The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the movement, with the final goal of developing a "Wikimedia Charter"—a document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia organization are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders—and a plan for going forward with organizational development.
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular milestones along the way.
A core group of people will be tasked with ensuring that steady progress is being made toward those milestones. Although the exact makeup of the group may change as specific needs are reevaluated, this working group currently comprises:
* Alice Wiegand * Arne Klempert * Austin Hair (facilitator and adviser) * Barry Newstead * Bence Damokos * Bishakha Datta * Galileo Vidoni * Jon Huggett (facilitator and adviser) * Morgan Chan * Samuel Klein
The work is just getting started, with the inaugural meeting of the working group having taken place on 10 September; please see the page on Meta[0] to comment and participate. Although I expect that there will be plenty of replies to this e-mail, it would be nice if the project-related discussion could take place on-wiki.
This announcement is about two weeks overdue—many of you may already know about it, since it's no secret. I apologize for that; my computer died and I didn't manage to retype the e-mail with my thumbs on my phone before I got the replacement.
I personally hope to see lots of participation, and am willing to answer any questions about the process.
Best regards,
Austin Hair
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group
Hi Austin,
thanks for sending around. Could you just give a link to where exactly on the wiki you would "the discussion" (very broad term :) ) like to take place? Which topics do you especially invite people to discuss /now/?
Also the meeting notes mention "The first deliverable, a formal proposal to the Board at its October meeting, was discussed. A first draft will be sent to the workgroup in the next few days." - is this draft going to be public as intended initially? (I hope so :) - would love to give some more input there)
Best,
Lodewijk
2010/9/22 Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the movement, with the final goal of developing a "Wikimedia Charter"—a document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia organization are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders—and a plan for going forward with organizational development.
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular milestones along the way.
A core group of people will be tasked with ensuring that steady progress is being made toward those milestones. Although the exact makeup of the group may change as specific needs are reevaluated, this working group currently comprises:
- Alice Wiegand
- Arne Klempert
- Austin Hair (facilitator and adviser)
- Barry Newstead
- Bence Damokos
- Bishakha Datta
- Galileo Vidoni
- Jon Huggett (facilitator and adviser)
- Morgan Chan
- Samuel Klein
The work is just getting started, with the inaugural meeting of the working group having taken place on 10 September; please see the page on Meta[0] to comment and participate. Although I expect that there will be plenty of replies to this e-mail, it would be nice if the project-related discussion could take place on-wiki.
This announcement is about two weeks overdue—many of you may already know about it, since it's no secret. I apologize for that; my computer died and I didn't manage to retype the e-mail with my thumbs on my phone before I got the replacement.
I personally hope to see lots of participation, and am willing to answer any questions about the process.
Best regards,
Austin Hair
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
thanks for sending around. Could you just give a link to where exactly on the wiki you would "the discussion" (very broad term :) ) like to take place? Which topics do you especially invite people to discuss /now/?
Great questions, Lodewijk.
The page I linked[0] is meant to be the central hub for the project, so I think at first the discussion page[1] is the best way to get engaged. As more work is done, and more pages are created, it should become more intuitive. I know that there's not a lot of information there, yet, but the truth is that we're just barely getting started.
At this early stage, I think that the discussion is pretty much open. Any comments, criticism, or requests for clarification are welcome.
Also the meeting notes mention "The first deliverable, a formal proposal to the Board at its October meeting, was discussed. A first draft will be sent to the workgroup in the next few days." - is this draft going to be public as intended initially? (I hope so :) - would love to give some more input there)
That proposal will be made available for comment, certainly. It's currently being drafted "in committee," as it were, not because it's secret, but for practical reasons. The proposal is meant to formalize the work that's already been done and set goals for the next milestone. Since the ultimate goal is a universally accepted agreement, obviously the idea is that it won't be anything particularly objectionable.
Austin
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_working_group
2010/9/22 Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com
<snip> > Also the meeting notes mention "The first deliverable, a formal proposal to > the Board at its October meeting, was discussed. A first draft will be sent > to the workgroup in the next few days." - is this draft going to be public > as intended initially? (I hope so :) - would love to give some more input > there)
That proposal will be made available for comment, certainly. It's currently being drafted "in committee," as it were, not because it's secret, but for practical reasons. The proposal is meant to formalize the work that's already been done and set goals for the next milestone. Since the ultimate goal is a universally accepted agreement, obviously the idea is that it won't be anything particularly objectionable.
Austin
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_roles_working_group
Hmm, I hate to be the nagger here - I just hoped that right from the beginning the openness and transparancy could be clear by doing this kind of things, that are not secret, as much as possible in the open :) Although I also hope everybody will agree with it - it would be helpful if people could lend you their thoughts on it, even if they are not involved in the group formally fostering the discussion. Although you hopefully did not mean it like that, "will be made available for comment" does not sound exactly inclusive :)
Lodewijk
Am I the only one or do people get the feeling that its the same people that keep showing up for these communities and groups.
I do not see new community people, mostly outsiders, someone from the staff, and the same old cabal.
when you gonna get some new people in there?
anon editor
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the movement, with the final goal of developing a "Wikimedia Charter"—a document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia organization are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders—and a plan for going forward with organizational development.
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular milestones along the way.
A core group of people will be tasked with ensuring that steady progress is being made toward those milestones. Although the exact makeup of the group may change as specific needs are reevaluated, this working group currently comprises:
- Alice Wiegand
- Arne Klempert
- Austin Hair (facilitator and adviser)
- Barry Newstead
- Bence Damokos
- Bishakha Datta
- Galileo Vidoni
- Jon Huggett (facilitator and adviser)
- Morgan Chan
- Samuel Klein
The work is just getting started, with the inaugural meeting of the working group having taken place on 10 September; please see the page on Meta[0] to comment and participate. Although I expect that there will be plenty of replies to this e-mail, it would be nice if the project-related discussion could take place on-wiki.
This announcement is about two weeks overdue—many of you may already know about it, since it's no secret. I apologize for that; my computer died and I didn't manage to retype the e-mail with my thumbs on my phone before I got the replacement.
I personally hope to see lots of participation, and am willing to answer any questions about the process.
Best regards,
Austin Hair
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anon,
The percentage of community members interested in doing meta organizing and research for the movement as a whole will always be much smaller than those interested in working on a single project (or just a single task or subject within a project). It's a fact of life when it comes to any movement, online or off, and Wikimedia is not unusual in this regard.
It's important to remember that working groups such as Movement Roles try hard to get a diverse array of perspectives in on a project, even if they don't alway succeed.
If you want to see some new blood involved, I would suggest either joining in yourself or making sure the right people know that they can join in, * especially* if they aren't normally the type to self-select for groups such as Movement Roles.
Steven Walling
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, who this whothith@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only one or do people get the feeling that its the same people that keep showing up for these communities and groups.
I do not see new community people, mostly outsiders, someone from the staff, and the same old cabal.
when you gonna get some new people in there?
anon editor
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the movement, with the final goal of developing a "Wikimedia Charter"—a document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia organization are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders—and a plan for going forward with organizational development.
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular milestones along the way.
A core group of people will be tasked with ensuring that steady progress is being made toward those milestones. Although the exact makeup of the group may change as specific needs are reevaluated, this working group currently comprises:
- Alice Wiegand
- Arne Klempert
- Austin Hair (facilitator and adviser)
- Barry Newstead
- Bence Damokos
- Bishakha Datta
- Galileo Vidoni
- Jon Huggett (facilitator and adviser)
- Morgan Chan
- Samuel Klein
The work is just getting started, with the inaugural meeting of the working group having taken place on 10 September; please see the page on Meta[0] to comment and participate. Although I expect that there will be plenty of replies to this e-mail, it would be nice if the project-related discussion could take place on-wiki.
This announcement is about two weeks overdue—many of you may already know about it, since it's no secret. I apologize for that; my computer died and I didn't manage to retype the e-mail with my thumbs on my phone before I got the replacement.
I personally hope to see lots of participation, and am willing to answer any questions about the process.
Best regards,
Austin Hair
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Lets see..........
Austin- chapcom member/chair Arne Klempert-chapcom member Bence Damokos-chapcom member Samuel klein-chapcom member + many others
Morgan Chan- communication committee(status unknown)
bishkha datta- board member
barry newstead-employee
jon hugget-outside employee/contractor
thats how I see the current "committee"
same people already heavily involved either retired from community editing shifting influential positions. half this working group is made of chapcom members.
As for joining......I didnt see an announce or any posting for this working group like many others. they just show up, make influential decisions and disappear into some other committee. No senior editors who are currently active on there, same ppl who would be affected most by their decision.
Anon
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.comwrote:
Anon,
The percentage of community members interested in doing meta organizing and research for the movement as a whole will always be much smaller than those interested in working on a single project (or just a single task or subject within a project). It's a fact of life when it comes to any movement, online or off, and Wikimedia is not unusual in this regard.
It's important to remember that working groups such as Movement Roles try hard to get a diverse array of perspectives in on a project, even if they don't alway succeed.
If you want to see some new blood involved, I would suggest either joining in yourself or making sure the right people know that they can join in, * especially* if they aren't normally the type to self-select for groups such as Movement Roles.
Steven Walling
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, who this whothith@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only one or do people get the feeling that its the same people that keep showing up for these communities and groups.
I do not see new community people, mostly outsiders, someone from the staff, and the same old cabal.
when you gonna get some new people in there?
anon editor
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the movement, with the final goal of developing a "Wikimedia Charter"—a document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia organization are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders—and a plan for going forward with organizational development.
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular milestones along the way.
A core group of people will be tasked with ensuring that steady progress is being made toward those milestones. Although the exact makeup of the group may change as specific needs are reevaluated, this working group currently comprises:
- Alice Wiegand
- Arne Klempert
- Austin Hair (facilitator and adviser)
- Barry Newstead
- Bence Damokos
- Bishakha Datta
- Galileo Vidoni
- Jon Huggett (facilitator and adviser)
- Morgan Chan
- Samuel Klein
The work is just getting started, with the inaugural meeting of the working group having taken place on 10 September; please see the page on Meta[0] to comment and participate. Although I expect that there will be plenty of replies to this e-mail, it would be nice if the project-related discussion could take place on-wiki.
This announcement is about two weeks overdue—many of you may already know about it, since it's no secret. I apologize for that; my computer died and I didn't manage to retype the e-mail with my thumbs on my phone before I got the replacement.
I personally hope to see lots of participation, and am willing to answer any questions about the process.
Best regards,
Austin Hair
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
why not throw in florence and aprhabhala into the mix and we can round up the same "advisory group" cabal.
maybe they are in rotation for the next one......
anyway seeing the same names over and over again irked me and I decided to comment on the issue which like many other editors I try to avoid.
looking forward to seeing more of the same
Anon
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:07 AM, who this whothith@gmail.com wrote:
Lets see..........
Austin- chapcom member/chair Arne Klempert-chapcom member Bence Damokos-chapcom member Samuel klein-chapcom member + many others
Morgan Chan- communication committee(status unknown)
bishkha datta- board member
barry newstead-employee
jon hugget-outside employee/contractor
thats how I see the current "committee"
same people already heavily involved either retired from community editing shifting influential positions. half this working group is made of chapcom members.
As for joining......I didnt see an announce or any posting for this working group like many others. they just show up, make influential decisions and disappear into some other committee. No senior editors who are currently active on there, same ppl who would be affected most by their decision.
Anon
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.comwrote:
Anon,
The percentage of community members interested in doing meta organizing and research for the movement as a whole will always be much smaller than those interested in working on a single project (or just a single task or subject within a project). It's a fact of life when it comes to any movement, online or off, and Wikimedia is not unusual in this regard.
It's important to remember that working groups such as Movement Roles try hard to get a diverse array of perspectives in on a project, even if they don't alway succeed.
If you want to see some new blood involved, I would suggest either joining in yourself or making sure the right people know that they can join in, * especially* if they aren't normally the type to self-select for groups such as Movement Roles.
Steven Walling
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, who this whothith@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only one or do people get the feeling that its the same people that keep showing up for these communities and groups.
I do not see new community people, mostly outsiders, someone from the staff, and the same old cabal.
when you gonna get some new people in there?
anon editor
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the movement, with the final goal of developing a "Wikimedia Charter"—a document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia organization are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders—and a plan for going forward with organizational development.
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular milestones along the way.
A core group of people will be tasked with ensuring that steady progress is being made toward those milestones. Although the exact makeup of the group may change as specific needs are reevaluated, this working group currently comprises:
- Alice Wiegand
- Arne Klempert
- Austin Hair (facilitator and adviser)
- Barry Newstead
- Bence Damokos
- Bishakha Datta
- Galileo Vidoni
- Jon Huggett (facilitator and adviser)
- Morgan Chan
- Samuel Klein
The work is just getting started, with the inaugural meeting of the working group having taken place on 10 September; please see the page on Meta[0] to comment and participate. Although I expect that there will be plenty of replies to this e-mail, it would be nice if the project-related discussion could take place on-wiki.
This announcement is about two weeks overdue—many of you may already know about it, since it's no secret. I apologize for that; my computer died and I didn't manage to retype the e-mail with my thumbs on my phone before I got the replacement.
I personally hope to see lots of participation, and am willing to answer any questions about the process.
Best regards,
Austin Hair
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This group is talking about the Wikimedia organization, so it is no more than logical that people heavily involved in that will be the ones thinking about it. Besides that, although Austin did not mention that in this specific email, it has been pointed out every time when I spoke with people about this, that they will be searching for a huge support for anything that comes out of it. A charter will only work if it is agreed upon by virtually everybody affected. Also, it was clear that the process will be open, and that people will be able to join in the conversation later on if they proof to be constructively participating the discussions.
So, going from here there are two things you can probably do. The first is just complain - probably wont get you very far, my guess is you already got out of that what is in it. The second option is participate and give constructive input. How would you like the Wikimedia Organization (that is not the community per se, but rather the whole framework behind it including Foundation and Chapters and non-affiliated organizations like the Wikimedians in Kansai) see develop, how would you see your role in that?
Best,
Lodewijk
2010/9/22 who this whothith@gmail.com
why not throw in florence and aprhabhala into the mix and we can round up the same "advisory group" cabal.
maybe they are in rotation for the next one......
anyway seeing the same names over and over again irked me and I decided to comment on the issue which like many other editors I try to avoid.
looking forward to seeing more of the same
Anon
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:07 AM, who this whothith@gmail.com wrote:
Lets see..........
Austin- chapcom member/chair Arne Klempert-chapcom member Bence Damokos-chapcom member Samuel klein-chapcom member + many others
Morgan Chan- communication committee(status unknown)
bishkha datta- board member
barry newstead-employee
jon hugget-outside employee/contractor
thats how I see the current "committee"
same people already heavily involved either retired from community
editing
shifting influential positions. half this working group is made of
chapcom
members.
As for joining......I didnt see an announce or any posting for this
working
group like many others. they just show up, make influential decisions and disappear into some other committee. No senior editors who are currently active on there, same ppl who would be affected most by their decision.
Anon
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Steven Walling <
steven.walling@gmail.com>wrote:
Anon,
The percentage of community members interested in doing meta organizing and research for the movement as a whole will always be much smaller than those interested in working on a single project (or just a single task or subject within a project). It's a fact of life when it comes to any movement, online or off, and Wikimedia is not unusual in this regard.
It's important to remember that working groups such as Movement Roles
try
hard to get a diverse array of perspectives in on a project, even if
they
don't alway succeed.
If you want to see some new blood involved, I would suggest either
joining
in yourself or making sure the right people know that they can join in,
especially* if they aren't normally the type to self-select for groups such as Movement Roles.
Steven Walling
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, who this whothith@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only one or do people get the feeling that its the same
people
that keep showing up for these communities and groups.
I do not see new community people, mostly outsiders, someone from the staff, and the same old cabal.
when you gonna get some new people in there?
anon editor
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com
wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the movement, with the final goal of developing a "Wikimedia Charter"—a document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia organization are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders—and a plan for going forward with organizational development.
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with
regular
milestones along the way.
A core group of people will be tasked with ensuring that steady progress is being made toward those milestones. Although the exact makeup of the group may change as specific needs are reevaluated,
this
working group currently comprises:
- Alice Wiegand
- Arne Klempert
- Austin Hair (facilitator and adviser)
- Barry Newstead
- Bence Damokos
- Bishakha Datta
- Galileo Vidoni
- Jon Huggett (facilitator and adviser)
- Morgan Chan
- Samuel Klein
The work is just getting started, with the inaugural meeting of the working group having taken place on 10 September; please see the
page
on Meta[0] to comment and participate. Although I expect that there will be plenty of replies to this e-mail, it would be nice if the project-related discussion could take place on-wiki.
This announcement is about two weeks overdue—many of you may already know about it, since it's no secret. I apologize for that; my computer died and I didn't manage to retype the e-mail with my
thumbs
on my phone before I got the replacement.
I personally hope to see lots of participation, and am willing to answer any questions about the process.
Best regards,
Austin Hair
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Dear All,
I would just like to point out that this specific working group is dealing with the relationship of chapters, the Foundation and possible other forms of Wikimedia groups that have offline activities. In this sense, no outcome of the proposal put to the Board or the Charter that should come out of the process in a year's time would affect any editors directly -- it will, however affect the Foundation and the chapters and to some degree the future development of the movement. It is indeed very important that those affected are part of the process and are heard – this group of people, myself included, will not be the ones doing most or even the majority of the input that goes into the charter to be; they should be seen as the ones doing the preparational and other background work that doesn't get done otherwise. To be innovative, it is also very important that those not affiliated to any of the mentioned groups participate, as well.
It is a matter of practicality of who is involved in what degree in the * preparation* of the actual work that will begin after October and be very open. (In comparison to other working groups, consider the current approach a *bit* more open – oftentimes you don't hear about the preparation that goes into establishing various new initiatives).
As for the members of the group, I think I should shed some light on actual affiliations: The current membership represents the above mentioned stakeholders (chapters, WMF Board and staff), with the exception of 'other forms of 'offline Wikimedia groups'', which there aren't that many of yet. The over representation of Chapcom is just a curious coincidence: Arne, SJ and Bishakka are WMF Trustees and non-voting Chapcom liaisons, not involved in the actual work of the committee. Austin and I are indeed members of the committee, Austin being one of the longest-serving members and thus having a huge experience in handling WMF-chapter relations and me being a member only since this March (if I may be so bold, I would still consider myself a relatively fresh face in WMF comitology). The call to join the Chapters committee was public, that is how I got in. Morgan's and mine actual background - and also that of Lizzy and Galileo - is being on boards of chapters. Barry is indeed on the staff of the Foundation, his portfolio includes global development and WMF-Chapter relations. Jon is a new employee hired for this group in order to help the process and provide research and insight on the organizational questions to be discussed.
In the case of the same people repeatedly showing up to these committees and groups, I would note that these groups tend to form on some form of self-nomination or public nomination and that anyone involved puts in his free time and work that should not be taken lightly. Some people do amazing and unbelievable work; their numerous group membership is a sign of their dedication not their embeddedness into some cabal. The invitation to fresh people is always open and I think their application is always encouraged.
I hope this clears up those questions I think I know the answer to.
Best regards, Bence
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:45 PM, who this whothith@gmail.com wrote:
why not throw in florence and aprhabhala into the mix and we can round up the same "advisory group" cabal.
maybe they are in rotation for the next one......
anyway seeing the same names over and over again irked me and I decided to comment on the issue which like many other editors I try to avoid.
looking forward to seeing more of the same
Anon
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:07 AM, who this whothith@gmail.com wrote:
Lets see..........
Austin- chapcom member/chair Arne Klempert-chapcom member Bence Damokos-chapcom member Samuel klein-chapcom member + many others
Morgan Chan- communication committee(status unknown)
bishkha datta- board member
barry newstead-employee
jon hugget-outside employee/contractor
thats how I see the current "committee"
same people already heavily involved either retired from community
editing
shifting influential positions. half this working group is made of
chapcom
members.
As for joining......I didnt see an announce or any posting for this
working
group like many others. they just show up, make influential decisions and disappear into some other committee. No senior editors who are currently active on there, same ppl who would be affected most by their decision.
Anon
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Steven Walling <
steven.walling@gmail.com>wrote:
Anon,
The percentage of community members interested in doing meta organizing and research for the movement as a whole will always be much smaller than those interested in working on a single project (or just a single task or subject within a project). It's a fact of life when it comes to any movement, online or off, and Wikimedia is not unusual in this regard.
It's important to remember that working groups such as Movement Roles
try
hard to get a diverse array of perspectives in on a project, even if
they
don't alway succeed.
If you want to see some new blood involved, I would suggest either
joining
in yourself or making sure the right people know that they can join in,
especially* if they aren't normally the type to self-select for groups such as Movement Roles.
Steven Walling
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, who this whothith@gmail.com wrote:
Am I the only one or do people get the feeling that its the same
people
that keep showing up for these communities and groups.
I do not see new community people, mostly outsiders, someone from the staff, and the same old cabal.
when you gonna get some new people in there?
anon editor
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com
wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has commissioned a year-long effort to clarify the roles of various stakeholders in the movement, with the final goal of developing a "Wikimedia Charter"—a document where the roles and responsibilities within the Wikimedia organization are clearly defined and agreed upon by all stakeholders—and a plan for going forward with organizational development.
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with
regular
milestones along the way.
A core group of people will be tasked with ensuring that steady progress is being made toward those milestones. Although the exact makeup of the group may change as specific needs are reevaluated,
this
working group currently comprises:
- Alice Wiegand
- Arne Klempert
- Austin Hair (facilitator and adviser)
- Barry Newstead
- Bence Damokos
- Bishakha Datta
- Galileo Vidoni
- Jon Huggett (facilitator and adviser)
- Morgan Chan
- Samuel Klein
The work is just getting started, with the inaugural meeting of the working group having taken place on 10 September; please see the
page
on Meta[0] to comment and participate. Although I expect that there will be plenty of replies to this e-mail, it would be nice if the project-related discussion could take place on-wiki.
This announcement is about two weeks overdue—many of you may already know about it, since it's no secret. I apologize for that; my computer died and I didn't manage to retype the e-mail with my
thumbs
on my phone before I got the replacement.
I personally hope to see lots of participation, and am willing to answer any questions about the process.
Best regards,
Austin Hair
[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 22 September 2010 13:26, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular milestones along the way.
How do we stop it?
Apart from the usual issues this looks like a textbook way of killing innovation.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:36 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 September 2010 13:26, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
This process will be transparent, and open to input from anyone interested. It's planned to take approximately one year, with regular milestones along the way.
How do we stop it?
Apart from the usual issues this looks like a textbook way of killing innovation.
Well, to be blunt, the goal of the process isn't to foster innovation.
The goal is to codify the roles and responsibilities of the various organizations, groups, people, what have you in Wikimedia—everyone who's already working to make the "Wikimedia movement" the awesome thing that it is.
I could personally sit down in a weekend and write down what I think a chapter should be, what the WMF's role should be, what to do with Brazil/Catalonia/NYC/Kansai/Whatever. You'd probably disagree with me on at least one point, and you'd be right when you said that there's no reason whatsoever to listen to me.
The reason it's meant to take a year is that everyone's thoughts, everyone's opinions, everyone's—dare I say it—"input" is incorporated into the final outcome. A Wikimedia Charter is useless if people aren't willing to accept it, so everyone with an opinion needs to weigh in and make sure it's heard.
The reason it's meant to have milestones is that without them, very simply, the process just drags on indefinitely.
If you have better ideas about how to go about the process, great! Leave a note on the talk page where everyone can see it, and we'll go from there.
Austin
2010/9/23 Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com:
If you have better ideas about how to go about the process, great! Leave a note on the talk page where everyone can see it, and we'll go from there.
I suggest to do some basic work on meta page of the committee: a) write a clear definition what "movement roles" means and generally what the committee is going to do :-) The term "movement roles" is somehow cabalic for most of Wikimedia community; what does it really means in terms of any real decissions or habits? b) suggest some topics for discussion or key problems with current structure of Wikimedia movement if you really want to start _any_ discussion
If you ask for discussion but there is no any questions or any other starting points what we can discuss, you rather won't get any feedback and people who would like to help you simply get frustrated :-)
oh I agree the entire process is so transparent.......like mentioning the existence of the group 10 days after their first meet.
That is the sort of thing I am talking about, the said group was formed already had its first meeting and you are announcing it now more than 10 days later, its almost the definition of open and collaborative.
Just that you want "discussions" and you are open to comments and input, but most people do not know what the agendas are, there is no info on what you are planning to do just the same old corporate goodbledy and vagueness.
Austin you might as well sit down write it over a weekend or the next chapcom meet, most people have no idea what the agendas are.....just a page on meta and a meeting that already went on without anyone knowing about the existence of the said group. I thought defining wikimedia movement roles and a charter would the biggest possible policy decision for all the project and the entire organization, clearly its not, you can do it at the next chapcom meet and add notes on meta weeks later.
Anon
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/23 Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com:
If you have better ideas about how to go about the process, great! Leave a note on the talk page where everyone can see it, and we'll go from there.
I suggest to do some basic work on meta page of the committee: a) write a clear definition what "movement roles" means and generally what the committee is going to do :-) The term "movement roles" is somehow cabalic for most of Wikimedia community; what does it really means in terms of any real decissions or habits? b) suggest some topics for discussion or key problems with current structure of Wikimedia movement if you really want to start _any_ discussion
If you ask for discussion but there is no any questions or any other starting points what we can discuss, you rather won't get any feedback and people who would like to help you simply get frustrated :-)
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org