[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Gnangarra]

I would hope the UCoC gives us the tools to address many of these long
delays. In all cases no matter how long the process  when it is completed,
the goals have shifted, there's new people, and they will one day want
their say.

It all comes down to one simple little idea that was the foundation of what
we have created "Assume Good Faith" .Once we moved away from that we
had to replace it with something that was process orientated with each
process we became better at identifying holes so we built more complex
processes but processes can never achieve the ideals we once reached for.
We have now become so scared to make a decision without everyone being ask,
so we hold a meetings, talk, then the outcome is always lets do a survey,
then lets check with the affiliates so goes to the regional hubs they hold
their meeting, then do another survey, then send it back to local
affiliates to give an opinion then the local affiliate sends out its own
survey.   All we have done is kicked the ball 6 months down the road with
no decision, then someone its often when just one that disagrees it gets
kicked back for another attempt.  In that first meeting the people there
could have decided with the same outcome thats taken 2 years to reach.


These long process development cycles necessitate paid opportunities just
following the trail of meetings and making sure the ball has gone down
every road whether the people along that road are really invested in the
individual product, and now the consideration of stipends for various
community guides; perhaps now the WMF has grown in size its worth looking
into how this growth is impacting community development.

It always amazes everyone what Wikimedians can do when left to just make it
happen.





On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 11:43, Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 6:25 PM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> The proposals that you list are a bit double edged. It may be necessary,
>> but they have downsides. For example, there are in a few cases very good
>> reasons to go back to the drawing board when we're talking about
>> foundational documents. It is annoying that it takes so long, but with time
>> we also should see increased ownership and an increased support base.
>> Having a single phase reduces the number of messages and time spent, but it
>> also reduces the process to a single point of failure, making it much
>> higher stakes. If you don't participate, you're too late. It would be nice
>> if we can somehow still lower the stakes by making processes more
>> iterative, and accepting that the outcome does not have to be the same for
>> a long period of time. But there is a fundamental tension between speed and
>> perceived pressure.
>>
>
> Do we really think that the dramatic increase in process has resulted in
> commensurately better community participation and buy-in? Doesn’t seem like
> it. Seems like we still get the same relatively tiny number voices who care
> a lot about global governance structure, and everyone else in the community
> mostly just votes when advertised to.
>
> In any case, taking multiple years to do things like even outline what
> say, a code of conduct committee or global council (I still have no clue
> WTF that really is) will even look like and do is egregiously slow by any
> standard.
>
> I'm less concerned about elections, if only one of these rounds involves
>> the community. If having an additional round of filtering helps to make the
>> ballot easier to digest (reduced to six candidates for three positions
>> sounds great to me!) that also means less mental effort for voters. The
>> real question is: how much cumulative time are we spending on this process
>> (or rather: should we be spending on this, if we want a good outcome). If
>> 100 people spend an extra 2 hour to trim down from 30 to 6 candidates, that
>> is worth it, because 10,000 people don't have to read 30 statements, bio's,
>> Q's etc. If we go from 7 to 6 candidates, maybe less so.
>> If doing another drafting round means 30 people spend an extra 10 hours
>> drafting, that may be worth it, if it means that 1000 people don't have to
>> be frustrated for a year because they constantly run into consequences of
>> the policy and have to go through protests to get it changed. If the
>> iteration for things that don't work is more lightweight, maybe we can just
>> try it for a year, and evaluate after that.
>>
>> Maybe it's worth it to sometimes take a napkin and do the math: how much
>> collective time are we going to spend on this?
>>
>> Best,
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:12 PM Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Nathan  wrote:
>>>


 On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling <
 steven.wall...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's
>> + staff 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Steven Walling]

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 6:25 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> The proposals that you list are a bit double edged. It may be necessary,
> but they have downsides. For example, there are in a few cases very good
> reasons to go back to the drawing board when we're talking about
> foundational documents. It is annoying that it takes so long, but with time
> we also should see increased ownership and an increased support base.
> Having a single phase reduces the number of messages and time spent, but it
> also reduces the process to a single point of failure, making it much
> higher stakes. If you don't participate, you're too late. It would be nice
> if we can somehow still lower the stakes by making processes more
> iterative, and accepting that the outcome does not have to be the same for
> a long period of time. But there is a fundamental tension between speed and
> perceived pressure.
>

Do we really think that the dramatic increase in process has resulted in
commensurately better community participation and buy-in? Doesn’t seem like
it. Seems like we still get the same relatively tiny number voices who care
a lot about global governance structure, and everyone else in the community
mostly just votes when advertised to.

In any case, taking multiple years to do things like even outline what say,
a code of conduct committee or global council (I still have no clue WTF
that really is) will even look like and do is egregiously slow by any
standard.

I'm less concerned about elections, if only one of these rounds involves
> the community. If having an additional round of filtering helps to make the
> ballot easier to digest (reduced to six candidates for three positions
> sounds great to me!) that also means less mental effort for voters. The
> real question is: how much cumulative time are we spending on this process
> (or rather: should we be spending on this, if we want a good outcome). If
> 100 people spend an extra 2 hour to trim down from 30 to 6 candidates, that
> is worth it, because 10,000 people don't have to read 30 statements, bio's,
> Q's etc. If we go from 7 to 6 candidates, maybe less so.
> If doing another drafting round means 30 people spend an extra 10 hours
> drafting, that may be worth it, if it means that 1000 people don't have to
> be frustrated for a year because they constantly run into consequences of
> the policy and have to go through protests to get it changed. If the
> iteration for things that don't work is more lightweight, maybe we can just
> try it for a year, and evaluate after that.
>
> Maybe it's worth it to sometimes take a napkin and do the math: how much
> collective time are we going to spend on this?
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:12 PM Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Nathan  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
 wrote:

> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>
> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current
> initiatives are not even a good aim to begin with.
>
> cheers,
> scann


 100% this.

 The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
 they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
 limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
 include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
 multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
 review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
 intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
 people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
 manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
 perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
 possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
 consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
 less than five."[1]

 The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of
 strong leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or
 safety to do things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations
 possible. This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no
 one really knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck
 because we're trying to reset our governance to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[effe iets anders]

The proposals that you list are a bit double edged. It may be necessary,
but they have downsides. For example, there are in a few cases very good
reasons to go back to the drawing board when we're talking about
foundational documents. It is annoying that it takes so long, but with time
we also should see increased ownership and an increased support base.
Having a single phase reduces the number of messages and time spent, but it
also reduces the process to a single point of failure, making it much
higher stakes. If you don't participate, you're too late. It would be nice
if we can somehow still lower the stakes by making processes more
iterative, and accepting that the outcome does not have to be the same for
a long period of time. But there is a fundamental tension between speed and
perceived pressure.

I'm less concerned about elections, if only one of these rounds involves
the community. If having an additional round of filtering helps to make the
ballot easier to digest (reduced to six candidates for three positions
sounds great to me!) that also means less mental effort for voters. The
real question is: how much cumulative time are we spending on this process
(or rather: should we be spending on this, if we want a good outcome). If
100 people spend an extra 2 hour to trim down from 30 to 6 candidates, that
is worth it, because 10,000 people don't have to read 30 statements, bio's,
Q's etc. If we go from 7 to 6 candidates, maybe less so.
If doing another drafting round means 30 people spend an extra 10 hours
drafting, that may be worth it, if it means that 1000 people don't have to
be frustrated for a year because they constantly run into consequences of
the policy and have to go through protests to get it changed. If the
iteration for things that don't work is more lightweight, maybe we can just
try it for a year, and evaluate after that.

Maybe it's worth it to sometimes take a napkin and do the math: how much
collective time are we going to spend on this?

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:12 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
 staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
 results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
 process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
 allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
 for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.

 It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
 are not even a good aim to begin with.

 cheers,
 scann
>>>
>>>
>>> 100% this.
>>>
>>> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
>>> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
>>> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
>>> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
>>> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
>>> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
>>> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
>>> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
>>> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
>>> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
>>> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
>>> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
>>> less than five."[1]
>>>
>>> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of
>>> strong leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or
>>> safety to do things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations
>>> possible. This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no
>>> one really knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck
>>> because we're trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where
>>> it's unclear who is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to
>>> solve that by perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or
>>> council of people. It's turtles all the way down.
>>>
>>> 1:
>>> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>>>
>>>
>> I think that means we need to acknowledge some culpability for this
>> phenomena - in environments like this list, folks learn that no decision is
>> too benign to spark controversy and any actually controversial decision is
>> guaranteed to garner a vitriolic backlash.
>>
>> Combine that with the normal tendencies of bureaucracies, magnified by
>> the special nature of the WMF, and the result is explosive 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Steven Walling]

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 4:35 PM Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
>>> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
>>> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
>>> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
>>> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
>>> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>>>
>>> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
>>> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> scann
>>
>>
>> 100% this.
>>
>> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
>> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
>> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
>> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
>> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
>> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
>> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
>> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
>> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
>> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
>> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
>> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
>> less than five."[1]
>>
>> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
>> leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
>> things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
>> This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
>> knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
>> trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
>> is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
>> perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
>> people. It's turtles all the way down.
>>
>> 1:
>> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>>
>>
> I think that means we need to acknowledge some culpability for this
> phenomena - in environments like this list, folks learn that no decision is
> too benign to spark controversy and any actually controversial decision is
> guaranteed to garner a vitriolic backlash.
>
> Combine that with the normal tendencies of bureaucracies, magnified by the
> special nature of the WMF, and the result is explosive growth in
> distributed decision-making organs.
>
> Accurate insights from SJ and others, if not necessarily new, but unlikely
> to lead to change because all the incentives that led to this place remain.
>

Yes completely true.

Some of the other bullet points in that guide to sabotage are things like
“argue over precise wordings of things” that are endemic to the culture of
the projects for reasons that may be  unfixable.

Coming back to SJ’s original point, the tangible immediate kind of changes
the Board and Maryana could enforce are:

- Set more aggressive deadlines for forming new governance bodies and
policies. None of these processes should take multiple years to get
running.
- Reduce the number of pre-planned stages of duplicative feedback /
drafting periods.
- Where elections are necessary just do a single round of ranked choice
voting after an open call for candidates.

What else?

___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UKFPEJYU5HYLOGFMJFTPPLVG5LBAUVI4/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OFOOIXKTBQDHIYT473MKR4UL35VHBFNW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Bodhisattwa]

+1 to this. The constant bombardment of messages to call for volunteers to
engage in different highly complicated and bureaucratic top down processes
are wasting valuable volunteer time and resources and over-stretching
already thinned lines of global south communities. It needs to be
understood, that there are many other serious priorities for Wikimedia
volunteers than to spend time in all kinds of time consuming governance
processes.

Regards,
Bodhisattwa



On Fri, May 20, 2022, 03:08 Steven Walling  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
>> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
>> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
>> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
>> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
>> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>>
>> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
>> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>>
>> cheers,
>> scann
>
>
> 100% this.
>
> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
> less than five."[1]
>
> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
> leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
> things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
> This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
> knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
> trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
> is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
> perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
> people. It's turtles all the way down.
>
> 1:
> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>
>
>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZXLHIUOCI4BCCH4PC5DZT4W2ACIWF5L/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/I45LFY7H3BYBZXVH3GQAQGBPN4DTTRJN/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/D7OTYLSQ7WI65VGG6IIYVA43L56IGWTX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:38 PM Steven Walling 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
>> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
>> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
>> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
>> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
>> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>>
>> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
>> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>>
>> cheers,
>> scann
>
>
> 100% this.
>
> The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
> they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
> limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
> include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
> multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
> review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
> intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
> people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
> manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
> perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
> possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
> consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
> less than five."[1]
>
> The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
> leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
> things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
> This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
> knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
> trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
> is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
> perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
> people. It's turtles all the way down.
>
> 1:
> https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html
>
>
I think that means we need to acknowledge some culpability for this
phenomena - in environments like this list, folks learn that no decision is
too benign to spark controversy and any actually controversial decision is
guaranteed to garner a vitriolic backlash.

Combine that with the normal tendencies of bureaucracies, magnified by the
special nature of the WMF, and the result is explosive growth in
distributed decision-making organs.

Accurate insights from SJ and others, if not necessarily new, but unlikely
to lead to change because all the incentives that led to this place remain.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UKFPEJYU5HYLOGFMJFTPPLVG5LBAUVI4/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Steven Walling]

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
wrote:

> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>
> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>
> cheers,
> scann


100% this.

The intentions behind the complex governance processes are good in that
they intend to increase inclusivity. But it’s easy to forget the most
limited resource we have is the attention of volunteers. The groups we
include the least today have the least free time and money. Longer,
multi-step processes to form and elect committees to set up committees to
review processes to inform a decision then has exactly the opposite of the
intended effect because it reduces participation to the slim group of
people who have the time and patience for such a process. The CIA wrote a
manual about how to sabotage organizations, and it’s like they wrote a
perfect description of exactly how things operate right now: "When
possible, refer all matters to committees for further study and
consideration. Attempt to make the committee as large as possible–never
less than five."[1]

The other reason we ended up in this situation is simply a lack of strong
leadership. People feel like they don't have the permission or safety to do
things unless they've done the maximum amount of consultations possible.
This is why decisions flounder in limbo for a long time, with no one really
knowing if they are happening or not happening. We're stuck because we're
trying to reset our governance to solve the problem where it's unclear who
is able to decide what and when... but we're trying to solve that by
perpetually punting a decision to some other committee or council of
people. It's turtles all the way down.

1:
https://www.openculture.com/2022/01/read-the-cias-simple-sabotage-field-manual.html



> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZXLHIUOCI4BCCH4PC5DZT4W2ACIWF5L/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/I45LFY7H3BYBZXVH3GQAQGBPN4DTTRJN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Hackathon May 20-22: Info you need for tomorrow’s event

[Melinda Seckington]

Hi everyone,

We hope you’re ready for this three-day event, because the event starts in
10 hours!

The main hackathon will take place over the weekend (Friday through
Sunday), with two sets of core hours for sessions, social events, and
hacking. These core hours are:

   -

   3:00  - 6:00
   UTC (Note: this is
   tonight for some time zones!)
   -

   15:00 - 19:0
   0 UTC


We’re expecting the virtual space to be the busiest at these times. Outside
of those core hours, you’re welcome to stay online to hack on projects,
collaborate with others, or hang out in the virtual space.

The goal with this schedule is to allow time for breaks and to accommodate
as many time zones as possible. You are not expected to attend both sets of
core hours - choose whichever hours work for you! For more info, see the
Schedule .

When will the event start?

The opening ceremony will happen twice - once at 3:00 UTC, and once at
15:00 UTC on May 20. Find the links on the schedule
!

How can I join the virtual space?

We’ll be using an online game-style space for the Hackathon. The links will
be published shortly before the event on the hackathon page on MediaWiki.org
. There will be
rooms for hacking and for sessions. Feel free to explore the virtual space
and join any room - they’re open for everyone!

What happens if I need help?

Once the platform goes live, you will be able to find a Help Desk where you
can ask questions, report any incidents, or just consult useful information
about the event. There are also discussion channels
 that
you can participate in.

How can I work on a project?

If you have an idea, you will be able to add your own projects
 on Phabricator. If
you don’t know yet what to work on, see what projects
 others will be
working on. You might find a project to join or get inspiration for your
own idea!

If you have any other questions, please check our FAQ
 section or
leave a comment on the talk page.

See you soon!

Melinda, for the Hackathon Committee


-- 
Melinda Seckington
Developer Advocacy Manager
Wikimedia Foundation 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/JJURMAHDDXYWWCC7EBEECK45E45B6VZV/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification

[Stella Ng]

Hello all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the
analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the
Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.

Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022,
the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes
from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German,
French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias,
and Meta-wiki.

Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the
Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are
written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest
numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and
Russian (12).

A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine
the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from
the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is *published
on Meta-wiki here*
.
The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help
translate to your language.

Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite
everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More
information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines
can be found on Meta-wiki

.

On behalf of the Universal Code of Conduct project team

Stella Ng
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/Z2LSWHLFUTYO7EUQHGWVRYSK2ZELO2H5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[effe iets anders]

Mostly agree with SJ here, with one exception: I do think that some
standing committee to rule on conduct issues is necessary to be community
elected (not sure if I understood SJ correctly that he was not in favor of
this though). Lets call it some version of separation of powers, and a
necessary process effort to ensure trust in that system.

But in general, I agree that while consultations and community decisions
are important, we have to get smarter at them. This is in part being
selective with how we advertise things (be cautious with the use of your
megaphone), more structured and accessible off-cycle engagement (reducing
the all-importance of formal processes) and indeed better delegation.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 10:27 AM Evelin Heidel 
wrote:

> +1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's +
> staff time + resources into complex governance processes without clear
> results. In theory, the reason why you want this much transparency &
> process is to make sure decision making (and in turn resources) are
> allocated fairly, but in practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard
> for people to participate, leading to even more inequality.
>
> It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives
> are not even a good aim to begin with.
>
> cheers,
> scann
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZXLHIUOCI4BCCH4PC5DZT4W2ACIWF5L/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LNV55WCN745BYLASXR4CUSE3HXWZOEC7/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Save the date: Conversation hour with Maggie Dennis on Community Resilience & Sustainability on June 2

[Cornelius Kibelka]

Hi all,

Sending out a save the date: On *June 2 at 17:00 UTC* (check your local time
), the Community Resilience &
Sustainability

team at the Wikimedia Foundation is hosting a new conversation hour with
its Vice President Maggie Dennis
.

Topics within the scope of this call include Movement Strategy
coordination, Trust and Safety (and the Universal Code of Conduct),
Community Development, and Human Rights.

The conversation hour will take place on Zoom and will be live-streamed on
Youtube (link to be shared soon). Send us your questions in advance or join
the call to talk with Maggie. More details on Meta
.

Cheers
Cornelius

-- 

Cornelius Kibelka (he/him)

Event Coordinator

Movement Strategy + Governance

2030.wikimedia.org



*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate.
*

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UF3WSRRSXDROITUWMOKTEJ37CNQTNPT2/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Evelin Heidel]

+1 to this, my perception is that we're wasting a lot of volunteer's + staff 
time + resources into complex governance processes without clear results. In 
theory, the reason why you want this much transparency & process is to make 
sure decision making (and in turn resources) are allocated fairly, but in 
practice so much bureaucracy makes it very hard for people to participate, 
leading to even more inequality. 

It's a complex balance to strike but definitely the current initiatives are not 
even a good aim to begin with.

cheers,
scann
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZXLHIUOCI4BCCH4PC5DZT4W2ACIWF5L/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Newyorkbrad]

I haven't steeped myself in WMF governance details in the past couple of
years, but SJ's observation strikes me as sensible.

For example, after 15+ years of board governance, we shouldn't have to
spend time every year debating how the Board is to be selected, each time
resulting in a more complicated process than before.

The situation reminds me of the sort of rules-creep we frequently see on
English WIkipedia.  Each individual change is well-intentioned and on its
own may make sense, but the cumulative effect is much too complicated, and
to newcomers sometimes virtually impenetrable.  (Cf.
https://slate.com/technology/2014/06/wikipedias-bureaucracy-problem-and-how-to-fix-it.html
, which as it happens was written by a current WMF board member.)

That being said, I'm not sure what specifically should be done to address
this problem.  In particular, let's not create a committee and process to
decide whether we have too many committees and processes.

Best regards,
Newyorkbrad/IBM

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 4:45 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Dear Board (and all),
>
> The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process
> creep  is
> an existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if
> not actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess
> process. There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous
> titles.
>
> Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's
> try to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least somewhat confusing:
>
> *Global Council*: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  After 6
> months of work in private, we know the charter will cover governance,
> resourcing, & community
> .  A ratifiable
> charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then *another* group may
> draft an election process. Council elections would start mid-2024.
>
> *Conduct*: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review &
> revision process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement by
> *another* group (U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual
> elections for it [starting in 2023?].
>
> *WMF Board*: A *four*-stage election, with a new complex nomination
> template. Nominees evaluated by *another* elected 9-person Analysis
> Committee, followed by a two-stage vote.
> Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.
>
> Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be
> different, complex affairs.
> And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti
> through a straw.
>
> ~ ~ ~
> Four short proposals for your consideration:
>
> 1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
> We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical
> reasons. What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What major
> issues + nuances are at play?
>
> 2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent.
> Build tools and frameworks that *conserve* rather than soak up community
> time.  Make longer processes capture proportionately detailed results.
> Empower a standing election committee.
>
> 3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization,
> regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies.
> *Support* organizers + facilitators rather than *hiring* them out of
> their communities to facilitate on behalf of a central org.
>
> 4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate *design* and
> *implementation*.
> Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against arbitrary
> mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or
> exaggerate staff-community division.
>
> 풲♡,  SJ
>
> --
> Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7UVDBQTEWTR3ZNYLEP5TWAOVHF372OEL/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YRALVPPHAWMMATDUSUTZVBHG2CXOKAU6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Željko Blaće]

I just got in touch with RIPE.net folx who have a conference now in Berlin
and they seem to be interested in helping.

John would be in a good position as former RIPE now WMF staff to evaluate
this and follow up.

Best wishes - Z. Blace

On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 5:05 PM Florence Devouard 
wrote:

> I have not further commented because I did not feel I could help further
> at this point. But I wanted to point out that the issue is still on my
> "concerns" list :)
>
> I am looking forward to read your findings when process is completed.
>
> Flo
>
> Le 12/05/2022 à 01:02, Niharika Kohli a écrit :
>
> Hi Butch,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions. On our end, the Wikimedia Foundation Product
> department is currently undertaking stakeholder discussions in all the
> areas you mentioned to understand the problem from all different
> perspectives. As we go through this process we are also looking at
> potential technical solutions that would reduce some of the pain points
> that have been brought up both here and on the talk page. There are some
> existing recommendations on this mailing list and the meta page that are
> good starting points for these discussions.
> We will be summarizing our findings and sharing them on this list and the
> talk page once we have completed this process. If anyone has direct
> feedback, my inbox is always open.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 9:59 PM  wrote:
>
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> Let me suggest three things:
>>
>> 1. For Outreach events, campaigns, GLAM events that conduct new user
>> training and editathons, the Foundation Programs Team (
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns/Foundation_Programs_Team)
>> should proactively coordinate with event organizers and/or foundation grant
>> applicants and offer assistance to link them with administrators to grant
>> IP exemptions or account creation / event organizer rights.
>>
>> 2. For WMF Movement Communications Team and Foundation Product
>> Development Team to conduct stakeholder discussions (end users, event
>> organizers, active editors) including this mailing list, talk pages,
>> virtual / video conferences and come up with a thorough document
>> summarizing the feedbacks. We should not end decisions on Talk pages and
>> mailing list alone.
>>
>> 3. For the technology team & tech community to come up with an update on
>> the 18 year old IP block policy that is target bad faith editors and
>> balancing it with middle to low income communities (Africa, South and
>> Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, South America) with shared internet
>> infrastructure such as mobile data/ school internet connections.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Butch
>> Southeast Asia
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AVBXBOXQQY2DXD6LYF5J4F6R2CRQBYTH/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Niharika
> Product Manager
> Anti-Harassment Tools team
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ESZ2KQCPJTMGXQP6UXKIILZKC44TKMO6/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/V7CYHLNZ5KUHTKLG4PC2SPC6UIKRLQGU/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/KG63TLXHMQ4KTVKIOHNZ5FPRSS5ROS75/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open proxies and IP blocking

[Florence Devouard]

I have not further commented because I did not feel I could help further 
at this point. But I wanted to point out that the issue is still on my 
"concerns" list :)


I am looking forward to read your findings when process is completed.

Flo

Le 12/05/2022 à 01:02, Niharika Kohli a écrit :

Hi Butch,

Thanks for your suggestions. On our end, the Wikimedia Foundation 
Product department is currently undertaking stakeholder discussions in 
all the areas you mentioned to understand the problem from all 
different perspectives. As we go through this process we are also 
looking at potential technical solutions that would reduce some of the 
pain points that have been brought up both here and on the talk page. 
There are some existing recommendations on this mailing list and the 
meta page that are good starting points for these discussions.
We will be summarizing our findings and sharing them on this list and 
the talk page once we have completed this process. If anyone 
has direct feedback, my inbox is always open.


Thanks!



On Sat, May 7, 2022 at 9:59 PM  wrote:

Hello Everyone,

Let me suggest three things:

1. For Outreach events, campaigns, GLAM events that conduct new
user training and editathons, the Foundation Programs Team
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Campaigns/Foundation_Programs_Team)
should proactively coordinate with event organizers and/or
foundation grant applicants and offer assistance to link them with
administrators to grant IP exemptions or account creation / event
organizer rights.

