'Global Strategy countries'?
I think this aligns with the intention of GS, which is to support initiatives that help make our movement more global by investing in areas/languages where editors and/or readers is low but potential is high.
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Aug 30, 2013 11:42 AM, "Balázs Viczián" balazs.viczian@wikimedia.hu wrote:
What about making it simply global...?
Balázs 2013.08.30. 2:44, "Asaf Bartov" abartov@wikimedia.org ezt írta:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The first section was removed? I got excited to see the term "Global South" with a line through it (in the agenda index), but I think I initially misunderstood its meaning.
No, the strikethrough was a visual cue that the _term_ "Global South" is emphatically not on the agenda.
The term "Global South" is pretty awful and deserves a quick death.
Agreed...
But based on the title of the presentation and this e-mail thread... I'm not hopeful that it's dead
yet.
...but what do we replace it with? This has been rehashed quite a bit,
but
no one has come up with a compelling alternative that's reasonably
concise
and is politically acceptable. (Personally I am happy with "developing world" and "developing nations", but of course those terms are
euphemistic
as well, and apparently no longer acceptable in some circles.)
I have stated before that the term, for us, is just shorthand for a list
of
countries, and we make no essentialist assumptions about some uniformity throughout all these countries. It is my understanding that most of the consternation (kittens dying etc.) the term causes is due to the
assumption
that we _are_ making an essentialist assumption and treating all GS countries the same. I hope it is by now evident we are not.
Once again, I find no point to debating this. All who _are_ interested
are
welcome to hash it out somewhere, and submit a consensual term (or a shortlist) to WMF for consideration. If a superior term arises, I
promise
to make an effort to adopt it across WMF. Until then, let's focus on the actual work rather than the nomenclature.
I'm a little confused about whether the ongoing programs in Brazil and India will continue. There's a note that reads "No WMF contractors on
the
ground any more", but it's unclear whether this means a discontinuation
of
the current folks. And the final slides focus on future engagements.
Does
the "no contractors on the ground" line mean only full-time staff will
be
working with (engaging with, if you prefer) areas in the future?
Full-time
staff and local chapter folks, I guess? And simply no Wikimedia
Foundation
contractors?
There are no WMF employees outside the US, so "no contractors on the ground" (in the GS context -- we still have engineers around the world!) means that (once the Brazil transition is complete -- this is in
progress),
no program work in the GS will be done by WMF contractors, but only by local partners (movement affiliates -- chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups -- and unaffiliated partners), some of whom would be WMF grantees.
Cheers,
A.
Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe