I tend to agree that this was a failed process especially around the affiliate selections because once the selector was chosen there was no input by the affiliates as to who was chosen to represent them. I think it would have been much better for each affiliate region to have chosen their representative first rather than choose one person who would have no obligation to consult before making any decisions. That part of the process might well have been to pick a dozen random people to make a choice.

As for the heavy bias to North America and Europe its a self fulfilling prophecy as it is the same regions who get most of high profile community committee positions as well as get to attend most events in person with capacity to build reputations and personal ties. Ironically the IGC was intended to build the GC instead we got this some which is greater than than a GC and will have a deeper impact so its only fair to expect a lot of concerns around the process and how it will impact the outcomes.  

The reality is that the GC should have been created, and the Movement Charter should then be created by them, the items should be separate concepts. 

Where ever it goes from here my biggest concern is the MCDC doesnt have any practical support for record keeping and no finances to ensure its even able to appropriately consult yet theres still an expectation to produce something that will more than just represent everyone

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 18:28, Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> wrote:
Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election software.
Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be worth repeating ;-)

On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 at 11:07, Bodhisattwa Mandal <bodhisattwa.rgkmc@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Yaroslav,

Personally, I was also in favor of proactively seek and build an efficient team so that the process starts quickly. Different recommendation working groups had already discussed a lot for more than a year on how a movement charter would look like while drafting their recommendations and they could have been included. If that happened, everything would not to have to be built from scratch again. Anyway, somehow that didn't happen.

Regarding affiliate selection, I am not a very big fan of selectors. I am sure they are all amazing Wikimedians but the process looked odd to me. The entire selection process depended on only one selector per region. There was no guarantee to the affiliates that the selectors will not select people out of their own biases or preferences instead of what affiliates had asked them to do. For example, during the South Asian call, those who were there as affiliate contacts, all said, that we need to select the most skilled and experienced person in the committee from the region and we were ensured that our feedback will be taken care of during the selectors meeting. When results came out, we couldn't find our best candidate in the committee. Affiliates there still don't know what happened to change the decision. If affiliates could directly select instead going through selectors, that might not happened.

Another odd thing happened, the voting software eliminated a candidate from South Asia at the last moment because he mentioned that his homewiki was English Wikipedia (not a good strategy, now it seems) although he was the best candidate who had the necessary skills and immense experience and understanding to represent our region in the charter. I find it extremely odd to keep an English Wikipedia editor from Europe and from Asia on the same filter. He didn't make it to the final list anyway. 

Anyways, I rest my arguments here. I know, what is done is done and it would take lots of efforts from powerless affiliates and communities like us to change anything. To clear any existing confusion, I am just against the broken process which we had adopted and not against the newly formed drafting committee. I sincerely hope in future to see a global charter fit to encompass our movement and all its people.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa





On Tue, Nov 2, 2021, 14:13 Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Bodhisattwa,

this is an issue which has been raised at the strategy transition group I was part of, and also during the events following these discussions which were intended to shape the specific process to draft the Charter. Basically, the choice was between two options - either have a (relatively) small group elected/appointed fast which would not be fully representative but would be efficient and would draft the Charter quickly, or to go for representation at the expense of the time and possibly also size of the group - if it includes everybody needed for representation it would be unworkable. The decision, which I personally also supported, was to go for speed and efficiency at the expense of representation. I see your arguments, and they have merit, but we can not do everything at once. It was clear that the community elections would favor North American and East European candidates, as for example the board elections always do. There was some hope that affiliates would elect more candidates from the rest of the world, which is indeed what happened (I am not an affiliate member and I am not familiar with the specific selection process). The WMF mitigated that even further by appointing one person of Indian background (even though residing in the US if I am not mistaken). There are other safeguards in place - I assume the draft Charter will be up to the community discussion, and if there are omissions they will be noticed. But the main idea was to elect/appoint people who understand what they are doing and who would implement what is best for the movement, taking into account that the Charter is for evetrybody, and not their personal vision. Those drafting committee members I know fit this definition. This is now our turn, as a community, to make sure that we read the draft - when it is out - carefully and make sure it is acceptable for everybody.

Best
Yaroslav

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 7:08 PM Bodhisattwa Mandal <bodhisattwa.rgkmc@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Samuel,

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 21:35, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't believe the idea is for anyone to explicitly represent their geography, affiliations, or organizations -- rather to draft a meaningful and empowering starting point for us all.  

People develop their perspectives based on their environment, culture and surroundings and it is almost impossible for anyone to understand comprehensively about what is going on in other places without dealing with their real situation there. It doesn't matter how honest or how experienced a person might be, an Western European will have hard times to understand all the real issues in South Asia, A South Asian will have little understanding about what is really happening in Latin America and that is why geographical representation is needed. If the question or process is about something global, then it is needed even more. To draft a document for us all, it is essential to get voices from as many as possible, if not all. How can a movement charter be drafted if it does not echo the concerns of all our existing communities clearly?

We chose to follow popular elections which have always brought North Americans and Europeans on the top of the table and historically abandoned other parts of the world, even though there are capable people in those parts too but do not have the voter base. We have seen it repeated in this election process too. Here we had 7 seats through community elections, so its almost futile for Global South candidates to compete there, the proof of my statement is that only 1 candidate from the Global South actually made through this election. So, they only have 6 affiliate selected positions from 8 Wikimedia regions (and 1 Thematic hub), where they have minimal chance because 6 seats from 8 regions count to < 1 candidate per hub. So, regions like South Asia, ESEAP, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. was extremely lucky to get 1 candidate in the committee, 2 is not at all expected. Don't you think that this is a totally unfair process from the start for under-represented communities and affiliates? No wonder, people here are getting aloof from the movement strategy process.

Of course broad geographic and project backgrounds, and good language diversity (within the drafting group and through available tools to support work with others) are important for this work.  But please don't exclude any participant from that, based on the experimental mix of selection processes.  We are all wikimedians.  Runa and Jorge for instance have been advancing the global movement towards free knowledge, culture and tools for a very long time.  And having a translation expert actively involved should help amplify different voices :).

Sorry for my English, I am not a native English speaker, so maybe there is a misunderstanding. I have not excluded anyone as you are saying. Runa and Jorge are amazing people in the movement but I was talking about geographical representation of the communities and they are appointed by WMF as their representative, so geographical representation does not stand there.

PS - There are still many, many systemic gaps and biases in our communities and our knowledge.  The focus on elevating and connecting regional hubs may help address this, and I dearly hope to see thriving hubs in Asia. But I wouldn't say the next billion participants, editors, and learners will come from any one region; rather from underserved communities everywhere in the world! (And by stats like readership, communities in Africa are still the least reached, including proportional to connectivity.)

More than 4 billion people live here in South Asian and ESEAP countries. If our next billion readers will not come from here by 2030, then where will it come from? These are developing countries embracing technology at a high rate. (Anyway, my opinion concerns Africa too. There is only 1 representative from the entire Sub-Saharan Africa.)

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
 
_______________________________________________
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/7RNSNN3F2UMKVDK7S3KEJIT5X4ZCXSYF/
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/NUA5VXLAIQKBDLY7WTCDFT4GPETE3U4I/
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/JRMASCNRTR3ZVZ7S2RGX2YRHBNLXSLX7/
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/D4CMIPLK6H45V2GMD4DXSWA3WTIMDEAW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org


--
GN.
                                                                     2021