Hello,
"*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the
WGs, I think that it's reasonable to expect that a significant percentage
of the members will be staff who are paid to participate because the time
commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (
2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
Pine W )
Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups
favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to look
after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why
would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement is
mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by
his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions for
other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia
Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of the
Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still
be very limited in scope.
All the best,
Paulo
2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>om>:
Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs,
this is a challenging
topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by
"diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs?
That
discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on the
definitions.
If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as possible,
that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment
required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to
expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are
paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for
many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of
important activities to do.
There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process
could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I
personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I
could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be
sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the culture
and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers, so
there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of the
conversations.
What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic
expectations.
I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups
were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can
respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private
communications.
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>