You clearly have a strong and abiding interest in movement governance, and have been asking some good questions. You should have submitted your candidacy.[1]
To your point, I guess it can be taken as a reminder, but it does not seem to me that the appointments were made *so as to minimize* influence by less well-known figures. Rather, it seems to me there was a strong emphasis on suitability for the work expected from them (as distinct from other considerations, such as "representation"); it is, of course, easier to assess that suitability in people known to the people making the decision, so old hands do have some advantage, but it isn't *because* they've been around or because they are trusted not to disrupt or challenge the system.
A.
[1] Perhaps you have, of course. I can't tell, since your account is anonymous, but if you did, it would have been good to disclose that fact as you were criticizing the process, and I trust you'd have realized that, so I'll assume you did not.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
We have seen various appointments to influential committees within the WMF "system" in recent weeks: the Funds Dissemination Committee and the Board Governance Committee Volunteer and Advisory members; the Board Election Committee is being geared up and new Board members will soon be selected by the Board itself and via community nomination. While I am sure that those people who have volunteered their time to serve in those capacities are well-meaning, conscientious and effective, and well-versed in how things have been done in the past, it seems to me that the selections have leaned too heavily on people already connected with the movement and its existing structures and processes. I suggest that in line with the Strategy/2016-17 process [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017] being planned, these committees, and especially the Board itself, needs an element not predisposed to the mere continuation of the current ways of doing things. In short the WMF needs to raise its game and to do that it needs constructive criticism from outside the existing cadres; it may be that the movement as a whole needs to see disruptive change of a sort unlikely to commend itself to a WMF/Silicon Valley view of the world. I urge those responsbile for selection of these important and influential groups to challenge themselves to look more widely and occasionally choose the uncomfortable option.
"Rogol Domedonfors" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe