Nathan - that is a fair opinion - but not one shared by everyone. There are
many that feel staff who do not edit much should be allowed to participate
- I happen to agree.
It might not address concerns brought up by others about non-staff related
Also, there are some that have stated they think the requirements are
already too low - so even that would require some further discussion - imho.
That answer is easy if you accept that everyone agrees with that point of
view - but that is not the case.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Gregory Varnum
Some questions though - if WMUK staff are
included, should WUG staff also
be included? If they are included, why not include the people doing
staff-level volunteer work for non-staffed affiliates? If those
are included, what about user group leaders who
are not active editors?
User groups are not currently a part of the affiliation seat elections,
what should be done about their leaders? Are we
punishing affiliates that
are being more creative in finding ways to accomplish tasks without staff
support? I see a lot of flaws with leaving this conversation at "staff"
not extending it beyond that, and as I said
previously, doing so is
To keep the election "fair" - these questions would need to be answered
first. It is not as simple as saying "okay - affiliate staff are now in"
as even the term "affiliate staff" is
not universally agreed upon yet.
staff mean they are on a payroll of some sort?
This conversation is easy
we are talking about 5-6 of the larger chapters,
it is more complex if we
are talking about nearly 75 affiliates.
The assumption that WMF impacts the affiliates so much they are paying as
close attention as WMF staff does not hold up in my opinion. People ask
treat them differently, and I think there are
relatively clear reasons.
staff are arguably just as impacted by WMUK
business, but are not
to vote in their board elections, and I think
with good reason. I
that WMF is very different as it is the
"hub" - but most of the
have seen are about "impact" and based
on unproven assumptions based on
experience with 1-2 affiliates rather than thinking about all 70 of
recognize allowing someone to vote does not
require them to, but in some
cultures and work environments, that might play out differently.
As KTC pointed out - each affiliate handles their voting in the affiliate
seats differently. So even some of our assumptions about involvement in
affiliate election are broad and not fully researched yet. Which is the
"norm" - is there a norm? In short, we need to do more research on this
topic, and that will take time we do not have (as a committee anyway)
Greg - I think the answer has been presented several times. I think
Dariusz' suggestion is the ideal outcome: The simplest way to treat all of
the staff the same is to remove recognition of "staff" from the election
rules and proceed on (possibly lowered) edit/commit requirements. This is
relatively easy to implement and means that many of the questions you have
posed in the last several of your posts will not need to be specifically
answered. It also reinforces that the Wikimedia movement and community is
driven by and composed of volunteers, and it is perfectly reasonable to
identify members by their volunteer contributions.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: