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.com<mailto: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(a)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