Dear Kaarel,
with all respect, it would be great if you could name the issues first
before soliciting further feedback.
In my particular case, well, I have seen a message on this list which I
interpreted as a call for help. I have generally many things which interest
me, but I though that if WMF needs help, I could help, so I applied. I am a
volunteer.
Two days ago, I got a impersonalized mail saying that my application was
not accepted. Fine with me, I am sure there are people with tons of more
experience than me, and I have a lot of work on the projects. I was not
planning to react on this in any way.
But now you are saying you do not have enough volunteers and ask (us?
whom?) to encourage more people to apply?
So that they could get back impersonalized rejection messages?
I am not sure how specifically you want to solicit more applications but if
you want to get any help from the community you probably need to be very
specific on what exactly roles you need to ensure the diversity, and
specifically address people in these roles. Unless this has been done, I
will discourage everybody to apply.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM, Kaarel Vaidla <kvaidla(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Dear Micru,
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of
the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the
offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with
different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the
current status of the process.
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates
our digital projects are
not directly represented. Where is the representation of
volunteers from
our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...?
It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that to
have members chosen by those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the
gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made
the only
possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having
discussions away from the volunteer community.
The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not
distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus
was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the
Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to
those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We would
like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not
interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I
would be really interested in hearing them.
The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of
engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and
collective process.
You say that "the Working Groups don't
yet have the level of diversity
that represents the movement", but you
don't mention *which* diversity
aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race,
organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
know what the participants think of their assigned area?
With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity considerations
are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in
strategic discussions.
We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project
communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups helps
us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process.
We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the
Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on filling
these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is
also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your
thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your
letter.
Also with so many "exceptional
applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why
volunteers represent only 30% of the
total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff
members?
In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we accept
further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we
expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these proportions
will change
Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up in a
more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other
interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to
the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in the
strategy process.
Have a great weekend!
Kaarel
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <dacuetu(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear Kaarel & Nicole,
It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects
are
not directly represented.
Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities
like
Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It
is not the same to have
members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by
those communities.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital
communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only
possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups
do
not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the
governance review by having
discussions away from the volunteer community.
You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity
that
represents the movement", but you don't
mention *which* diversity aspect
is
lacking. Is diversity only considered as region,
gender, race,
organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of
diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to
know what the participants think of their assigned area?
Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have
received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the
total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia
movement
a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so
much weight to staff
members?
Cheers,
Micru
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber <nicole.ebber(a)wikimedia.de
wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and
for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of
exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first
round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find
all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1]
Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working
Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the
movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our
outreach efforts and accept additional applications.
We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous
processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get
their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for
the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of
their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that,
we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups.
== Wikimania Strategy Space ==
At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be
hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update,
seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all
questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the detailed
schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look
forward to seeing many of you.
Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, as
well as information on the process and timelines for collectively
advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing
contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to
hearing from you during future consultations.
In the name of the Core Team
Kaarel & Nicole
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_
movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas
[2]
https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030
--
Nicole Ebber
Adviser International Relations
Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________
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>
--
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
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>