It's not exactly volunteer time. According to the documentation on Meta-Wiki[1] each of the 16 listed working group members is appointed for one year, and receives a stipend of $600 per year for their participation (estimated at 5 hours per week).

I am surprised to see that the working group includes one member who is site-banned from the English Wikipedia. Their site ban, enacted by ArbCom in 2016, was due to a history of sockpuppeting, self-promotion, autobiographical editing, misrepresenting their professional qualifications, copyright infringements, misrepresentation of sources and introducing numerous errors into scientific articles.[2][3]

I would rather have seen that member apply for rehabilitation on the English Wikipedia first, before applying for and being given a role in a working group tasked with defining "good leadership" in the context of the Wikimedia movement.

Andreas

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Leadership_Development_Working_Group/Purpose_and_Structure

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28WMF%29#Should_the_WMF_have_rules_or_policies_for_when_banned_users_apply_for_or_are_part_of_the_team_that_administers_grants%3F

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology&oldid=720092409#Findings_of_fact

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 12:05 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) <djgwiki@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Sept 2022 at 10:36, Philip Kopetzky <philip.kopetzky@gmail.com> wrote:
" This project is specifically to develop a leadership development plan that the Community Development team, a team which has some great people on it and a serious possibility for good in supporting volunteers, can use to do their work effectively. " - I'm a bit dismayed that we are using volunteer time in the name of the strategy process to provide a centralised WMF team with the knowledge they need to do their job. This is not what the 2030 strategy is about - it is a self-centred approach by a WMF team to stay relevant.

If you don't think it's a worthwhile time investment for you, then you can choose not to participate. If others do feel it's worthwhile, they can choose to participate. If nobody chooses to participate, then I'd say there's a lesson to be learnt about the relevance of the consultation, and whether it was worth pursuing.

I don't think we need to police the time of other volunteers. People can choose what to do.