On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:03 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)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