wikimedia-l | wikisource-l | meta | mediawiki | Phabricator | feedback

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform


#1

Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like,
saying it outright) that the BoT can’t fully take on the role of movement
leadership or community representation. Not because they think it shouldn’t
happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board of
Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.

Thanks Brion for starting this conversation. “Our community is our biggest
asset” do read the values.1 How do you reconcile the statement of some
board members with this stated value?

I think we should consider what roles and structures we do want as
members of the Wikimedia movement community.

The saying is “structure follows strategy”. One goal, or strategy can be
"As a movement we want healthy thriving communities".

A) One way to achieve that could be to delegate the task explicitly to each
individual community and help the members of that community to
(self)organize. For example to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of
people by active editors to accept certain representative roles, for
example in two way communication between foundation and community about
technology changes, but also to oversee processes to recruit new editors
and onboard them. I imagine a (s)election process like the (s)election of
community (s)elected BoT members, however with voters restricted to editors
who are active in that community (that is per project wiki of which there
are 900).

B) Another way would be to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of people in
a specific country by active editors in that country to accept certain
representative roles, for example in two way communication between
foundation and community about technology changes, but also to oversee
processes to recruit new editors and onboard them. I imagine a (s)election
process like the (s)election of community (s)elected BoT members, however
with voters restricted to editors who are active in that country based on
geo-ip. Maybe some countries are so big, that it would be wiser to do this
at state level.

This probably means we should think about “umbrella” structures to
coordinate and represent and look forward.

The failed attempts to WCA come to mind. That didn’t work. An association
of active editors legally separate from the WMF might be conceivable. Such
an assocation could be compartementalized by A) and B). The B) structures
might merge with existing chapters, I can imagine. (S)election of community
members for the BoT of the WMF could shift to the association.

That might end up outsourcing community support by the WMF to the
association, something Dariusz opposes :wink:

Regards,

Ad Huikeshoven


#2

B) Another way would be to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of people in
a specific country by active editors in that country to accept certain
representative roles, for example in two way communication between
foundation and community about technology changes, but also to oversee
processes to recruit new editors and onboard them. I imagine a (s)election
process like the (s)election of community (s)elected BoT members, however
with voters restricted to editors who are active in that country based on
geo-ip. Maybe some countries are so big, that it would be wiser to do this
at state level.

yup, that’s effectively the idea of volunteer community liaisons
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pundit/liaisons, I’ve been trying to
discuss for a while (in Mexico, Luis was quite receptive, but
understandably in the following months the idea did not receive the highest
priority).

dj


#3

if he opposes it, then maybe he and WMF needs to support the community. we have some baby steps with wish-list, but historically the communities & affiliates have not felt the WMF love.

“because structurally and legally and practically the board of Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.”

they fill the roles they want to fill; the WMF wants to be a software organization. that leaves the content organization and human resource management to other people. if they don’t like that responsibility fork, then they need to take responsibility.