perhaps we could share formal recommendations with that group, before their vote (and sort those out on Meta).
SJ
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for raising the point.
Florence Devouard, 27/02/19 14:17:
Yet... an WMF affiliate has some obligations... so how should we deal with that in the least time-consuming, least-bureaucratic, least-expensive way, yet playing our role in representing, recruting
and
promoting offline in the mouvement ?
From my point of view as a supporter of offline projects, the ideal solution is that all affiliates agree that only incorporated entities will have a formal vote (whatever its weight) in the final phase of the selection of 2 board seats, to avoid creating new unwanted work about internal governance.
Alternatively, a simple method might be to decide that all user groups will have a discussion/vote on a certain wiki page where all their members can join (Meta-Wiki may be enough if it can be public), so that it's easy to identify unwanted patterns. (And establish a quorum or whatever other criteria is decided.)
Federico
Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
Dear Gabriel,
Could be great with a logo :) And with more activity!! :)
Depending on who the target group of the logo is, I would propose a less "disabled" logo. Being offline can also mean to solve bandwidth issues, to circumvent repressive governments or to just be more resilient in some broader sense. It should be empowering.
Most offline solutions would build upon their own network infrastructure.
While I cannot create a logo, I would strongly suggest to use symbolism of for instance "local area networks" https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=local%20area%20network%20icon&tbs=imgo:1, rather than "not connected" or "not online".
Best, Ben
On 3/5/19 4:31 PM, Gabriel Thullen wrote:
First of all, I would like to thank Florence for bringing this subject up.
I must admit that I did not know of the group's existence until one day I "happened" upon it about one month ago. I was researching the possibility of creating an Offline User Group, and had even created a logo for a user group back in December 2018: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Offline_Logo.svg
I therefore propose this logo for the group.
I am also willing to work to get this User Group more active.
Best regards Gabriel
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 8:31 PM Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com mailto:meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
For group contacts + reports : It would be good to have an annual nomination thread, and short wiki vote, a few months before our annual report? (/August/ each year) That way we can use the same energy to summarize what's been happening; those involved in active projects should feel welcome to be liaisons; and we keep the meta pages up to date. On board voting: + Arranging private votes has been a perennial weakness for the movement. Would others be interested in public discussion of pros/cons of different candidates? + I respect the concerns around voting multiple times: we want people to be comfortable joining many groups while only voting once. Is there any proposal yet re: how to do this? + Say that, per Nemo, only incorporated groups vote in the final selection. Perhaps we could share formal recommendations with that group, before their vote (and sort those out on Meta). SJ On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com <mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks for raising the point. Florence Devouard, 27/02/19 14:17: > Yet... an WMF affiliate has some obligations... so how should we deal > with that in the least time-consuming, least-bureaucratic, > least-expensive way, yet playing our role in representing, recruting and > promoting offline in the mouvement ? From my point of view as a supporter of offline projects, the ideal solution is that all affiliates agree that only incorporated entities will have a formal vote (whatever its weight) in the final phase of the selection of 2 board seats, to avoid creating new unwanted work about internal governance. Alternatively, a simple method might be to decide that all user groups will have a discussion/vote on a certain wiki page where all their members can join (Meta-Wiki may be enough if it can be public), so that it's easy to identify unwanted patterns. (And establish a quorum or whatever other criteria is decided.) Federico _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
Hello everyone,
Following the last update during Wikimedia Summit regarding WMF board seats selection [1], please confirm whether you are still a member of the Offline UserGroup in 2019. For those already members in 2018, I copied your name and stricked it. If you are still a member, please simply unstricke. If you are a new member, add your name :)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_for_offline_wikis#Membership_in_...
Ant
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_20...
Le 04/03/2019 à 20:30, Samuel Klein a écrit :
For group contacts + reports : It would be good to have an annual nomination thread, and short wiki vote, a few months before our annual report? (/August/ each year) That way we can use the same energy to summarize what's been happening; those involved in active projects should feel welcome to be liaisons; and we keep the meta pages up to date.
On board voting:
- Arranging private votes has been a perennial weakness for the
movement. Would others be interested in public discussion of pros/cons of different candidates?
- I respect the concerns around voting multiple times: we want people
to be comfortable joining many groups while only voting once. Is there any proposal yet re: how to do this?
- Say that, per Nemo, only incorporated groups vote in the final
selection. Perhaps we could share formal recommendations with that group, before their vote (and sort those out on Meta).
Well... This is not what I read in the new bylaws. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Amended_Bylaws_Article_IV,_Section_3_(...)
And I discussed that topic with Wikimedia France board members a week ago and what they said to me is not either consistent with Nemo's claim that only incorporated groups participate in the final selection.
So ?
Did I completely misunderstand it and only incorporated vote, or did you misinterpretate and all affiliates in good standing can vote ?
Florence
SJ
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for raising the point. Florence Devouard, 27/02/19 14:17: > Yet... an WMF affiliate has some obligations... so how should we deal > with that in the least time-consuming, least-bureaucratic, > least-expensive way, yet playing our role in representing, recruting and > promoting offline in the mouvement ? From my point of view as a supporter of offline projects, the ideal solution is that all affiliates agree that only incorporated entities will have a formal vote (whatever its weight) in the final phase of the selection of 2 board seats, to avoid creating new unwanted work about internal governance. Alternatively, a simple method might be to decide that all user groups will have a discussion/vote on a certain wiki page where all their members can join (Meta-Wiki may be enough if it can be public), so that it's easy to identify unwanted patterns. (And establish a quorum or whatever other criteria is decided.) Federico _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
Hello
Le 04/03/2019 à 20:30, Samuel Klein a écrit :
For group contacts + reports : It would be good to have an annual nomination thread, and short wiki vote, a few months before our annual report? (/August/ each year)
Ok. So we could put that back on the table around May ?
That way we can use the same energy to summarize what's been happening; those involved in active projects should feel welcome to be liaisons; and we keep the meta pages up to date.
On board voting:
For information, the signpost (well, Bluerasberry) has published this that is worth reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/In_foc...
- Arranging private votes has been a perennial weakness for the
movement. Would others be interested in public discussion of pros/cons of different candidates?
For information : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
Ok, vote is one thing. Nomination is another.
So to start with, I am not sure what is currently the process for nominating candidates... Apparently, voting takes care on the ChapterWiki, which is a private wiki (I suppose that Sam has access to it... do you Sam ?) I presume that nomination process also takes place on the ChapterWiki ? Can you tell us if that is the case Sam ?
- I respect the concerns around voting multiple times: we want people
to be comfortable joining many groups while only voting once. Is there any proposal yet re: how to do this?
Unclear
- Say that, per Nemo, only incorporated groups vote in the final
selection. Perhaps we could share formal recommendations with that group, before their vote (and sort those out on Meta).
As said previously, ALL groups can vote. It is not restricted to incorporated groups. But indeed, we can also simply choose to NOT vote. But if so, this is something we should explicitely decide.
I vaguely feel that what we should do is 1) participate in the nomination process (IF we have a name to propose and IF it is not in the current list - if list there is... so first thing would be to figure out where the nomination list would actually be...) 2) not participate in the vote (because it is unclear who our membership is and it is likely many of us are in other groups)
What about starting by polling our "members" on a wiki page about how they feel about the offline group actually trying to vote for someone ?
Florence
SJ
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for raising the point. Florence Devouard, 27/02/19 14:17: > Yet... an WMF affiliate has some obligations... so how should we deal > with that in the least time-consuming, least-bureaucratic, > least-expensive way, yet playing our role in representing, recruting and > promoting offline in the mouvement ? From my point of view as a supporter of offline projects, the ideal solution is that all affiliates agree that only incorporated entities will have a formal vote (whatever its weight) in the final phase of the selection of 2 board seats, to avoid creating new unwanted work about internal governance. Alternatively, a simple method might be to decide that all user groups will have a discussion/vote on a certain wiki page where all their members can join (Meta-Wiki may be enough if it can be public), so that it's easy to identify unwanted patterns. (And establish a quorum or whatever other criteria is decided.) Federico _______________________________________________ Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
Gabe: great first logo! Let's use it.
Florence: I do not have access to the chapter wiki. We were just all added to a mailing list, and invited to appoint 2 people from each user group to join the list. Then I believe the list will together come up with a proposed mechanism for nomination, which will be reviewed by the WMF Board within 2 weeks. Would you like to be added to that list?
I will forward the last email on the topic that I've gotten. I am willing to be the other person from WOW, but this is a busy month so I would also be glad to see another person step up.
Warmly, SJ
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:15 AM Florence Devouard fdevouard@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Le 04/03/2019 à 20:30, Samuel Klein a écrit :
For group contacts + reports : It would be good to have an annual nomination thread, and short wiki vote, a few months before our annual report? (*August* each year)
Ok. So we could put that back on the table around May ?
That way we can use the same energy to summarize what's been happening; those involved in active projects should feel welcome to be liaisons; and we keep the meta pages up to date.
On board voting:
For information, the signpost (well, Bluerasberry) has published this that is worth reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/In_foc...
- Arranging private votes has been a perennial weakness for the movement.
Would others be interested in public discussion of pros/cons of different candidates?
For information : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
Ok, vote is one thing. Nomination is another.
So to start with, I am not sure what is currently the process for nominating candidates... Apparently, voting takes care on the ChapterWiki, which is a private wiki (I suppose that Sam has access to it... do you Sam ?) I presume that nomination process also takes place on the ChapterWiki ? Can you tell us if that is the case Sam ?
- I respect the concerns around voting multiple times: we want people to
be comfortable joining many groups while only voting once. Is there any proposal yet re: how to do this?
Unclear
- Say that, per Nemo, only incorporated groups vote in the final
selection. Perhaps we could share formal recommendations with that group, before their vote (and sort those out on Meta).
As said previously, ALL groups can vote. It is not restricted to incorporated groups. But indeed, we can also simply choose to NOT vote. But if so, this is something we should explicitely decide.
I vaguely feel that what we should do is
- participate in the nomination process (IF we have a name to propose and
IF it is not in the current list - if list there is... so first thing would be to figure out where the nomination list would actually be...) 2) not participate in the vote (because it is unclear who our membership is and it is likely many of us are in other groups)
What about starting by polling our "members" on a wiki page about how they feel about the offline group actually trying to vote for someone ?
Florence
SJ
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for raising the point.
Florence Devouard, 27/02/19 14:17:
Yet... an WMF affiliate has some obligations... so how should we deal with that in the least time-consuming, least-bureaucratic, least-expensive way, yet playing our role in representing, recruting
and
promoting offline in the mouvement ?
From my point of view as a supporter of offline projects, the ideal solution is that all affiliates agree that only incorporated entities will have a formal vote (whatever its weight) in the final phase of the selection of 2 board seats, to avoid creating new unwanted work about internal governance.
Alternatively, a simple method might be to decide that all user groups will have a discussion/vote on a certain wiki page where all their members can join (Meta-Wiki may be enough if it can be public), so that it's easy to identify unwanted patterns. (And establish a quorum or whatever other criteria is decided.)
Federico
Offline-l mailing list Offline-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/offline-l
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266