Mostly agree with SJ here, with one exception: I do think that some
standing committee to rule on conduct issues is necessary to be community
elected (not sure if I understood SJ correctly that he was not in favor of
this though). Lets call it some version of separation of powers, and a
necessary process effort to ensure trust in that system.
But in general, I agree that while consultations and community decisions
are important, we have to get smarter at them. This is in part being
selective with how we advertise things (be cautious with the use of your
megaphone), more structured and accessible off-cycle engagement (reducing
the all-importance of formal processes) and indeed better delegation.
Best,
Lodewijk
On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel <scannopolis(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
+1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a
lot of volunteer's +
staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
are not even a good aim to begin with.
cheers,
scann
_______________________________________________
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