Hi Yaroslav,
Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an
efficient team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation
working groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a
movement charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and
they could have been included. If that happened, everything would not to
have to be built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.
Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I am
sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me. The
entire selection process depended on only one selector per region. There
was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select
people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates
had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who
were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most
skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were
ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors
meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the
committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the
decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through
selectors, that might not happened.
Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate
from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki
was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was
the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and
understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely
odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the
same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway.
Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it
would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like
us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against
the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed
drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit
to encompass our movement and all its people.
Regards,
Bodhisattwa
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Bodhisattwa,
this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group
I was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which
were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter.
Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively)
small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative
but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for
representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the
group - if it includes everybody needed for representation it would be
unworkable. The decision, which I personally also supported, was to go for
speed and efficiency at the expense of representation. I see your
arguments, and they have merit, but we can not do everything at once. It
was clear that the community elections would favor North American and East
European candidates, as for example the board elections always do. There
was some hope that affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of
the world, which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and
I am not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated
that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even
though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other safeguards
in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the community
discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. But the main
idea was to elect/appoint people who understand what they are doing and who
would implement what is best for the movement, taking into account that the
Charter is for evetrybody, and not their personal vision. Those drafting
committee members I know fit this definition. This is now our turn, as a
community, to make sure that we read the draft - when it is out - carefully
and make sure it is acceptable for everybody.
Best
Yaroslav
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:08 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
bodhisattwa.rgkmc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Samuel,
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 21:35, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't believe the idea is for anyone to explicitly represent their
> geography, affiliations, or organizations -- rather to draft a meaningful
> and empowering starting point for us all.
>
People develop their perspectives based on their environment, culture
and surroundings and it is almost impossible for anyone to understand
comprehensively about what is going on in other places without dealing with
their real situation there. It doesn't matter how honest or how experienced
a person might be, an Western European will have hard times to understand
all the real issues in South Asia, A South Asian will have little
understanding about what is really happening in Latin America and that is
why geographical representation is needed. If the question or process is
about something global, then it is needed even more. To draft a document
for us all, it is essential to get voices from as many as possible, if not
all. How can a movement charter be drafted if it does not echo the concerns
of all our existing communities clearly?
We chose to follow popular elections which have always brought North
Americans and Europeans on the top of the table and historically abandoned
other parts of the world, even though there are capable people in those
parts too but do not have the voter base. We have seen it repeated in this
election process too. Here we had 7 seats through community elections, so
its almost futile for Global South candidates to compete there, the proof
of my statement is that only 1 candidate from the Global South actually
made through this election. So, they only have 6 affiliate selected
positions from 8 Wikimedia regions (and 1 Thematic hub), where they have
minimal chance because 6 seats from 8 regions count to < 1 candidate per
hub. So, regions like South Asia, ESEAP, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. was
extremely lucky to get 1 candidate in the committee, 2 is not at all
expected. Don't you think that this is a totally unfair process from the
start for under-represented communities and affiliates? No wonder, people
here are getting aloof from the movement strategy process.
Of course broad geographic and project backgrounds, and good language
> diversity (within the drafting group and through available tools to support
> work with others) are important for this work. But please don't exclude
> any participant from that, based on the experimental mix of selection
> processes. We are all wikimedians. Runa and Jorge for instance have been
> advancing the global movement towards free knowledge, culture and tools for
> a very long time. And having a translation expert actively involved should
> help amplify different voices :).
>
Sorry for my English, I am not a native English speaker, so maybe there
is a misunderstanding. I have not excluded anyone as you are saying. Runa
and Jorge are amazing people in the movement but I was talking about
geographical representation of the communities and they are appointed by
WMF as their representative, so geographical representation does not stand
there.
>
> PS - There are still many, many systemic gaps and biases in our
> communities and our knowledge. The focus on elevating and connecting
> regional hubs may help address this, and I dearly hope to see thriving hubs
> in Asia. But I wouldn't say the next billion participants, editors, and
> learners will come from any one region; rather from underserved communities
> everywhere in the world! (And by stats like readership
> <https://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/animations/wivivi/wivivi.html>,
> communities in Africa are still the least reached, including proportional
> to connectivity.)
>
More than 4 billion people live here in South Asian and ESEAP
countries. If our next billion readers will not come from here by 2030,
then where will it come from? These are developing countries embracing
technology at a high rate. (Anyway, my opinion concerns Africa too. There
is only 1 representative from the entire Sub-Saharan Africa.)
Regards,
Bodhisattwa
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
at: