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"