Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political
reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the
highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even
believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level.
This is a discussion that should occur at the board level.
A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant
copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people
voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and
non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for
incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)uberbox.org>
On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
I fully support allowing our talented and
dedicated WMF staff to have the
opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in
administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other
perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable.
But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the
ideals behind the movement. They wouldn't be working at the Foundation
if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about
Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: