Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level. This is a discussion that should occur at the board level.
A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable.
But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the ideals behind the movement. They wouldn't be working at the Foundation if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about the mission.
Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe