SJ, other groups can meet and discuss, but they only have relevance if they are given some legitimacy. If the output of paralel groups is ignored, the only inspiration they can give is about how to waste community good faith (and resources). Having discussion groups only makes sense if there is a community to interact with, and if the output of that interaction serves some purpose.
I also think that it wouldn't be fair to take community attention bandwidth away with paralel groups until the official groups have had some chance to perform. Considering all the feedback that has been given here, I trust that it will be used to improve the blindspots.
Micru
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:31 PM Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Micru -- these are good and kind thoughts, and practical suggestions.
I don't know how much energy it's usfeul to put into *extra communication* to/from/about the current groups. But I would be especially interested in ideas for ways other groups (some are excluded from any closed process) could organize similar visions and proposals and priorities for the future, in parallel. Sometimes it is easier to develop crisp ideas as contrast/critique of an existing process, than from scratch. In which case quirks of a process, like incomplete sections of articles, can serve as helpful inspiration.
SJ
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 2:03 AM David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them.
"The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1].
It
is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being organised, yet they might want to participate. I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted)
do
the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps
more
inclusive, approaches.
We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for
people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
Ideas:
- Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly)
- Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less
frequent
updates (monthly/bi-monthly)
- Blog posts every 3-6 months
- Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group
participants and community members
- Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing
WG
participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language and participation barriers
- Ask working groups to document arguments on meta
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer
project
communities.
I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they
were
not fulfilling.
As the names and background of the Working Group members is also
published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
thoughts
regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
"Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the motivation letters of the participants? I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to
know
the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to format/structure it, I can help there.
I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement,
and
there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement, because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take
place,
and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in
Wikimania.
Have a nice day! Micru
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla kvaidla@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Micru,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition
of
the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the current status of the process.
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers
from
our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource,
Wiktionary...?
It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that
to
have members chosen by those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
having
discussions away from the volunteer community.
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our
focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with
the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We
would
like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people
not
interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them.
The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and collective process.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender,
race,
organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition
of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to know what the participants think of their assigned area?
With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity
considerations
are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in strategic discussions.
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer
project
communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups
helps
us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic
process.
We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on
filling
these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter.
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff members?
In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we
accept
further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these
proportions
will change
Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up
in a
more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related
to
the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in
the
strategy process.
Have a great weekend! Kaarel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital
projects
are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital
communities
like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to
have
members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen
by
those communities. I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the
only
possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working
Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by
having
discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of
diversity
that
represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity
aspect
is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive
definition
of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get
to
know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of
the
total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to
staff
members?
Cheers, Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <
nicole.ebber@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group
and
for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot
of
exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get their expertise and support. This also means that the first task
for
the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity
of
their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After
that,
we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space == At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an
update,
seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the
detailed
schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date,
as
well as information on the process and timelines for collectively advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team Kaarel & Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_...
[2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
-- Nicole Ebber Adviser International Relations Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens
e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
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>
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
-- *Kaarel Vaidla* Process Architect for Wikimedia Movement Strategy 2030.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ 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
-- Etiamsi omnes, ego non _______________________________________________ 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
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ 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