On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:03 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James, is there any good reason to keep the exception? Imo it is a wrong signal we send out. At the end of the day all good governance rules suggest to minimize administrative tasks. And by definition everything which a "client " does not see, I.e Content or software, is administrative.
Rupert
[ended up being long, sorry :( ]
Are you speaking about the staff rule only or all of them? I had one of the committee members call me out for calling it an 'exception' before and their argument made sense to me, so I'm currently trying to think of them all as they recommended as different ways to be enfranchised. That may sound a bit like word play but... the more I've thought about it the more I agreed the exception word sounded wrong.
Speaking just for myself I would say yes to generally all of the different rules (though I would, personally, lower the edit requirements). This because I do not think the "community" is one group and until and unless we parcel out seats to different groups (which I'm not actually sure we should do, I'd prefer them all to be more general 'community' seats). As part of that I don't think we should be strict with what we consider the community because I think, in a very real sense, each of the "how to vote" options represent a way to ensure the community and the stakeholders can be involved. I think that having the other options actually sends a better message then not having them.
*Editing: *Obviously editors are the biggest group here, and the vast majority of staff who would be so inclined to vote will fall here too (I qualify on both my volunteer account and my staff account for example, though given my election role I don't vote at all). That's how it should be, and I honestly don't see that changing. It's also why I probably wouldn't "fight" too hard if the other options were remove simply
*Staff: *I have always thought that the Staff need to be considered part of the community. While they have different roles at times (and at times share roles with volunteers) the Us v Them mentality that can become part of the thinking for both groups is poisonous to the projects as a whole. In order for it to succeed everyone needs to be seen as on the same side. There are never going to be many people who would qualify as Staff but don't qualify as Editors (at least with their staff account and we've never drawn a distinction for voting historically) and still want to vote but I think encouraging them to think of themselves as part of the community (and to send the message that they are) is important. [I also think it's good to involve staff in governance wherever possible, though not exclusively obviously, they need to feel part of it. Similar reasons why a corporation often gives out stock to their employees which allows them to own part of the company and to, indeed, vote for the Board of Directors.]
*Developers*: Again we've historically had very few people who met this requirement, wanted to vote, and didn't qualify through some other means (usually editing) but MediaWiki is not just the software we run it's also, essentially, a full fledged project that an enormous amount of 3rd parties use. I would love to find good ways to encourage the community of 3rd party developers to take part in this governance.
*Current/Old Board/FDC/Advisory Board: *I see this mostly as not booting those who have been in the trenches and know what the work actually entails.
I could certainly see other groups, including affiliates, who might make sense to be in this list (though with the current structure I have some concerns of double enfranchisement even if I personally wouldn't choose the current structure) but I don't currently see great reasons to get rid of the options we have other then just 'simplicity'. That isn't a horrible reason of course, I'm just not sure it's necessary.
(obviously not speaking for the committee or with my staff hat on though obviously, as Greg said, those roles influence me.. though most of it hasn't changed since long before I was staff)
James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur