Hi Rae,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. It hasn't alleviated my concerns.

I am reminded of Alfred Korzybski, who stressed that "the word is not the thing", that "the map is not the territory". 

If we want to adopt his distinction of map and territory, then I see this project as an effort focused on map making. Spending time and money to imagine and color in a map of the future can be fun, but it's not as important in my opinion as moving from A to B in the actual territory today. 

The best way to arrive at a bright future is to focus on what needs to be done, or can be done, today – not on where we would like to be in two, three or ten years' time. If you consistently do your best to respond to the needs of the present, you build a strong future, step by step. Wikipedia grew organically. Now it seems to me we are needlessly straining. 

Maps are of limited use when there is no movement. As Gnangarra said the other day here on this list, in what I thought was a very astute post, "strategy started 7 years ago and yet we still haven't even reached the implementation of anything." 

To the extent that this characterisation is accurate – and the thread started by Samuel, which is well worth revisiting, had many people expressing similar ideas – it illustrates how investing energy into maps can actually divert energy from making progress on the ground. And progress has to happen in the territory, not the map, for the journey to be successful.

An "investment in process" is precisely what Samuel was talking about when he said: "Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process. ... What challenges do [we] need to resolve this year?"

Best,
Andreas



On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 8:49 PM Rae Adimer via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey Andreas!

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. For context, I am a member of the LDWG, and a steward. We have two stews on the working group, a bunch of admins, and a bunch of affiliate organizers – it's an experientially diverse bunch.

I applied for the LDWG in part because I have concerns about the efficiency of future capacity-building models. Accepting that leadership development is a movement strategy goal and likely to be involved in future actions related to the Movement Charter, I want it to be as effective as possible. In more specific terms, not simply an outgrowth of the high cost-per-new-editor edit-a-thon model which leaves unclear long-term benefit and doesn't put sufficient effort into developing effective community facilitators or long-term resources for editor onboarding and mentorship.

The LDWG is not a stand-alone working group developing something no one will read, nor is it uninterested with the concerns of local editing communities. The plan we're working on will guide future capacity building activities on Wikimedia projects, and a good plan will positively affect the outcome of that capacity building.

I understand the concerns questioning the benefit of a definition of leadership. It is a first step of sorts; it's difficult to work towards fostering good Wikimedia leadership without defining good Wikimedia leadership, a relatively idiosyncratic type of leadership that falls much closer to facilitation and mentorship than actually setting goals or "leading" in the traditional sense. From this definition, we can overview existing capacity building activities, their effectiveness, possibilities for improvement, and develop a plan with concrete and actionable recommendations to ensure that donor money spent towards leadership development is money well spent.

This is an investment in process, not an investment in navel-gazing.

I hope this has helped alleviate some of your concerns.

Best regards,
Rae

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User:Vermont on Wikimedia projects
they/them/theirs (why pronouns matter)


On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 3:05 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ivan,

I am very sorry, but I honestly don't understand what any of this is for, and why the WMF is spending money on defining leadership – money collected under the pretence that money is urgently needed to keep Wikipedia online – given that community feedback to this initiative to date seems to be largely negative.


It is not like the world lacks definitions of leadership. Aren't we spending donors' money to reinvent the wheel here?

Could I refer back to an interesting thread Samuel Klein started a while back, titled "Simplifying governance processes"? 


To me, at least, what Samuel and others said in that thread seemed to be pertinent to initiatives like this one. Samuel started by saying, 

"Dear Board (and all), The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process creep is an existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if not actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess process. There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous titles. Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's try to scale it back!"

He received no reply from the WMF, at least not here on this list where he posted. 

It seems to me we are spending a great deal of money to produce words – but not words in Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikisource etc., that the public enjoys and finds valuable, but words on Meta talking about ourselves in the best navel-gazing tradition.

Now, maybe I have this all back to front and am simply clueless ... so if someone feels like enlightening me, please do!

Best,
Andreas 

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 4:33 PM Ivan Martínez <galaver@gmail.com> wrote:

TL;DR: The draft leadership definition[1] prepared by the Leadership Development Working Group is ready for community feedback! Please share your feedback on Meta[2], the feedback form[3] or the Movement Strategy Forum[4]. You can also directly mail us at  leadershipworkinggroup@wikimedia.org. The feedback will be collected till October 6, 2022.  


Hello everyone!


I hope you are aware that the Leadership Development Working Group[5] has been working over the past few months to formulate and find ways to nurture the leadership of our movement. The Leadership Development Working Group (LDWG) is a group of Wikimedia volunteers representing different communities, languages, roles, and experiences. We are pleased to inform the community that our draft definition of leadership is now available for community feedback. This first draft definition of leadership was written after months of discussion, learning, and sharing from our community perspective. The Wikimedia Movement, which is by nature diverse and distinctive in its own way, is expressly addressed by this definition.


Please consider going through the definition and letting us know what you think by October 6, 2022. The draft definition includes a general definition of leadership and subcategories that elaborate on the actions, qualities, and outcomes of good leadership. 


There are many places where you can express your ideas, suggestions, and comments, such as the meta talk page[2], the feedback form[3], and Movement Strategy Forum Post[4]. You can also directly mail us at leadershipworkinggroup@wikimedia.org. 


You can check if the general definition, and the subcategories align with your idea of leadership in the movement. You can also try finding the gaps, maybe some qualities of a leader or anything else are missing in the draft definition or you can check if the definition applies to all cultural, linguistic, community or other contexts of the movement and share your thoughts with us.


Together, let's celebrate the movement's diverse and distinctive leadership! 


Cheers!


[1] Link to the draft definition on meta 

[2] Link to meta talk page 

[3] Link to the feedback form

[4] Link to the Movement Strategy Forum post 

[5] Link to the meta page of LDWG

--
Iván Martínez
Voluntario - Wikimedia México A.C.
User:ProtoplasmaKid

// Mis comunicaciones respecto a Wikipedia/Wikimedia pueden tener una moratoria en su atención debido a que es un voluntariado.
// Ayuda a proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora: https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/message/HBXEEEEPUTHPIJBI5XAPB4ME4EE2O7LA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/message/S2FBJGEJPMHYGAHTICQVAJZY3NLUSDJI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@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/message/AWIR6VH7BMIEMXSGQRLJFPQ4WGZK4U2H/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org