Dear all,
The next WMF metrics and activities meeting will take place on
Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). Please note, on
this occasion, we are holding this meeting on the second Thursday in
June.
The IRC channel is #wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net, and the meeting will
be broadcast as a live YouTube stream.
Each month at the metrics meeting, we will:
* Welcome recent hires
* Present a community update
* Present reports/updates that are focused on a key topic or theme; the
topic for June's meeting is WMF Strategy Preview
* Engage in questions/discussions
Please review
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings for further
information about how to participate.
We’ll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
Thank you,
Praveena
--
Praveena Maharaj
Executive Assistant to the Vice President of Engineering
Wikimedia Foundation \\ www.wikimediafoundation.org
Hi guys.
Just how many GLAM lists do we have?
Not counting regional ones, I know of GLAM, Cultural-Partners,
Libraries, got to know about existence of some the "paris group" (not
sure if it's even a mailing list technically, but in case it's not then
it's weird even more). Perhaps there are some (or is it many?) others.
Should they not be all listed in one place, e.g. on
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Mailing_lists with clear data
about who manages them, what are their scope, rules and how you might
joint them?
Just having many is already confusing but when you can't even get a list
of all of them it's confusing even more.
I'm sorry if some of the lists I listed were intended as cabalish and
not to be disclosed to others. I don't think cabalish lists are a good
way to collaborate for wikimedians.
Yours sincerely,
Base
[x-posted announcement]
Hello,
A reminder that the online office hour hosted by the Wikimedia Language
Engineering team is happening later today at 14:30 UTC. You can join the
hangout or watch the session from:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cuunke6rbmqpetvslv6jlakbhnc
Please note, due to the limitation of Google Hangouts there are few seats
available. So please let us know before hand if you would like to
participate on the hangout. We will also be on the IRC channel
#wikimedia-office to take questions. Please see below for the event
details, local time and original announcement.
Thanks
Runa
== Details ==
# *Event*: Wikimedia Language Engineering office hour session
# *When*: June 10th, 2015 (Wednesday) at 14:30 UTC (check local time
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20150610T1430)
# *Where*: https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cuunke6rbmqpetvslv6jlakbhnc and
on IRC #wikimedia-office (Freenode)
# *Agenda*: Content Translation
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation> updates and open Q & A
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Runa Bhattacharjee <rbhattacharjee(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:20 AM
Subject: Next Language Engineering Office Hour is on 10th June 2015
(Wednesday) at 1430 UTC
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia
developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, MediaWiki internationalisation
<mediawiki-i18n(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration
[Public]" <glam(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hello,
The next office hour of the Wikimedia Language Engineering team (now part
of Editing) is scheduled for next Wednesday, June 10th at 14:30 UTC.
However, this time instead of only IRC we are hosting it as an online
discussion over Hangout/Youtube. Given the limitation of Google Hangouts,
there will be limited seats for joining into the Hangout. Hence, do let us
know (on the event page
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cuunke6rbmqpetvslv6jlakbhnc>) if you
would like to participate on the Hangout. The IRC channel #wikimedia-office
and the Q&A channel for the youtube broadcast will also be open for
interactions during the session.
Our last online round-table session was held a few months back with the
editors of the Catalan Wikipedia. You can watch the recording here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHu3vdlE1X8 .
Please read below for the event details and do let us know if you have any
questions.
Thank you
Runa
== Details ==
# *Event*: Wikimedia Language Engineering office hour session
# *When*: June 10th, 2015 (Wednesday) at 14:30 UTC (check local time
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20150610T1430)
# *Where*: https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cuunke6rbmqpetvslv6jlakbhnc
and on IRC #wikimedia-office (Freenode)
# *Agenda*: Content Translation
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation> updates and open Q & A
--
Language Engineering - Outreach and QA Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
So I have been on the moderation list for this mailing list for 10 months now.
In the meantime, I have had perfectly valid e-mails sent to this list
rejected without a reason, and my appeal not getting any response
whatsoever from the moderators.
If this were a wiki, everyone would be shouting themselves hoarse at
having people blocked for such a long time, and seemingly without any
means of protesting such decisions.
