On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:01, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than a dozen people?
Let's be factual. There are 9 WGs https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups with 8-14, members each, say ca. 100 WG members to sum. There are ca. 40 "activists" revolting https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Support against one or more recommendations. Only a few of them made actual, constructive contributions to the discussions. This group is hardly representative of the presumed few thousands interested in the future of the movement.
That's no way to run a project. It's no way to run anything. "Well, their
vote counts for a hundred of yours...".
That's not how we do things, at all. Either things are accepted or rejected by Wikimedia members, but every single long-term, good-faith contributor counts the same as any other. No one's voice is "more equal" than another.
It sounds like you are describing WP:Vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion. On enwiki we do WP:Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining_consensus, where the arguments count, not directly the number of contributors. Also, it's questionable, whether the purely negative comments are good-faith contributions, or disruptions, that make it more difficult to focus on finding a solution on common grounds.
On the other hand, Wikimania is over, and the WGs' involvement in the discussions hasn't increased. I hinted on a very optimistic one week turnaround for the WGs, that didn't happen. I expected this would be a likely possibility, in which case it's doubtful that the WGs will be able to produce a recommendation after 15 Sept, that could be accepted as final, or some will lack important details, or carry the unresolved fundamental issues. Even if it happens so, that's also a workable process, or alternatively the Foundation can modify the timeline, when the community response makes it clear, there's need for more iterations.
Aron