Dear friends,
One element of the discussions on "Movement Roles" was about other / new entities within our movement, aside the already existing Foundation and the Chapters, which I prefer to call "national Wikimedia organizations". I would like to present to you here my idea of "Language Contact Persons" who form a link between the Foundation and the Wikipedia language versions.
== New entities?== James Forrester and his group (sorry, I don't remember who was the official primus inter pares) presented in/before Haifa a list of new kinds of Wikimedia entities: * Chapters not based on national boundaries, but subjects such as railways, art, ethnic cultures, mathematics etc. * informal groups * Official partners, e.g. a museum we (the Foundation? a national Wikimedia organization?) that already exists outside our movement
==Scepticism== I myself, and also some people I have talked to, are very sceptical about such new entities. I believe that in theory it is possible to create and maintain them, but in practice there can come up a lot of problems. Imagine that a group wants to join that is occupied with Marxism, or Zionism, or other potentially controversial subjects. And then groups with antimarxism, antizionism etc. What subjects exactly (and what kind of behavior) do we want to allow? And what actual problem we would try to solve with such new entities?
One particular question is the organization of ethnic or linguistic groups which cannot have a national Wikimedia organization (chapter), but which also cannot or don't want to integrate into existing national Wikimedia organizations. The best known example are the Catalans together with the Scottish Wikipedians (or just some of them?).
== A concrete problem to be solved == I must mention here my personal interests. I am an editor of Wikipedia in Esperanto, a small, transnational language that never can have a national Wikimedia organization. We Esperanto-Wikipedians can also not easily integrate into existing national Wikimedia organizations because we live in many different countries, where other (national) languages are dominant. So, as an Esperantist I would like it very much to see a Esperanto "chapter" of Wikimedia, but as a Wikimedian in general I am afraid that it would open a box of Pandora.
Thinking of practical problems, I remember that we small language Wikipedians often don't have good connections with the Wikimedia organizations. We don't know well how to make use of the existing material and other ressources. And the Foundation and the national Wikimedia organizations know little of us. When I go to the Foundation and ask whether we are allowed to use the logos for a flyer in my small language, then the Foundation might ask itself: *Who is this Ziko, can we trust him, does he speak for more people than only himself?*
== Language Contact Person (LCP) == I would like to suggest a small solution to solve a part of the problems. Every language version of Wikipedia should designate a "Language Contact Person" for relations with the Foundation (and national Wikimedia organizations). This LCP is to be elected by a poll with the same requirements as for admins.
A deputy LCP is also to be elected, in order to replace a LCP when necessary. If one of both is no longer active, it will be the task of the remaining one to take care of a new election of that other position.
You know, originally it is often an admin who represents a language version in one way or other. But that is not really the task of an admin, and other people might be a suitable LCP but are not interesting in becoming an admin. The LCP would be only a liaison officer, he won't "officially represent" the language version. Like adminship it will be less a position of honour but of work.
The LCP has to report to the Foundation about the language version and its community and outreach, monthly or at least once a year. (Think of my "Tell us about your Wikipedia" project on Meta.) And when the Foundation wishes to contact that language version, for example when it needs a translation or wants the whole movement to know about something important, the LCP is the best way to take care of that. The LCP knows the village pumps and mailing lists etc. of his language. So, in future, Casey Brown does not have to search and contact all those language versions and their activists, but will simply post to a common mailing list of all LCPs and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, when the Wikipedians of a particular language version have a specific problem and seek for help from the Foundation, they can do that most efficiently via their LCP.
Of course, a LCP is not only useful for small languages. Think of Spanish, a global language. Some Spanish speaking countries have a national Wikimedia organization, others have not. A Spanish Wikipedia LCP can be the coordinator of a flyer in Spanish for all of the Spanish speaking countries.
== Experimental phase == My suggestion is that the Foundation asks the Wikipedia language versions to elect LCPs (and their deputies). After a year, the Foundation evaluates the experiences with the LCPs, whether they really make communication more efficient or not. Then, * the LCP system can remain the same as it is, * or has to be abolished because it caused more work than it helped, * or the system will be given a more formal basis, with the LCP getting a higher status or more tasks, or even becoming the nucleus of language based formal Wikimedia organizations. Maybe the LCP experiences can be of value with regard to Wikimedia projects such as Wikisource, Wikibooks etc.
Please let me know what you think about the possibility and potential usefulness of Language Contact Persons.
Kind regards Ziko
Hi Ziko
I am not sure if I see the point here. There are 2 issues getting conflated here, one is representation of languages between national chapters which I believe, is a much bigger issue. The second issue, where these Language contact persons serve WMF and the movement in talking about local language issues, help communicate, translate basically represent their communities is a different issue.
I'm sorry but I don't see the apparent benefit in this, something similar already exists unofficially and is done by volunteers. Casey and sometimes other people in charge of translations, reach out to their language contact on Meta or locally for translations or similar purposes.
WMF already has minimal interaction in this scenario with anyone. Then there is the issue of the large and spread out language communities, which at 280 odd language versions of wikipedia would be an enormous task to coordinate with. The issue is a very large majority of those aren't as active, or interested in participating. They are volunteers and chose to limit their involvement.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but currently only a dozen or a few dozen languages have active translators that answer calls for participation and help with general outreach. Casey has to follow through with them personally on several different places to get them to coordinate already. If the idea is, somehow officiating their positions as representative of their community, I can see a small benefit there but I doubt it makes sense to consider them a separate entities than just volunteers. WMF doesn't interact directly with those communities to begin with, so having 280 LCPs (and 280 Deputies) for tasks already done by volunteers doesn't make sense, maybe it's just me.
This might however, make sense for the fundraising team, to have designated LCPs for translations.
Theo
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.comwrote:
Dear friends,
One element of the discussions on "Movement Roles" was about other / new entities within our movement, aside the already existing Foundation and the Chapters, which I prefer to call "national Wikimedia organizations". I would like to present to you here my idea of "Language Contact Persons" who form a link between the Foundation and the Wikipedia language versions.
== New entities?== James Forrester and his group (sorry, I don't remember who was the official primus inter pares) presented in/before Haifa a list of new kinds of Wikimedia entities:
- Chapters not based on national boundaries, but subjects such as
railways, art, ethnic cultures, mathematics etc.
- informal groups
- Official partners, e.g. a museum we (the Foundation? a national
Wikimedia organization?) that already exists outside our movement
==Scepticism== I myself, and also some people I have talked to, are very sceptical about such new entities. I believe that in theory it is possible to create and maintain them, but in practice there can come up a lot of problems. Imagine that a group wants to join that is occupied with Marxism, or Zionism, or other potentially controversial subjects. And then groups with antimarxism, antizionism etc. What subjects exactly (and what kind of behavior) do we want to allow? And what actual problem we would try to solve with such new entities?
One particular question is the organization of ethnic or linguistic groups which cannot have a national Wikimedia organization (chapter), but which also cannot or don't want to integrate into existing national Wikimedia organizations. The best known example are the Catalans together with the Scottish Wikipedians (or just some of them?).
== A concrete problem to be solved == I must mention here my personal interests. I am an editor of Wikipedia in Esperanto, a small, transnational language that never can have a national Wikimedia organization. We Esperanto-Wikipedians can also not easily integrate into existing national Wikimedia organizations because we live in many different countries, where other (national) languages are dominant. So, as an Esperantist I would like it very much to see a Esperanto "chapter" of Wikimedia, but as a Wikimedian in general I am afraid that it would open a box of Pandora.
Thinking of practical problems, I remember that we small language Wikipedians often don't have good connections with the Wikimedia organizations. We don't know well how to make use of the existing material and other ressources. And the Foundation and the national Wikimedia organizations know little of us. When I go to the Foundation and ask whether we are allowed to use the logos for a flyer in my small language, then the Foundation might ask itself: *Who is this Ziko, can we trust him, does he speak for more people than only himself?*
== Language Contact Person (LCP) == I would like to suggest a small solution to solve a part of the problems. Every language version of Wikipedia should designate a "Language Contact Person" for relations with the Foundation (and national Wikimedia organizations). This LCP is to be elected by a poll with the same requirements as for admins.
A deputy LCP is also to be elected, in order to replace a LCP when necessary. If one of both is no longer active, it will be the task of the remaining one to take care of a new election of that other position.
You know, originally it is often an admin who represents a language version in one way or other. But that is not really the task of an admin, and other people might be a suitable LCP but are not interesting in becoming an admin. The LCP would be only a liaison officer, he won't "officially represent" the language version. Like adminship it will be less a position of honour but of work.
The LCP has to report to the Foundation about the language version and its community and outreach, monthly or at least once a year. (Think of my "Tell us about your Wikipedia" project on Meta.) And when the Foundation wishes to contact that language version, for example when it needs a translation or wants the whole movement to know about something important, the LCP is the best way to take care of that. The LCP knows the village pumps and mailing lists etc. of his language. So, in future, Casey Brown does not have to search and contact all those language versions and their activists, but will simply post to a common mailing list of all LCPs and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, when the Wikipedians of a particular language version have a specific problem and seek for help from the Foundation, they can do that most efficiently via their LCP.
Of course, a LCP is not only useful for small languages. Think of Spanish, a global language. Some Spanish speaking countries have a national Wikimedia organization, others have not. A Spanish Wikipedia LCP can be the coordinator of a flyer in Spanish for all of the Spanish speaking countries.
== Experimental phase == My suggestion is that the Foundation asks the Wikipedia language versions to elect LCPs (and their deputies). After a year, the Foundation evaluates the experiences with the LCPs, whether they really make communication more efficient or not. Then,
- the LCP system can remain the same as it is,
- or has to be abolished because it caused more work than it helped,
- or the system will be given a more formal basis, with the LCP
getting a higher status or more tasks, or even becoming the nucleus of language based formal Wikimedia organizations. Maybe the LCP experiences can be of value with regard to Wikimedia projects such as Wikisource, Wikibooks etc.
Please let me know what you think about the possibility and potential usefulness of Language Contact Persons.
Kind regards Ziko
-- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Let me start by saying that Ziko's "Tell us about your Wikipedia" project was wonderful and i really expect its second edition. If Ziko or someone else doesn't beat me to it, i'll probably just create one myself, with additional questions that interest me ;)
I support the idea of language contact persons, or ambassadors, but their appointment shouldn't be as rigidly regulated as the appointment of administrators. (The appointment of administrators also shouldn't be regulated half as rigidly as it is now, but that's a different topic.)
Instead of "appointing" contact persons by forced discussion, something else can be done: The Foundation can publish a call to the different language communities to become more active on Meta and mailing lists. I am a de-facto contact person for Hebrew, but i joined this mailing list years ago simply because it seemed the natural thing to do, because i came from the software world. It may not seem as natural to plenty of other people who can be excellent language contact persons.
At first such call can be published in the village pumps of different languages. A few new people will probably join the global discussions as proud representatives of their respective language communities as a result of it, but many communities will definitely remain unrepresented. After some time the Foundation should check which language communities are still not represented and think what should be done differently to bring them along.
As in foreign relations between countries in general, it's just impossible to have the same kind of relationship and communication channel with every project.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2011/8/14 Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com:
Dear friends,
One element of the discussions on "Movement Roles" was about other / new entities within our movement, aside the already existing Foundation and the Chapters, which I prefer to call "national Wikimedia organizations". I would like to present to you here my idea of "Language Contact Persons" who form a link between the Foundation and the Wikipedia language versions.
== New entities?== James Forrester and his group (sorry, I don't remember who was the official primus inter pares) presented in/before Haifa a list of new kinds of Wikimedia entities:
- Chapters not based on national boundaries, but subjects such as
railways, art, ethnic cultures, mathematics etc.
- informal groups
- Official partners, e.g. a museum we (the Foundation? a national
Wikimedia organization?) that already exists outside our movement
==Scepticism== I myself, and also some people I have talked to, are very sceptical about such new entities. I believe that in theory it is possible to create and maintain them, but in practice there can come up a lot of problems. Imagine that a group wants to join that is occupied with Marxism, or Zionism, or other potentially controversial subjects. And then groups with antimarxism, antizionism etc. What subjects exactly (and what kind of behavior) do we want to allow? And what actual problem we would try to solve with such new entities?
One particular question is the organization of ethnic or linguistic groups which cannot have a national Wikimedia organization (chapter), but which also cannot or don't want to integrate into existing national Wikimedia organizations. The best known example are the Catalans together with the Scottish Wikipedians (or just some of them?).
== A concrete problem to be solved == I must mention here my personal interests. I am an editor of Wikipedia in Esperanto, a small, transnational language that never can have a national Wikimedia organization. We Esperanto-Wikipedians can also not easily integrate into existing national Wikimedia organizations because we live in many different countries, where other (national) languages are dominant. So, as an Esperantist I would like it very much to see a Esperanto "chapter" of Wikimedia, but as a Wikimedian in general I am afraid that it would open a box of Pandora.
Thinking of practical problems, I remember that we small language Wikipedians often don't have good connections with the Wikimedia organizations. We don't know well how to make use of the existing material and other ressources. And the Foundation and the national Wikimedia organizations know little of us. When I go to the Foundation and ask whether we are allowed to use the logos for a flyer in my small language, then the Foundation might ask itself: *Who is this Ziko, can we trust him, does he speak for more people than only himself?*
== Language Contact Person (LCP) == I would like to suggest a small solution to solve a part of the problems. Every language version of Wikipedia should designate a "Language Contact Person" for relations with the Foundation (and national Wikimedia organizations). This LCP is to be elected by a poll with the same requirements as for admins.
A deputy LCP is also to be elected, in order to replace a LCP when necessary. If one of both is no longer active, it will be the task of the remaining one to take care of a new election of that other position.
You know, originally it is often an admin who represents a language version in one way or other. But that is not really the task of an admin, and other people might be a suitable LCP but are not interesting in becoming an admin. The LCP would be only a liaison officer, he won't "officially represent" the language version. Like adminship it will be less a position of honour but of work.
The LCP has to report to the Foundation about the language version and its community and outreach, monthly or at least once a year. (Think of my "Tell us about your Wikipedia" project on Meta.) And when the Foundation wishes to contact that language version, for example when it needs a translation or wants the whole movement to know about something important, the LCP is the best way to take care of that. The LCP knows the village pumps and mailing lists etc. of his language. So, in future, Casey Brown does not have to search and contact all those language versions and their activists, but will simply post to a common mailing list of all LCPs and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, when the Wikipedians of a particular language version have a specific problem and seek for help from the Foundation, they can do that most efficiently via their LCP.
Of course, a LCP is not only useful for small languages. Think of Spanish, a global language. Some Spanish speaking countries have a national Wikimedia organization, others have not. A Spanish Wikipedia LCP can be the coordinator of a flyer in Spanish for all of the Spanish speaking countries.
== Experimental phase == My suggestion is that the Foundation asks the Wikipedia language versions to elect LCPs (and their deputies). After a year, the Foundation evaluates the experiences with the LCPs, whether they really make communication more efficient or not. Then,
- the LCP system can remain the same as it is,
- or has to be abolished because it caused more work than it helped,
- or the system will be given a more formal basis, with the LCP
getting a higher status or more tasks, or even becoming the nucleus of language based formal Wikimedia organizations. Maybe the LCP experiences can be of value with regard to Wikimedia projects such as Wikisource, Wikibooks etc.
Please let me know what you think about the possibility and potential usefulness of Language Contact Persons.
Kind regards Ziko
-- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 08/14/2011 11:41 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
I support the idea of language contact persons, or ambassadors, but their appointment shouldn't be as rigidly regulated as the appointment of administrators.
I agree, instead of only two responsible persons there should be a group of people who are A) in intense communication with each other, B) post WMF/foundation-l news on their wiki, C) summarize and post to WMF/foundation-l what's bothering the local community (also positive feedback).
If they are volunteers, you can't force them to post monthly reports on foundation-l (encourage them instead) or demand too much of them. And you shouldn't put them through an elaborate voting process, since anyone can help and afaik not much harm has been done in that area.
There are already ambassadors, originally for the monobook->vector switch, but not much has happened since then. The mailing list is inactive: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
The ideas of wiki ambassadors (general, not restricted to usability or technical matters) should be revived. I think it worked okay for the usability initiative with much room for improvement.
Regards, Tobias
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 16:58, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com wrote:
On 08/14/2011 11:41 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
I support the idea of language contact persons, or ambassadors, but their appointment shouldn't be as rigidly regulated as the appointment of administrators.
There are already ambassadors, originally for the monobook->vector switch, but not much has happened since then. The mailing list is inactive: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
The ideas of wiki ambassadors (general, not restricted to usability or technical matters) should be revived. I think it worked okay for the usability initiative with much room for improvement.
The idea is older then the useability initiative, amabassador for language versions is quite old in the context of Wikipedia:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Embassy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_elections
henna
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 7:58 AM, church.of.emacs.ml < church.of.emacs.ml@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 08/14/2011 11:41 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
I support the idea of language contact persons, or ambassadors, but their appointment shouldn't be as rigidly regulated as the appointment of administrators.
I agree, instead of only two responsible persons there should be a group of people who are A) in intense communication with each other, B) post WMF/foundation-l news on their wiki, C) summarize and post to WMF/foundation-l what's bothering the local community (also positive feedback).
If they are volunteers, you can't force them to post monthly reports on foundation-l (encourage them instead) or demand too much of them. And you shouldn't put them through an elaborate voting process, since anyone can help and afaik not much harm has been done in that area.
There are already ambassadors, originally for the monobook->vector switch, but not much has happened since then. The mailing list is inactive: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
The ideas of wiki ambassadors (general, not restricted to usability or technical matters) should be revived. I think it worked okay for the usability initiative with much room for improvement.
Regards, Tobias
I love this idea, and of reviving the Wikipedia ambassadors/embassies idea. One good focus point for reviving them might be to create a language report the way Ziko suggests -- another idea I love.
Let's do it! What's the best way to encourage embassies, especially on small projects that may have never had them before?
best, phoebe
Let's do it! What's the best way to encourage embassies, especially on small projects that may have never had them before?
Obviously, to let a message in a relevant language (which is expected to be understood by many of the users) on the village pump of the corresponding project. The message should clearly explain what and why is expected from these users.
Langcom is another good starting point.
For big projects, I believe, this approcah is hopeless, but I do not think the embassies as designed are needed for the big projects.
Cheers Yaroslav
Hello,
The name is not so important, of course, but I think that the old "Ambassador" is a little bit a big word.
Why do the "ambassadors" not work? Because they don't feel responsible, if they can simply put themselves on a list and then forget about. It is important that they feel an obligation to fulfill some well defined tasks.
Yes, one can go to the village pumps and ask people to do something. And that is a lot of work, and that's why we need those Language Contact Persons. It is always better when they can post in their own language. Reports about the language version (monthly, yearly) are only written when there is a person who knows that that his exactly *his task*.
Kind regards Ziko
2011/8/16 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
Let's do it! What's the best way to encourage embassies, especially on small projects that may have never had them before?
Obviously, to let a message in a relevant language (which is expected to be understood by many of the users) on the village pump of the corresponding project. The message should clearly explain what and why is expected from these users.
Langcom is another good starting point.
For big projects, I believe, this approcah is hopeless, but I do not think the embassies as designed are needed for the big projects.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:05:37 +0200, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
Hello,
The name is not so important, of course, but I think that the old "Ambassador" is a little bit a big word.
Why do the "ambassadors" not work? Because they don't feel responsible, if they can simply put themselves on a list and then forget about. It is important that they feel an obligation to fulfill some well defined tasks.
Yes, one can go to the village pumps and ask people to do something. And that is a lot of work, and that's why we need those Language Contact Persons. It is always better when they can post in their own language. Reports about the language version (monthly, yearly) are only written when there is a person who knows that that his exactly *his task*.
Kind regards Ziko
I have some experience (and continue to be involved) in some Wikipedias in languages spoken in Russia. These projects are typically run by a small number of users, one to five., doing an excellent job. They would typically only speak Russian, though the would be able to understand an English message. I guess if there is understanding they may get some help from someone as a consequence of posting reports, they would post reports, otherwise this is just an extra hassle.
In contrast, I also have some experience with Russian Wikipedia, and I just can not imagine there would be such an ambassador - for instance, my reports would be drastically different from the reports of some other users, and any reports would be taken extremely negatively by the community, which would feel that somebody is doing smth behing their backs. To continue, imagine such an ambassador representing English Wikipedia.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 16:16, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
[...]
== Language Contact Person (LCP) == I would like to suggest a small solution to solve a part of the problems. Every language version of Wikipedia should designate a "Language Contact Person" for relations with the Foundation (and national Wikimedia organizations). This LCP is to be elected by a poll with the same requirements as for admins.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Embassy ?
The subject matter "chapters" thing sounds quite a bit like en.wp's Wikiprojects.
Dan Rosenthal
== New entities?== James Forrester and his group (sorry, I don't remember who was the official primus inter pares) presented in/before Haifa a list of new kinds of Wikimedia entities:
- Chapters not based on national boundaries, but subjects such as
railways, art, ethnic cultures, mathematics etc.
This is the idea I suggested in the discussions eventually leading to the strategic plans. I believe that these entities should exist, but not as chapters (which would imply a kind of control over content), but as meta-projects: a cross-project extension of existing wiki-projects we already have. They can indeed take care over content (including cross-wiki issues which are plenty and not currently taken care of), but not because they were first to sign up (as sometimes happens with the chapters), but because they comprise editors who have general respect from the community as editors. If we consider it as a kind of wiki-careerism, then it must be a different line than the one in the chapters (like in a company, there are managers and there are high-profile experts - in our case, chapters are analogous to the managers, and these meta-projects are analogous to the high-profile experts, and should generally not be mixed).
As for the language ambassador, in principle, this is a good idea, but then I start thinking about the details (for instance, who will be the ambassador for the Russian language? The Russian WMF chapter does not have sufficient respect of the community, elections probably would not lead anywhere, the community is fractionalized and who is acceptable for one fraction is not acceptable for another fraction, etc) - I tend to think it is just not realistic.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:43:13 +0400, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
== New entities?== James Forrester and his group (sorry, I don't remember who was the official primus inter pares) presented in/before Haifa a list of new kinds of Wikimedia entities:
- Chapters not based on national boundaries, but subjects such as
railways, art, ethnic cultures, mathematics etc.
This is the idea I suggested in the discussions eventually leading to
the
strategic plans.
Sorry, I re-read my mail and it sounds too bold. My idea (which is explained in the previous post) is completely independent from their suggestions. Just to avoid false implications.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 22:16, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@googlemail.com wrote:
== Language Contact Person (LCP) == I would like to suggest a small solution to solve a part of the problems. Every language version of Wikipedia should designate a "Language Contact Person" for relations with the Foundation (and national Wikimedia organizations). This LCP is to be elected by a poll with the same requirements as for admins. [...]
I remember now discussion at Serbian Wikipedia from 2004. While admin and bureaucrat permissions were not big deal at that time (one month of activity for admin; two months for bureaucrat permissions), we realized that we have to elect our ambassadors to Meta [1]. So, the first three persons on the list were actually elected. Unfortunately, the idea of Embassy was never really alive.
For some time I was thinking about opposite: Ambassadors of global community at particular projects. Such persons would be responsible for taking care about communication between global and local community, to ask local community if they need something, to rely important information and so on. I think that something like that could work. Besides that, if we make it semi-formal (let's say, contributor would have to pass elections at Meta), I think that it would bring new momentum in participation of local communities in global issues.
2011/8/16 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
realized that we have to elect our ambassadors to Meta [1]. So, the first three persons on the list were actually elected. Unfortunately, the idea of Embassy was never really alive.
Interesting! Actually, from the 5 persons on that list for Esperanto, at least 2-3 are no longer active. But there was noone who felt responsible (or authorized?) to remove those names. Ziko
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org