However, this being a mailing list, with the moderation team having no
accountability to anyone, and abusing their status multiple times in
the past year, such decisions come without any discussion -- mostly
because they are made behind closed doors in the spirit of Wikimedia
transparency.
So, here is my good-faith attempt at getting taken off the moderation
list after ten months of waiting, and perhaps having a stab at finally
establishing at least some basic rules of moderator behaviour so that
we do not see long-term good-faith contributors hushed up due to
expressing criticisms.
-- Tomasz
I'm guessing that he's referring to the attendees of a GLAM meeting that
was held in Paris a few months ago and is comprehensively documented on
Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2015_European_GLAMwiki_Coordinators_meeting
Yesterday, I asked the ~15 attendees of that meeting a followup question
about my own work, and called them the "paris group" in that email as a
shorthand. As far as I know, that's the only time the phrase has been used
in a GLAM-specific context.
-Liam
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
On 9 June 2015 at 12:15, Benoît Evellin (Trizek) <bevellin(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Hello Base
>
> Guessing from your first email, the "Paris group" you mention may be this
> mailing list hosted by Wikimédia France
> <http://lists.wikimedia.fr/info/paris>, which allows people living in
> Paris discuss about their local IRL actions (like visiting museums).
>
> This list is not a generic mailing-list, like lists hosted by WMF.
>
> Best,
> Benoît
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk <base-w(a)yandex.ru> wrote:
>
>> Your comment does not cover the fact that not all lists are hosted by
>> lists.wikimedia.org.
>>
>> E.g. cultural partnership is here:
>>
>> https://intern.wikimedia.ch/lists/listinfo/cultural-partners
>>
>> Some other chapters also host lists and there're googlegroups to
>> consider. That's a one thing why a mere server listing of lists does not
>> suffice. Another is that an automatical list listing isn't where you can
>> write rules, membership procedure/criteria and other stuff needed for
>> transparency. Well not just transparency issue but also of need to
>> concentrate data in one place is to be considered.
>> --Base
>>
>>
>> On 09.06.2015 3:40, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>>
>>> The canonical home for the list of lists is
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo. While it is possible to
>>> have
>>> a list hidden from there, it would be pretty unusual for a GLAM list, I
>>> think.
>>>
>>> pb
>>>
>>>
>>> *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
>>> Foundation, Inc.
>>> T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe(a)wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki
>>> <https://twitter.com/Philippewiki>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Bohdan Melnychuk <base-w(a)yandex.ru>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys.
>>>>
>>>> Just how many GLAM lists do we have?
>>>>
>>>> Not counting regional ones, I know of GLAM, Cultural-Partners,
>>>> Libraries,
>>>> got to know about existence of some the "paris group" (not sure if it's
>>>> even a mailing list technically, but in case it's not then it's weird
>>>> even
>>>> more). Perhaps there are some (or is it many?) others.
>>>>
>>>> Should they not be all listed in one place, e.g. on
>>>> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Mailing_lists with clear data
>>>> about who manages them, what are their scope, rules and how you might
>>>> joint
>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>> Just having many is already confusing but when you can't even get a list
>>>> of all of them it's confusing even more.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry if some of the lists I listed were intended as cabalish and
>>>> not
>>>> to be disclosed to others. I don't think cabalish lists are a good way
>>>> to
>>>> collaborate for wikimedians.
>>>>
>>>> Yours sincerely,
>>>> Base
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GLAM mailing list
>> GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Benoît Evellin (Trizek)
> Community Liaison, Product
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> GLAM mailing list
> GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
>
>
Yes, this mailing list is still alive, and the membership is open to
Wikipedians who understand how to jump the hoops of the meta page. The meta
page is not only the place where you can sign up for the list, but also the
place where you should discuss this list if you object to it in any way. I
am one of several list admins who adds people to the list based on the
sign-up page and emails that come in.
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Mailing_lists
The biggest reason for it being closed is to ensure that we can speak
honestly about projects with have had with external partners - because GLAM
is inherently about building professional and long-term relationships
externally
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Ilario Valdelli <
ilario.valdelli(a)wikimedia.ch> wrote:
> Hi,
> the mailing list of cultural partners "hosted by" Wikimedia CH is not a
> Wikimedia CH mailing list.
>
> I remember that a lot of year ago, during the Wikimedia conferences, the
> chapters asked to have some mailing lists to discussed themes like GLAMs.
>
> I, as member of the staff of Wikimedia CH, don't have access.
>
> The best is to ask to the administrators of the mailing list if it is
> still alive.
>
> Regards
>
> On 09/Giu/2015 02.54.04, Bohdan Melnychuk wrote:
>
> Your comment does not cover the fact that not all lists are hosted by
> lists.wikimedia.org.
>
> E.g. cultural partnership is here:
>
> https://intern.wikimedia.ch/lists/listinfo/cultural-partners
>
> Some other chapters also host lists and there're googlegroups to consider.
> That's a one thing why a mere server listing of lists does not suffice.
> Another is that an automatical list listing isn't where you can write
> rules, membership procedure/criteria and other stuff needed for
> transparency. Well not just transparency issue but also of need to
> concentrate data in one place is to be considered.
> --Base
>
>
> On 09.06.2015 3:40, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>
> The canonical home for the list of lists is
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo. While it is possible to have
> a list hidden from there, it would be pretty unusual for a GLAM list, I
> think.
>
> pb
>
>
> *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> Foundation, Inc.
> T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | philippe(a)wikimedia.org <#14dd7fbfeb3fdcd1_> | :
> @Philippewiki
> <https://twitter.com/Philippewiki>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Bohdan Melnychuk <base-w(a)yandex.ruwro
> <#14dd7fbfeb3fdcd1_>te:
>
> Hi guys.
>
> Just how many GLAM lists do we have?
>
> Not counting regional ones, I know of GLAM, Cultural-Partners, Libraries,
> got to know about existence of some the "paris group" (not sure if it's
> even a mailing list technically, but in case it's not then it's weird even
> more). Perhaps there are some (or is it many?) others.
>
> Should they not be all listed in one place, e.g. on
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Mailing_lists with clear data
> about who manages them, what are their scope, rules and how you might joint
> them?
>
> Just having many is already confusing but when you can't even get a list
> of all of them it's confusing even more.
>
> I'm sorry if some of the lists I listed were intended as cabalish and not
> to be disclosed to others. I don't think cabalish lists are a good way to
> collaborate for wikimedians.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Base
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <#14dd7fbfeb3fdcd1_>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <#14dd7fbfeb3fdcd1_>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <#14dd7fbfeb3fdcd1_>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <#14dd7fbfeb3fdcd1_>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GLAM mailing list
> GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org <#14dd7fbfeb3fdcd1_>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GLAM mailing list
> GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
>
>
Greetings,
The certified results of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
election are now available on Meta-Wiki:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results
Congratulations to Dariusz Jemielniak (User:pundit), James Heilman
(User:Doc James), and Denny Vrandečić (User:Denny), for receiving the most
community support. They will join the Wikimedia Foundation as Trustees,
after they are appointed by the Board at their July meeting at Wikimania.
These results have been certified by the committee, the Wikimedia
Foundation's legal department, and the Board of Trustees.
There were 5512 votes cast, with 5167 of those being valid. The 345-vote
difference comes from recast ballots, where eligible voters recast ballots
to change their votes, and struck votes, of which there were 4.
Additional information is available on the Wikimedia Blog:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/06/05/board-election-results
More statistics on the elections, a post mortem from the committee, and a
blog post on the process behind the elections will be published in the
coming days. In the meantime, we would appreciate your input—what went well
for you in this election? What could we do better next time? These
reports are crucial to helping future elections be even more successful,
and we hope that you will offer your feedback and ideas:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Post_mo…
The committee thanks everyone that participated in this year’s election for
helping make it one of the most diverse and representative in the
movement’s history.
Sincerely,
– 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Adrian, Anders Wennersten, Daniel, Gregory Varnum, Katie Chan, Mardetanha,
Ruslan, Savh, and Trijnstel
Moving this discussion into a separate thread, to leave the main one
for best wishes and similar :)
Before I start talking about the voting system itself, I have to say
that, from my personal perspective, I wouldn't imagine better outcome:
a Polish steward (my favorite Wikimedian group :) ), a Croat founder
of Wikidata (whom I consider as a friend) and a very prominent English
Wikipedian, with significant record of working with smaller languages
(BTW, I didn't know that he's a candidate till I saw the results; I
didn't vote, as I still don't think I am able to make informed
decision; useful note: one year out of movement requires more than one
year to be able to fully participate again).
When I read the results for the first time, I thought that it's about
structural changes. However, it was not. Present Board members were
just punished as present board members (some people will always object
your work) with negative votes, as well as Sj was punished with lack
of positive votes because of his laziness :P
The problem is obviously the voting system. And it's one more reason
why standing committee should be created. With more time, they would
know why it's perfect for stewards and why it isn't for any kind of
democratic representatives (including English Wikipedia ArbCom; as far
as I remember, this is exactly the method how en.wp ArbCom is
elected).
Stewards have to be trusted all over the projects and 80% threshold
follows that idea. However, stewards are not reelected, they have to
show to that they are doing good job and there is the space for those
who are doing important, but not visible job. Bottom line is that
stewards themselves decide if somebody would stay a steward or not.
(If there were objections from the community.) And stewards are doing
that job perfectly.
It should be also noted that stewards are elected managers, not
democratic representatives, which Board members and en.wp ArbCom
members are.
This system is bad because of two main reasons: (1) it isn't suitable
for electing democratic representatives; and (2) it's very vulnerable
to abuse, which could easily create negative culture.
Applying this to the democratic elections consistently means one of
two things: we want to have conformists in the Board or we want to
change Board members every two years.
I hope the first is not our idea. The second could be, but two years
in office is too short period of time for a Board member to do
anything substantially. So, this method would be a valid one if the
term of a Board member would be, let's say, four years.
The output of the elections is not democratic, as well. It's obvious
that Maria got the most support and it's 5% more than the first one,
as well as Phoebe had more support than the second one.
While I think that opposing votes are important, they shouldn't be
*that* important. Successful candidate had to gather 3 supporting
votes for every opposing one. If the supporting and opposing votes
have the same weight, it would be more fair.
With the formula S-O, the results would be:
1) Dariusz: 2028-556=1472
2) Maria: 2184-775=1409
3) Phoebe: 1995-714=1281
4) James: 1857-578=1279
5) Denny: 1628-544=1084
And the results would be much more according to the expressed will of
the community: Dariusz is well respected steward and community has
given him a lot of support, and as he is a new candidate he didn't do
anything which would annoy a part of the community. Maria had
significant opposition, but also the biggest number of supporters,
which has to be acknowledged. Phoebe and James would have been very
close, while Denny wouldn't reach support threshold.
If one opposing vote has weight of three supporting votes, this could
easily change the strategy of the groups interested to see one of
their candidates as Board members. Instead of "vote for", we'd get
"vote against" attitude. That's not just abusive toward the system,
but also creates negative atmosphere, where candidates and supporting
groups could start looking into each other as enemies, not as fellow
Wikimedians.
So, while the current voting system has given refreshing results, it
would be bad to keep it as it's now. To be honest, I would avoid
negative votes at all, as I am sure that even more fair system would
be implemented, if it contains negative votes next time, we'll get
much more negative votes than this time, with negative consequences
for our culture.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Gregory Varnum <gregory.varnum(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a lot of personal opinions on the method, questions process, etc.
> Many of them will be shared in the committee's post mortem (others I will
> be discarding as I now process the last several weeks).
>
> Also, we are beginning to post some statistics that folks may find helpful:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Stats
>
> We will be posting more on the blog next week about what all goes into
> running the elections, and I am open to feedback on what additional
> information we can share that would be helpful to the community. Our group
> made an early commitment to transparency, and I hope that has come across
> in our posting of major meeting minutes, posting of these stats, open
> dialogue on Meta and email, a post mortem from the committee, and the
> upcoming blog post.
>
> Finally, I want to give a big thank you to my colleagues on the Elections
> Committee. I was, by the nature of my tasks, a bit more visible - but
> please know that everyone worked very hard, did a great job, and deserves
> equal gratitude. Thank you Adrian, Anders, Daniel, Katie, Mardetanha,
> Ruslan, Savh, and Trijnstel - as well as Risker, James, Alice, Philippe,
> Geoff, Stephen, Sylvia, Heather, Tim, and a few others I'm sure I'm
> forgetting.
>
> -greg (User:Varnent)
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Congratulations to the new Board members - I am sure you will do a great
>> job. And commiserations to those who will be leaving the Board - thank you
>> for all your hard work over many years.
>>
>> Also it is good to see a much higher turnout in this year's elections than
>> in 2013 - well done to those involved :)
>>
>> On the subject of voting systems, though...
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Anders Wennersten <
>> mail(a)anderswennersten.se>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > David Cuenca Tudela skrev den 2015-06-06 09:01:
>> >
>> >> However I must say that the results of this election are hilarious. The
>> >> person with the most support votes doesn't win because of oppose votes
>> :D
>> >>
>> >> Why hilarious? We had a full consensus in the election Committee to go
>> > for S/N/O voting, it is a kind of standard procedure in the Wikimedia
>> world.
>> >
>>
>> Many people looked at voting systems before the Wikimedia movement existed
>> and virtually none of them settled on the system we ended up with. Perhaps
>> this should tell us something!
>>
>> To my mind the key problems with the present system are:
>> 1) Oppose votes have greater weight than support votes. In this case, Maria
>> would have needed 136 additional support votes to win, or 46 fewer oppose
>> votes. In effect an Oppose vote was worth 2.96 times as much as a support
>> vote for her. As a result, being non-opposed is much more important than
>> being supported. The penalty for doing anything controversial is
>> significant.
>>
>> 2) There is nothing in the process to produce any diversity in the result.
>> Say that there was a 2/3 to 1/3 split in the electorate on some important
>> issue. The right answer would surely be that you elect 2 people with one
>> view and 1 with the other. However, in this voting system you would likely
>> end up electing 3 people from the majority point of view. Because the
>> Wikimedia movement is much more complex than this it is difficult to
>> conclude that there was any particular issue like this that would have
>> affected the result, but still, the point applies. The voting system builds
>> in homogeneity not diversity.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
I suppose that nobody commented my idea about the Assembly because of
two main reasons: it's a different paradigm, as well as it doesn't
seem realistic.
The cure for different paradigm acceptance is repeating it until it
becomes familiar :P
But, of course, much more important reason is the fact that it doesn't
look realistic. So, here is one realistic plan.
And, before the plan, here are the main reasons behind this idea (add
your own :) ):
* We have a need to separate political will from expertise. Present
Board structure is coping with that fact. In the case we have
Assembly, it would be the political body, while the Board would become
expert body.
* We want larger democratic participation during the elections for
Board and FDC. Three community and two chapters places make too small
space for everybody to be content. As we could see, this elections
didn't bring any woman, any Latin American or Asian, not even one
American, as well. (If we count Canada as East European colony, all
three elected candidates are East European :P ) In other words, it is
hard to implement any kind of diversity inside of ten members body.
* Besides implementing diversity because it's good to have diverse
points of view, which is good idea not just for any global
organization, but for any multinational company, we strongly depend on
feeling of all Wikimedians that they are properly represented. And,
again, ten members body doesn't give that opportunity well.
* We have significant number of core Wikimedians who are not members
of any governing body (Board, committees, stewards, even admins...)
and they feel powerless. While they don't have particular chance to
become Board members and similar, as it's about small number of
elected representatives, they would have significantly more chance to
become Assembly members, get some influence and stop feeling isolated.
* Our democracy and representations should evolve. The previous
opportunity was Chapters Association, but we didn't succeed. It's time
to try again. FDC has addressed the basic objections, but it's a dead
end in the sense of democracy development.
There could be more arguments in favor and you could add them.
I want now to present realistic plan, which would address the most
important objection I could see: making WMF governing unpredictable. I
would also say that the path which I suggest doesn't cost anything and
it would be reversible at any moment of time during the next five or
more years if we conclude that the Assembly is not that good idea. You
should keep in mind that It's also the initial approximation.
The roadmap:
* June 2015-December 2016: Preparations for CA creation. If we want to
start doing this, we should prepare at least a couple of documents for
the Founding Assembly, so initial members don't need to spend months
in defining them. The idea should be presented to as many as possible
communities. Election committee should prepare the election rules etc.
I think we'll need for that more than a year.
* December 2016: Elections.
* March/April 2017: Founding Assembly during the Wikimedia Conference.
I would leave to the representatives just to constitute Assembly on
this occasion.
* July/August 2017: The first regular Assembly. On that occasion
Assembly should take a couple of committees under itself. I have in
mind LangCom, AffCom and GAC.
In reality, the first two committees are not accountable to anyone and
that should be changed. We shouldn't build numerous of oligarchies de
facto accountable just to themselves. And it doesn't matter if they
are doing a good job (like AffCom is doing now) or they are doing
almost nothing (LangCom case).
On the other side, GAC under CA would be the first test of CA's
ability to manage a body which manages money. Board and staff could
oversee CA's managing and leaving GAC to CA gradually, till full
control. For example, it would be a good test for CA to immediately
give GAC control over small grants and see if CA is capable to oversee
GAC efficiently.
* December 2017: Elections for 1/4 of seats. The number of seats
should be ~50, though it's negotiable. I think that with this number
we could achieve the goals of wider representation, while using
anything much larger could make CA too costly and likely too
inefficient, counting that the members are not paid. I don't think
that it's a good idea to change all the representatives at once and
1/4 seems to me as a number which doesn't make changes too drastic.
* March/April 2018: Assembly during WMCON. At that time, besides
ongoing issues, CA should start writing the report for the Board and
community: What did it do for one year of existence?
* July/August 2018: Assembly adopts the report and presents it to the
Board and community.
* August 2018-October 2018: Board and community analyze the report and
CA's work. If everything is fine, CA should continue with it's work.
Otherwise, Board could call for referendum on existence of CA
(preferably) or disband it (if very dominant position inside of the
community is that CA didn't do the job). There are other options, like
moving committees under some other body etc.
* December 2018: If CA did good job, elections for 1/4 of seats.
* March/April 2019: Assembly during WMCON. Counting that CA managed
GAC well, FDC is going under CA. That's very logical, as FDC needs
expertise and election of FDC members is just the product of political
reality. Second annual report should start to be written.
* July/August 2019: Assembly presents the second annual report to the
Board and community.
* August 2019-October 2019: Board and community analyze the report and
CA's work; etc.
* December 2019: If CA did good job, elections for 1/4 of seats.
* March/April 2020-December 2021: The third and the fourth annual
report and discussion. If everything went well up to the December
2019, CA would need two years of managing FDC, so it could be
reasonably analyzed. Two more elections would pass till that moment.
* March/April 2022: Assembly during WMCON. If everything went well up
to this moment, this is the time when Board and CA should start
working on giving CA the leading role. Board members should be paid
from this moment and it should be consisted of people capable to work
on tasks needed for the movement.
* Between July/August 2022 and July/August 2023: CA is the top body of
Wikimedia movement.
This is a ver plastic roadmap. There are many details which would have
to be covered during all of those phases. Some of the issues are
predictable, but some are not and will be the tests of CA's capacity.
If we are approximately using this roadmap, there will be six years to
analyze how CA is doing the job and there will be a lot of space for
any kind of emergency managing from the Board's side, if it turns out
that CA is dysfunctional.
I would say that this idea doesn't cost a lot (in the terms of money),
won't be able to make any significant damage and it would definitely
increase community participation in common matters a lot. It's not
just about those ~50 representatives. It's much more about the chain
effect to the rest of the movement. Wikimedians would finally see
global movement as a coherent one, where their word matters, as the
governing wouldn't be inside of the privileged group of founders
(those of us well connected, because we are here for more than a
decade).