On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me
with
their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
So do I. :)
Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely focused on the mission of the movement.
Eh, no, that's not a valid argument. Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort. People manage to contribute to the projects if they want to. It's a matter of prioritization, as always in life. So we mustn't accept "maybe they're just too busy" as an excuse for why staffers purportedly "can't" edit. Many staffers do. Some don't. In both cases, it's by choice and preference.
I respect the decision of WMF staff to go home and take care of their personal business, or be involved in other outside activities, and then come back to work refreshed and ready to work on issues related to WMF and wikimedia movement.
So do I. :) (Indeed, I have had occasion to remind, uh, a colleague, that editing Wikipedia or its sister projects is a bit of an unusual hobby, and that it's Perfectly Fine to not choose to volunteer to do that on your personal time.)
But it that's their choice, they probably don't need to vote for the WMF Board of Trustees. Indeed, they probably won't be very informed voters if they could.
(to be clear, I have been responding specifically to the "staff may not have time to edit" argument, which I found unconvincing. I agree WMF staff (who do get a vote, in the status quo), should not be privileged over affiliate staff (who don't), i.e. that status quo is broken.)
A.