So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
Well, there is a list of about 90 scoping questions from the movement
strategy process. Many of these questions in fact overlap or are
alternative ways of asking the same thing, but still there are plenty! :)
In particular, your questions about avoiding Anglo-American bias relates to
questions 3, 4 and 5 from the Diversity working group (1), and question 9
from Roles and Responsibilities. There doesn't seem to be anything from
Product & Technology along similar lines (though one could ask why not)
It would be absolutely great if there was as much thoughtful discussion of
these really broad issues as there has been about the proposal to basically
change one letter in the Wikimedia Foundation's name. The reason there
hasn't been is because big, broad issues are difficult to engage with,
while specific issues are easier to engage with. That's not a criticism,
more an invitation for more people to invest the time and energy to engage
with the big issue questions as well.
Chris
(1)
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
In many ways yes - not that branding isnt
important, but these two
conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
questions.
(Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group
email
lists - the summaries are high level and the
documents are high level
because that's where we're at....)
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman, <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the
branding discussion,
and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
like to have a more substantive discussion:
(1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
(2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
at length for additional participation (e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=23m and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ&t=30m et seq.) To be
honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
people use off-list emails instead?
Best regards,
Jim
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>