2. For WMF Movement Communications Team and Foundation Product
Development Team to conduct stakeholder discussions (end users,
event organizers, active editors) including this mailing list,
talk pages, virtual / video conferences and come up with a
thorough document summarizing the feedbacks. We should not end
decisions on Talk pages and mailing list alone.

3. For the technology team & tech community to come up with an
update on the 18 year old IP block policy that is target bad faith
editors and balancing it with middle to low income communities
(Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, South America)
with shared internet infrastructure such as mobile data/ school
internet connections.

Thanks.


Kind regards,

Butch
Southeast Asia
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AVBXBOXQQY2DXD6LYF5J4F6R2CRQBYTH/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org



--
Niharika
Product Manager
Anti-Harassment Tools team
Wikimedia Foundation



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines 
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines  
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives 
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ESZ2KQCPJTMGXQP6UXKIILZKC44TKMO6/
To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/V7CYHLNZ5KUHTKLG4PC2SPC6UIKRLQGU/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Florence Devouard]

+1

Florence

(the WMF board elections Analysis Committee selection process... 
really... ugh)



Le 19/05/2022 à 13:50, Peter Southwood a écrit :


+1

P

*From:*Samuel Klein [mailto:meta...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* 18 May 2022 22:44
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Simplifying governance processes

Dear Board (and all),

The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process 
creep 
 is 
an existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating 
if not actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess 
process. There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have 
unglamorous titles.


Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. 
Let's try to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least 
somewhat confusing:


*Global Council*: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  
After 6 months of work in private, we know the charter will cover 
governance, resourcing, & community 
.  A 
ratifiable charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then 
*another* group may draft an election process. Council elections would 
start mid-2024.


*Conduct*: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review & 
revision process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement 
by *another* group (U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual 
elections for it [starting in 2023?].


*WMF Board*: A /four/-stage election, with a new complex nomination 
template. Nominees evaluated by *another* elected 9-person Analysis 
Committee, followed by a two-stage vote.

Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.

Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be 
different, complex affairs.
And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti 
through a straw.


~ ~ ~

Four short proposals for your consideration:

1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical 
reasons. What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What 
major issues + nuances are at play?


2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent.
Build tools and frameworks that /conserve/ rather than soak up 
community time.  Make longer processes capture proportionately 
detailed results. Empower a standing election committee.


3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization, 
regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies. 
/Support/ organizers + facilitators rather than /hiring/ them out of 
their communities to facilitate on behalf of a central org.


4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate /design/ and 
/implementation/.


Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against 
arbitrary mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or 
exaggerate staff-community division.


풲♡,  SJ

--

Samuel Klein          @metasj w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266





Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list --wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines 
at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines  
andhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives 
athttps://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TRFX5636NPWQ2Z4PVREVG7SNOAPPVUMW/
To unsubscribe send an email towikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PQQDOIQ6LU22OYLKIXJ6STPRWJRA44XT/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: To make apodictic articles

[Ashwin Baindur]

This is a meaningful and praiseworthy goal which is near impossible to
achieve but it's more important that we work at it than focus on the fact
that it can't be completed due to the nature of the platform.

What I don't understand is the use of the adjective "apodictic" seeing that
Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth. 樂

All the best, AshLin

On Thu, 19 May, 2022, 12:44 am ,  wrote:

> We have to complete all stub articles in wikipedia.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7QT3WJ25LAYGQHTIYJIJBIVT4SZ5PWFA/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UHBQV25KKWQIRAK7DQPDJRVSR2CEAXIF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: To make apodictic articles

[Peter Southwood]

Which may never happen. Cheers, Peter

-Original Message-
From: suvratjai...@gmail.com [mailto:suvratjai...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 18 May 2022 06:30
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] To make apodictic articles

We have to complete all stub articles in wikipedia.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/
message/7QT3WJ25LAYGQHTIYJIJBIVT4SZ5PWFA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PEBD6LB3GEF6M5G4LGLZCHK47SLCRMIG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Simplifying governance processes

[Peter Southwood]

+1

P

 

From: Samuel Klein [mailto:meta...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 18 May 2022 22:44
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Simplifying governance processes

 

Dear Board (and all),

 

The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process creep 
  is an 
existential threat for projects like ours – it is self-perpetuating if not 
actively curtailed, as it filters out people who dislike excess process. 
There's a reason 'bureaucrats' and 'stewards' have unglamorous titles.

 

Global governance in particular seems to be suffering from this now. Let's try 
to scale it back!  Recent developments, all at least somewhat confusing:

 

Global Council: A three-stage vote for the drafting committee.  After 6 months 
of work in private, we know the charter will cover governance, resourcing,  
 & community.  A 
ratifiable charter by 2023 should include Council scope, then another group may 
draft an election process. Council elections would start mid-2024.

 

Conduct: Two years from first draft to realization. Custom review & revision 
process for policy, set to change ~once a year. Enforcement by another group 
(U4C), not yet defined, with an idea about annual elections for it [starting in 
2023?].

 

WMF Board: A four-stage election, with a new complex nomination template. 
Nominees evaluated by another elected 9-person Analysis Committee, followed by 
a two-stage vote.
Months of process, 16 staff facilitators.  

 

Something has to give. We don't have time for all of these to be different, 
complex affairs. 
And this complexity feels self-imposed, like trying to push spaghetti through a 
straw. 

 

~ ~ ~

Four short proposals for your consideration:

 

1. Focus discussions on the decisions we need to resolve, not on process.
We need a foundation Board & global Council for specific practical reasons. 
What challenges do they need to resolve this year?  What major issues + nuances 
are at play?

2. Make elections simple, flexible, consistent. 
Build tools and frameworks that conserve rather than soak up community time.  
Make longer processes capture proportionately detailed results. Empower a 
standing election committee.

 

3. Highlight ways people can engage with governance + prioritization, 
regionally + globally, beyond winning elections to procedural bodies. Support 
organizers + facilitators rather than hiring them out of their communities to 
facilitate on behalf of a central org.

 

4. Delegate more.  Delegate to community.  Delegate design and implementation.

Our communities excel at self-organization, and rebel against arbitrary 
mandates. Avoid language or policies that remove agency or exaggerate 
staff-community division.

 

풲♡,  SJ

 

-- 

Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

 


 

 

Virus-free.  

 www.avg.com 

 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TRFX5636NPWQ2Z4PVREVG7SNOAPPVUMW/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] UNLOCK free knowledge projects | 10 days left to apply

[Kannika Thaimai]

Dear fellow Wikimedians,

We would like to remind you of the open call for applications to join the
Wikimedia accelerator program – UNLOCK .


Applications are open until May 29th!

== What type of ideas are we looking for? ==

The program calls for ideas and projects that break down social and
technical barriers preventing people from both accessing and contributing
to free knowledge. The ideas could cover

   -

   new technologies or tools that support more diverse modes and formats of
   knowledge (audio, visual, video, etc.). One example for this is an UNLOCK
   2020 project Audiopedia – an open source platform for audio content that
   addresses primarily non-readers in the Global South <
   https://www.audiopedia.org/>; or
   -

   further development of existing Wikimedia projects to create new impact
   projects, such as GovDirectory (participants in UNLOCK 2021) – a global
   directory of government agencies and their online presence by utilizing
   Wikidata. This project does not only use Wikidata, but also help improve
   the data on Wikidata <
   
https://www.wikimedia.de/unlock/unlock-projects/government-online-presence-directory/>;
   or
   -

   alternative practices and concepts that create more opportunities for
   everyone to participate in free knowledge projects – your idea for a more
   inclusive representation of the diverse knowledge of our world.

== Who can apply? ==

We are looking for Wikimedians as well as free knowledge enthusiasts,
developers, designers and activists from outside the Wikimedia movement.
UNLOCK 2022 has a geographical focus on Western Balkans and German-speaking
regions.

== Additional information and support ==

Please head over to the UNLOCK program page for details <
https://www.wikimedia.de/unlock/program/>.

If you require further assistance with your application or if you have an
idea but are not sure whether or not to apply, feel free to reach out to
the organizing team behind the program via email: unl...@wikimedia.de

All the best

Kannika (WMDE) and Ivana (WMRS)

-- 

Kannika Thaimai (she/her)Innovation Engine Strategy LeadWMDE
innovation engine strategy

| UNLOCK Accelerator 
LinkedIn  | Twitter


Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Phone: +49 30 577 11 62 0

Wikimedia Deutschland – Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/FBBZBIHTNYLNSQHHIPA3FDUMJKZJDHHZ/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org