[Wikimedia-l] WMF's New Global South Strategy

[Balázs Viczián]

What about making it simply global...?

Balázs
2013.08.30. 2:44, "Asaf Bartov" <abartov at wikimedia.org> ezt írta:

> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM, MZMcBride <z at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>