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