Hi Gerard,
So lets focus on what *you* consider the big difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
Well, there is a list of about 90 scoping questions from the movement strategy process. Many of these questions in fact overlap or are alternative ways of asking the same thing, but still there are plenty! :)
In particular, your questions about avoiding Anglo-American bias relates to questions 3, 4 and 5 from the Diversity working group (1), and question 9 from Roles and Responsibilities. There doesn't seem to be anything from Product & Technology along similar lines (though one could ask why not)
It would be absolutely great if there was as much thoughtful discussion of these really broad issues as there has been about the proposal to basically change one letter in the Wikimedia Foundation's name. The reason there hasn't been is because big, broad issues are difficult to engage with, while specific issues are easier to engage with. That's not a criticism, more an invitation for more people to invest the time and energy to engage with the big issue questions as well.
Chris
(1) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com... (2) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Com...
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult questions.
(Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group
lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level because that's where we're at....)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion, and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would like to have a more substantive discussion:
(1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
(2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking at length for additional participation (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can people use off-list emails instead?
Best regards, Jim
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: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe