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"
You clearly have a strong and abiding interest in movement governance, and have been asking some good questions. You should have submitted your candidacy.[1]
To your point, I guess it can be taken as a reminder, but it does not seem to me that the appointments were made *so as to minimize* influence by less well-known figures. Rather, it seems to me there was a strong emphasis on suitability for the work expected from them (as distinct from other considerations, such as "representation"); it is, of course, easier to assess that suitability in people known to the people making the decision, so old hands do have some advantage, but it isn't *because* they've been around or because they are trusted not to disrupt or challenge the system.
A.
[1] Perhaps you have, of course. I can't tell, since your account is anonymous, but if you did, it would have been good to disclose that fact as you were criticizing the process, and I trust you'd have realized that, so I'll assume you did not.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
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" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, I agree that we need to work on developing new leaders. That includes:
* On-wiki administrators * On-wiki program leaders * Affiliate board and committee members (including user groups, which IMO get far too little support from WMF) * Affiliate project leaders * WMF Board members * WMF Board committee members, such as for the Audit, Governance, and HR committees * Committees such as for Project Grants, Ombudsmen, FDC, and AffCom
Those roles should get new members on a regular basis, and the new members should only partially consist of people who transfer among roles. Fresh perspectives are good.
On the other hand, novice leaders are also prone to making novice mistakes. Last year, I believe that a WMF Board with more experienced members would have been faster and more thorough at addressing some of the concerns related to the previous WMF Executive Director.
So I would like to see more work on developing new leaders, while continuing cultivation of the wisdom of experienced leaders who have proven to be effective.
Pine
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
You clearly have a strong and abiding interest in movement governance, and have been asking some good questions. You should have submitted your candidacy.[1]
To your point, I guess it can be taken as a reminder, but it does not seem to me that the appointments were made *so as to minimize* influence by less well-known figures. Rather, it seems to me there was a strong emphasis on suitability for the work expected from them (as distinct from other considerations, such as "representation"); it is, of course, easier to assess that suitability in people known to the people making the decision, so old hands do have some advantage, but it isn't *because* they've been around or because they are trusted not to disrupt or challenge the system.
A.
[1] Perhaps you have, of course. I can't tell, since your account is anonymous, but if you did, it would have been good to disclose that fact as you were criticizing the process, and I trust you'd have realized that, so I'll assume you did not.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
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" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 05.09.2016 23:41, Asaf Bartov wrote:
You clearly have a strong and abiding interest in movement governance, and have been asking some good questions. You should have submitted your candidacy.[1]
To your point, I guess it can be taken as a reminder, but it does not seem to me that the appointments were made *so as to minimize* influence by less well-known figures. Rather, it seems to me there was a strong emphasis on suitability for the work expected from them (as distinct from other considerations, such as "representation"); it is, of course, easier to assess that suitability in people known to the people making the decision, so old hands do have some advantage, but it isn't *because* they've been around or because they are trusted not to disrupt or challenge the system.
Asaf, I believe in the announcements prior record of affiliation with WMF or one of the chapters was stated as an eligibility requirement. We should not be then surprised that only people with prior record of affiliation with WMF or one of the chapters were selected.
It is up to a debate whether this is the best strategy, but in the situation when out of the three community elected Board members only one is currently on the Board it could have been expected that the issue is sensitive.
Cheers Yaroslav
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org