This appears to be a reasonable and balanced comment by Dariusz. The recommendations in their current state were opened for discussion and are being discussed. Where commentators have seen problematic issues they have pointed them out. The working groups have in some cases entirely failed to engage with the commentators, which is frustrating to those who are putting in their attention and applying their minds to what they see as problems. Some tend to become more adversarial and strident under these circumstances, other just give up and stop wasting their time. In effect a filter is applied which keeps the most motivated and single minded and possibly some trolls, and deters the more moderate from participation. My take is that this is not the intention, because if it is then the movement is doomed to be taken over by extremists and people with hidden political agendas. Opinions will differ. This is mine Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dariusz Jemielniak Sent: 24 August 2019 23:07 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:39 PM Jeff Hawke <geoffey.hawke@gmail.commailto:geoffey.hawke@gmail.com> wrote: the various projects. I think my question could best have been phrased in terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires. It seems odd that the Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of course for them and not for us to decide.
just a side remark (in my personal capacity only): we have about 60 thousand active editors, which I think is more or less what the core community is formed of (mainly because readers do not have Wikimedian identity). For the vast majority of them our organizational discussions do not matter much at all. I don't think that the assumption that "the large proportions of the current volunteers will cease their involvement" makes any sense.
However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions (I'd call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between 5 and 10 thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made. We will surely have to discuss the overall picture and evaluate the pros and cons, but only once the recommendations are ready.
I have to say that I am really impressed at how dedicated most of the working groups have been so far. This process was huge and resulted in many challenges we did not expect. It is the first time in humankind history that a strategic conversation is carried out this way. Inevitably, there will be gaps, there will be shortcomings, but there will be also amazing ideas. How we get from the recommendations into actual applications will definitely be tricky, but I don't think it is fair to the tremendous effort of these wonderful and committed people to just assume that the result will be disastrous. On the contrary, I'm quite certain that we can use the recommendations to the movement's benefits, even if we do not literally follow every single one of them, but treat some as more general directives or ideas for later future.
best,
dj "pundit"
_______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com