Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
The chapters is part of the Movement, and the guys inside the chapter too. *a collection of organizations (Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia chapters etc.), as well as individuals and similar-minded organizations. *- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement Is very easy to understand, just replace Chapter by another NGO partner,sometimes not all people inside the NGO are imbued in helping the Wikimedia Movement, however as the institution supports the Movement, it is part of the Movement regardless of who is in there. On 24 February 2013 07:27, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.huwrote: Maybe I wasn't clear enough, imo chapters are NOT part of the communities (nor the global community), just a tool for them to achieve certain goals that otherwise would be much more difficult or (almost) impossible to reach. Balázs 2013.02.24. 10:34, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com ezt írta: Two things, one is, I do not know why these discussions are not held in a Wiki ( ie meta), which is easier to document and much easier to follow. The second point: I think the chapters are a significant part of the community, however, as only one part, the chapters can not, should not speak for the whole. Thus, it is interesting to have people with most varied visions, perhaps because chapter people is not interesting some kind of group, but for others from the Movement, that affiliation is What they need. More than that, if you only choose people of the chapters, you will never have different visions, so you always forced, in a way, that group fits in your reality, or be like a European chapter. observations - If there is doubt as what's the chapter role in the Movement, how can we know what is a chapter? Why is there so much energy lost in bureaucracies, rather than focusing on activities? Chapters are made to perform activities? If yes, so why not prioritize the best local structures for this to occur? If not, why choose people from chapter to decide about other types of groups that only will do activities? - Why AffCom discussions are closed, since you are not the whole community? Why need to be so few people, and so obscure? Why not follow the other current processes and make openings for communities? - If a chapter is something that is done to serve the needs of online communities, and people of the chapters make decisions without consulting these communities, without discussing the annual planning, or strategic planning with these communities, how can they accomplish what online communities want? And thinking in that, how they will those who is the best group for affiliation for the communities? On 23 February 2013 15:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: I see some fundamental misunderstandings here, which make this discussion so far not so productive and for which I am/was planning a reply... however, in the end I doubt I'd manage to say it better than Anthere: http://article.gmane.org/**gmane.org.wikimedia.**foundation/6652 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/6652 Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
Two things, one is, I do not know why these discussions are not held in a Wiki ( ie meta), which is easier to document and much easier to follow. The second point: I think the chapters are a significant part of the community, however, as only one part, the chapters can not, should not speak for the whole. Thus, it is interesting to have people with most varied visions, perhaps because chapter people is not interesting some kind of group, but for others from the Movement, that affiliation is What they need. More than that, if you only choose people of the chapters, you will never have different visions, so you always forced, in a way, that group fits in your reality, or be like a European chapter. observations - If there is doubt as what's the chapter role in the Movement, how can we know what is a chapter? Why is there so much energy lost in bureaucracies, rather than focusing on activities? Chapters are made to perform activities? If yes, so why not prioritize the best local structures for this to occur? If not, why choose people from chapter to decide about other types of groups that only will do activities? - Why AffCom discussions are closed, since you are not the whole community? Why need to be so few people, and so obscure? Why not follow the other current processes and make openings for communities? - If a chapter is something that is done to serve the needs of online communities, and people of the chapters make decisions without consulting these communities, without discussing the annual planning, or strategic planning with these communities, how can they accomplish what online communities want? And thinking in that, how they will those who is the best group for affiliation for the communities? On 23 February 2013 15:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: I see some fundamental misunderstandings here, which make this discussion so far not so productive and for which I am/was planning a reply... however, in the end I doubt I'd manage to say it better than Anthere: http://article.gmane.org/**gmane.org.wikimedia.**foundation/6652http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/6652 Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com +55 11 979 718 884 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On 24 February 2013 10:27, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: Maybe I wasn't clear enough, imo chapters are NOT part of the communities (nor the global community), just a tool for them to achieve certain goals that otherwise would be much more difficult or (almost) impossible to reach. +1 With the logical extension that so are AffCom, the FDC, the WCA, the WMF ... If these tools become ineffective, then we should look again at what we (the movement) need in our tool box. Indeed I believe we have been doing precisely that by creating the FDC and the WCA in the last two years and the WMF has strategically been 'narrowing focus'. As an unpaid volunteer and thus with no vested interest, I would be perfectly happy with a completely new and improved tool box for Christmas. It is only human nature that it is much, much harder to see the world this way and accept change, when your employment may depend on the existing tools. Thanks, Fae -- Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae...@gmail.com Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
Balázs Viczián, 24/02/2013 11:27: Maybe I wasn't clear enough, imo chapters are NOT part of the communities (nor the global community), just a tool for them to achieve certain goals that otherwise would be much more difficult or (almost) impossible to reach. Here we are, this is one of the things I wanted to point out (maybe one by one it's easier): a chapter is not a person, of course it's not a community member... but (IMHO) *of course* chapter members are Wikimedia community members. Logical consequence: the chapter meant as set of the chapter members is a subset of the community and hence a part of the community. The /structure/ of the chapter (assembly, board, president, ...) may work well or not, represent some obscure interests of the chapter members or not, further the (mysterious) interests of the* community at large or not, etc. etc. etc. But that's an entirely different matter. Nemo (*) If you don't understand the quotes here, please read Anthere's http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/6652 again. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Why not distinguish the community seats from the Chapters seats with the terms community seats and Chapters seats? Using the word community in both cases may induce to believe that's it's the same community with two branches. But nothing guarantees that unity. They are differentiated in the bylaws: you have Community-selected Trustees and Chapter-selected Trustees. Indeed, the bylaw changes in 2008 make it clear that the chapter-selected seats are not regarded as being selected by the community.[0] On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Here we are, this is one of the things I wanted to point out (maybe one by one it's easier): a chapter is not a person, of course it's not a community member... but (IMHO) *of course* chapter members are Wikimedia community members. Logical consequence: the chapter meant as set of the chapter members is a subset of the community and hence a part of the community. Most of the people on the WMF board (well, all of them, at the moment) are community members too. :-) [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Bylawsdiff=28280oldid=28279Note that The majority of the Board shall be elected or appointed from within the community. was changed to A majority of the Board Trustee positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be selected or appointed from the community and the chapters. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
Le 19/02/2013 11:23, Christophe Henner a écrit : I would even add that chapters should, and perhaps are, be key part of our community. Online communities tend to die slowly over the time. The main reason is that virtual bonds are much easier to forget than physical ones. I mean it's easier stop sending email to someone than stopping to see someone. I think Wikipedia gathered such a community because of an ideal, not of social bonds. Though parts of the community may form social, professional or political bonds, and thus perdure through these mechanisms, the cause sharing the knowledge should be the main raison d'être of the community. Thus, I disagree that Chapters should be considered the key part of the community: the cause should be the key part. In fact, if the cause ceases to be the highest priority, then the community will tend to die and only the institutions will tend to remain because of their own inertia and interests. I don't consider that a good thing per se since this tends to lead to sclerosis and a hollow structure with no other point than perpetuating itself, instead of pushing for the next needed accomplishments to collect and disseminate knowledge. Yes, chapter as such do not edit the projects directly. But does this mean they're not part of the community? I don't think so. They're a different part of the community, but still are a part of the community. Being part of the community doesn't allow to act on the name of the entire community. The gap between the community and the Chapters is significant enough to distinguish both, in particular for political and communicational matters. So should the Chapters seats be considered asa Community seats ? I'd say that the term is wrong. We have the editing community seats, the meta community seats and the appointed seats. Perhaps we should differentiate the two sides of the community. Why not distinguish the community seats from the Chapters seats with the terms community seats and Chapters seats? Using the word community in both cases may induce to believe that's it's the same community with two branches. But nothing guarantees that unity. By the way, what would you say Chapters actually are? Is it correct to say that they're an administrative organization financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On 22 February 2013 18:42, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Le 19/02/2013 11:23, Christophe Henner a écrit : I would even add that chapters should, and perhaps are, be key part of our community. Online communities tend to die slowly over the time. The main reason is that virtual bonds are much easier to forget than physical ones. I mean it's easier stop sending email to someone than stopping to see someone. I think Wikipedia gathered such a community because of an ideal, not of social bonds. Though parts of the community may form social, professional or political bonds, and thus perdure through these mechanisms, the cause sharing the knowledge should be the main raison d'être of the community. Thus, I disagree that Chapters should be considered the key part of the community: the cause should be the key part. In fact, if the cause ceases to be the highest priority, then the community will tend to die and only the institutions will tend to remain because of their own inertia and interests. I don't consider that a good thing per se since this tends to lead to sclerosis and a hollow structure with no other point than perpetuating itself, instead of pushing for the next needed accomplishments to collect and disseminate knowledge. The starting point is the ideal. But if I've lasted so long in here it's because of a bunch of awesome people I met, not the ideal only. It's because of the people that Wikimedia is making me grow, not the ideal. The iseal is a shared value, the bond is, well, a bond. One isn't the opposite of the other. They benefit from each other. Why should we have only one priority? I mean, yes free knowledge is our goal, but isn't ensuring we have a healthy community another important goal? And well, I'd say community health isn't our best achievement now on most of the projects. Ignoring that is dangerous on the long run. I mean your point is moot in itself as so far the ideal has been our top priority and the community is slowly shrinking :) Yes, chapter as such do not edit the projects directly. But does this mean they're not part of the community? I don't think so. They're a different part of the community, but still are a part of the community. Being part of the community doesn't allow to act on the name of the entire community. The gap between the community and the Chapters is significant enough to distinguish both, in particular for political and communicational matters. When do chapters act as such? I mean I read that a lot, but I still have to wait clear cases. And please Beria, read what I wrote They're a different part of the community, but still are a part of the community.. :) So should the Chapters seats be considered asa Community seats ? I'd say that the term is wrong. We have the editing community seats, the meta community seats and the appointed seats. Perhaps we should differentiate the two sides of the community. Why not distinguish the community seats from the Chapters seats with the terms community seats and Chapters seats? Using the word community in both cases may induce to believe that's it's the same community with two branches. But nothing guarantees that unity. Because chapters are part of the community. The editing community elect board members, and chapters propose board members. But all those seats are chosen by the Community at large :) By the way, what would you say Chapters actually are? Is it correct to say that they're an administrative organization financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees? Nope. That is sad if you see your chapter like that :) I mean administrative organization, with all the programs we do, admin is actually the thing we're behind... So no. financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees that is each chapters' choice, nobody is forcing anyone to get grants or money from the FDC. Actually, we, WMFr, are working on alternate funding (for the programs) to top FDC/grants. Because we believe a chapter has the ability to get money the movement wouldn't have other wise (local public funding, local sponsorships, local major donors, etc.). So if you would describe your chapter as dministrative organization financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees, and that you don't like it. Too bad, but nobody forces your chapter to be that, you (or your board) did :) Best exemple I can remember, if it has not change, is WMPL that is mostly self sufficient for years and doing really cool stuff (though we don't hear about it enough ^^). Christophe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
Hey So my 2 cents I do consider the chapters to be an integral part of the community. Some of our community members prefer to work individually and some prefer to work together. Some things can be done by individuals and some things require organisations like chapters or thematic organisations. Wiki Loves Monuments is a great example of supporting the cause and it could only be done by collaboration between several chapters. Discussion about the role of chapters, thematic organisations or indeed the foundation itself are very healthy, but lets not forget that we are all part of the movement and share the common goals. If any one of the players of the movement does not support the goals, we should address that, but lets not disqualify those people that choose to help that are simply not editing individuals (as someone once said: it takes all kinds to make the world go round So I regard both the elected and the selected seats to be community seats. Jan-Bart On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:42 PM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Le 19/02/2013 11:23, Christophe Henner a écrit : I would even add that chapters should, and perhaps are, be key part of our community. Online communities tend to die slowly over the time. The main reason is that virtual bonds are much easier to forget than physical ones. I mean it's easier stop sending email to someone than stopping to see someone. I think Wikipedia gathered such a community because of an ideal, not of social bonds. Though parts of the community may form social, professional or political bonds, and thus perdure through these mechanisms, the cause sharing the knowledge should be the main raison d'être of the community. Thus, I disagree that Chapters should be considered the key part of the community: the cause should be the key part. In fact, if the cause ceases to be the highest priority, then the community will tend to die and only the institutions will tend to remain because of their own inertia and interests. I don't consider that a good thing per se since this tends to lead to sclerosis and a hollow structure with no other point than perpetuating itself, instead of pushing for the next needed accomplishments to collect and disseminate knowledge. Yes, chapter as such do not edit the projects directly. But does this mean they're not part of the community? I don't think so. They're a different part of the community, but still are a part of the community. Being part of the community doesn't allow to act on the name of the entire community. The gap between the community and the Chapters is significant enough to distinguish both, in particular for political and communicational matters. So should the Chapters seats be considered asa Community seats ? I'd say that the term is wrong. We have the editing community seats, the meta community seats and the appointed seats. Perhaps we should differentiate the two sides of the community. Why not distinguish the community seats from the Chapters seats with the terms community seats and Chapters seats? Using the word community in both cases may induce to believe that's it's the same community with two branches. But nothing guarantees that unity. By the way, what would you say Chapters actually are? Is it correct to say that they're an administrative organization financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: Hmmm I might be mistaken but WMF board members, selected or not by chapters, haven't access to chapter-l. But I might be mistaken on that. -- Christophe Correct; I didn't have access to chapters-l before, during or after being selected (or after leaving the board). I have no idea what people said about me, which is totally fine. What *wasn't* fine, in my opinion, is that lots of other non-chapter people were surprised when the chapter-selected seat results were announced in 2010, because it wasn't very clear that a process was even going on. As Bence said, this improved a lot in 2012, so that's great. -- Phoebe, who is also a little biased about being part of the community :P -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
I believe chapters are tools for the local communities to achieve certain goals that otherwise would be very difficult or (almost) impossible, and a great aid in local community building. Balazs 2013.02.22. 19:41, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com ezt írta: On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: Hmmm I might be mistaken but WMF board members, selected or not by chapters, haven't access to chapter-l. But I might be mistaken on that. -- Christophe Correct; I didn't have access to chapters-l before, during or after being selected (or after leaving the board). I have no idea what people said about me, which is totally fine. What *wasn't* fine, in my opinion, is that lots of other non-chapter people were surprised when the chapter-selected seat results were announced in 2010, because it wasn't very clear that a process was even going on. As Bence said, this improved a lot in 2012, so that's great. -- Phoebe, who is also a little biased about being part of the community :P -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On 22 February 2013 20:15, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: I believe chapters are tools for the local communities to achieve certain goals that otherwise would be very difficult or (almost) impossible, and a great aid in local community building. +1 The vast majority of volunteers like the idea that there is a Chapter they can turn to to ask for help, or to get their idea for a project reviewed, funded and looking official. If a volunteer came to a wikimeet with a brilliant idea for a project, but said they could not stand the stupid bureaucracy of chapters, I'd say excellent mate, you go for it and I'll see what I can do to help with funding if you need it. Most of us started this stuff before our chapters were anything more that a society for a handful of embarrassed lonely encyclopedia fanatics meeting in a pub, confessing how much they loved the idea of the open knowledge movement. It's just unavoidable that chapters have to get formal once you have projects spending six figure sums rather than three figure sums. Getting formal without sucking all the joy out of it, well that's the real challenge for all of us. Fae -- Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae...@gmail.com Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On Feb 23, 2013, at 4:27 AM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote: The vast majority of volunteers like the idea that there is a Chapter they can turn to to ask for help, or to get their idea for a project reviewed, funded and looking official. If a volunteer came to a wikimeet with a brilliant idea for a project, but said they could not stand the stupid bureaucracy of chapters, I'd say excellent mate, you go for it and I'll see what I can do to help with funding if you need it. I'm inclined to believe that the bureaucracy exists despite, not because of, the existence of chapters, and many volunteers, particularly those from the Global South, are one of two types: 1. They don't know about the avenues that are available to them when it comes to pursuing projects that they'd like to do. 2. They're too busy being involved in the community to be involved in the backstage (in my university, we call this joing down the hill). Chapters aside, how many know about the Foundation's grants system? Or the research program? Or, heck, even about forming Wikimedia User Groups or scholarships to Wikimania? The message is there, but it doesn't seem to translate into greater individual participation if bureaucracy was a concern. It's good that there now exist mechanisms to help individuals with the projects they want to pursue, and we should strive to make it as accessible as possible (with as little bureaucracy as possible) but it's all for nought if people are left unawares of it, especially in countries where there are no chapters, or if the bureaucracy is stifling. (Some people, for example, may be turned off by the bureaucratic rigor of the grants program.) Josh JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Block I1, AB Political Science Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Trustee (2010-2013), Wikimedia Philippines Member, Ateneo Debate Society Member, The Assembly jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (917) 841-5235 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://akira123323.livejournal.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On Feb 23, 2013, at 4:27 AM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote: The vast majority of volunteers like the idea that there is a Chapter they can turn to to ask for help, or to get their idea for a project reviewed, funded and looking official. If a volunteer came to a wikimeet with a brilliant idea for a project, but said they could not stand the stupid bureaucracy of chapters, I'd say excellent mate, you go for it and I'll see what I can do to help with funding if you need it. I'm inclined to believe that bureaucracy exists despite, not because of, chapters. As it is, volunteers, especially those from the Global South, can be classified into two types: 1. They're detached: they're part of the community, but they don't know about the support options open to them 2. They're so involved in the community, they could care less about the bureaucracy (in my university, this is called going down the hill, as my university is on a hill) Chapters aside, I'm in fact curious to know how many volunteers do know about the Foundation's grants system, or the research program, or heck, Wikimedia User Groups or Wikimania scholarships. Granted, it's a good thing that volunteers have options open for them whether or not they want to deal with the bureaucracy, but it's all for nought if they're left unaware of those options. Josh JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Block I1, AB Political Science Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Trustee (2010-2013), Wikimedia Philippines Member, Ateneo Debate Society Member, The Assembly jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (917) 841-5235 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://akira123323.livejournal.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
Hi, I'll separate this out as I think it is a really interesting conversation, and as I have heard the two arguments below repeated numerous times, it might be useful to think about it and the future shape of things a bit more. I think the fundamental question is how legitimate can an interest group (chapters in this case) be if it's membership is significantly smaller than its potential membership (at least 30% of editors come from countries with well established chapters in afaik good standing with their local community)? The difference in the answer to this question could be behind the two memes on chapters being seen as insignificant or significant parts of the community based either on their membership or potential membership size. I like to believe that people who go beyond online editing (or in the case of readers and donors, beyond online donations and reading) into the offline world are among the most dedicated of our volunteers, and knowing their background, they usually are well embedded in their local/national/linguistic communities, to the point that they are able to recognize and represent their interests. (Especially, as chapters tend to have open structures, often giving the right to be heard to any non-member and generally not making it difficult to become a member even for those advocating different directions.) However, as our communities are very diverse (someone active on Wikipedia and the chapter might not be aware of recent developments in Wiktionary and vice versa), we need to constantly think about ways of informing and better engaging those whose interests we wish to represent (be this at the WMF or the individual chapter level). Even if we don't subscribe to the wider interpretation of representation of the potential members, the actual members are still showing a level of dedication that I think makes it worthwhile hearing their voice in e.g. board selections. All that said, the chapter selected board seat is related to the communities the chapters are embedded in at a further step of remove because of the way the process is conducted. (The list of candidates and questions to them, etc. are in theory non-public – although the candidate may choose to make it public on Meta – so the boards of chapters might not be in a position to directly survey their members' preferences and have to bring the decision on their own.) Therefore, I think there are definite possibilities to improve on the selection process, even with just chapters. Best regards, Bence On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey I think that chapters represent a different part of the movement, and that their input in board composition results in different candidates than we would possibly elect :) At the same time the increased scope of affcom also gives us the option of increasing the scope of these two selected seats to include thematic organisations and user groups (giving them more community coverage than is the case now). That would be a good discussion to have over de coming months as the selected seats term expires in july next year… thoughts anyone? Jan-Bart On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:42 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote: Snipping a bunch for simplicities sake On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: I simply don't agree. a) Chapters are part of the community b) Whenever a vote comes up for an appointed seat that seat obviously does not vote, therefore the (s)elected seats have a majority vote on any appointed seat (5 our of 9 votes) Apart from that I would say that Jimmy's seat is a community seat, but recognise that not all share that viewpoint. Jan-Bart :-/ To be honest I don't particularly like this meme that the chapter are part of the community either. The chapters may be part of the community (and so the statement not false) but we use the phrasing in such a way as to say that they are more then they are. There may be a part of the community but they are really a very small part of it overall. Their power in board selection and movement voice (both formally and informally) is disproportionately huge and we set them up to represent the community when that is a serious misstatement. They represent their members who are a very small subset of the community and often have a very different goal and interest set then the, much larger, remainder of the community and depending on the chapter may include more donors or readers then editors. That is not to say they don't do good things at times (or that it is a problem to include donors or readers, personally I think they are part of our larger community) but we should not confuse what they actually are. Jimmy is a whole different question ;) I would certainly say he deserves a seat at the table, I prefer to just categorize him as Jimmy because he's just a
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: All that said, the chapter selected board seat is related to the communities the chapters are embedded in at a further step of remove because of the way the process is conducted. (The list of candidates and questions to them, etc. are in theory non-public – although the candidate may choose to make it public on Meta – so the boards of chapters might not be in a position to directly survey their members' preferences and have to bring the decision on their own.) To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not published. Best regards, Bence ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
Hey Bence, Thanks for creating this thread and allow us to tackle that issue (though I don't believe it really is an issue) On 19 February 2013 14:42, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'll separate this out as I think it is a really interesting conversation, and as I have heard the two arguments below repeated numerous times, it might be useful to think about it and the future shape of things a bit more. I think the fundamental question is how legitimate can an interest group (chapters in this case) be if it's membership is significantly smaller than its potential membership (at least 30% of editors come from countries with well established chapters in afaik good standing with their local community)? Short answer, yes they are part of the community. Disclaimer, I'm board member of Wikimedia France for 6 years I guess now, so I'm not really neutral on that point :) So let me develop that thought now. I would even add that chapters should, and perhaps are, be key part of our community. Online communities tend to die slowly over the time. The main reason is that virtual bonds are much easier to forget than physical ones. I mean it's easier stop sending email to someone than stopping to see someone. Chapters, in my opinion, have 2 main duties : 1/ Push forward are goals 2/ Bring offline the online community The second one is key and instrumental to the good health of the community. I have no hard data on that, but I feel that people that do meet regularly and do projects together (organizing WLM, Wikipedia takes a city, meetup with beers, etc.) tned to stick longer in the project. And even if at some point they stop editing (because of work, studies, etc) they eventually come back because they don't severe bonds with people they've seen regularly irl. Part of this can happen without a chapter, but a chapter can increase that, ease that. And in doing so, increasing the retention of old editor and help new editors to join in. Yes, chapter as such do not edit the projects directly. But does this mean they're not part of the community? I don't think so. They're a different part of the community, but still are a part of the community. So should the Chapters seats be considered asa Community seats ? I'd say that the term is wrong. We have the editing community seats, the meta community seats and the appointed seats. Perhaps we should differentiate the two sides of the community. (I have virtually not edited massively for years, and people says to me (as a joke) that I'm not really part of the community... well I believe that even if I do not edit I'm part of the Wikimedia community) So please, let me be part of the Wikimedia community ^_^ PS: I do not speak of membership because it is not really relevant in the end, as the important thing in the inpact the chapter have, not how many members it has ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On 19 February 2013 13:48, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not published. Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? Looking at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Process it appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members of chapters, during which time candidates lose their access to that wiki/mailing list but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all the discussions are deleted, what is the benefit of having these discussions in private, especially if the candidates will see what was said about them after the election? I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing with regards to Chapter selected seats? -- Thehelpfulone http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On 19 February 2013 15:32, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.comwrote: On 19 February 2013 13:48, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not published. Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? Looking at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Processit appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members of chapters, during which time candidates lose their access to that wiki/mailing list but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all the discussions are deleted, what is the benefit of having these discussions in private, especially if the candidates will see what was said about them after the election? I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing with regards to Chapter selected seats? -- Thehelpfulone http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l Hmmm I might be mistaken but WMF board members, selected or not by chapters, haven't access to chapter-l. But I might be mistaken on that. -- Christophe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.comwrote: On 19 February 2013 13:48, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not published. Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? Looking at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Processit appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members of chapters, during which time candidates lose their access to that wiki/mailing list but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all the discussions are deleted, what is the benefit of having these discussions in private, especially if the candidates will see what was said about them after the election? I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing with regards to Chapter selected seats? I believe the losing access to the mailing list is meant to ensure that the candidate has no undue advantage in the process by either influencing the discussion or knowing the other candidates' answers in advance (I believe those who win would not get re-added as they would become part of the WMF and have to give up their chapter board positions, while those who lose re-gain access once the process is over and there is no more a possibility to have this influence). As for the private vs. public aspect, there is a difficult balance to make between being transparent and being able to attract candidates who might not be comfortable in being publicly identified as unsuccessful. (The current search for an expert seat also has this guarantee of privacy, as I understand.) The result of this balancing was I believe (I might be mistaken) that in the end the chapters selected candidates could opt for publicity or the default privacy and all of them opted for the public option. This has actually resulted in the somewhat awkward need to duplicate everything between the private wiki and Meta. Furthermore, the process is meant to be consensual between the different boards involved, so there is a useful place for private discussions either on the closed mailing list or between individual board members. Adjusting this balance and making sure that people beyond the boards are informed (even if the final decision is still made by the boards) will be an important challenge for the next selection. Best regards, Bence ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
*Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? **it appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members of chapters* Actually it doesn't. If you see the process, pretty much most of it happened in meta. The part that doesn't happens in the board of each Chapter (and that is actually private with them) and then they come and say who they could support and who they couldn't. After that, if there is consensus the two people are appointed, but since in this year it didn't, there was a vote (on chapters wiki) and the two with more votes in STV method got appointed (In this case Patricio and Alice). No drama happens, we don't kill anyone or anything in the process, there is no cabala, etc etc etc. *During which time candidates lose their access to that wiki/mailing list but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all the discussions are deleted, what is the benefit of having these discussions in private, especially if the candidates will see what was said about them after the election?* They do lose access during the election and regain it after. The idea is not to hide the process from then, is to have a fair discussion. Not all candidates have access to the list[1], which right there gives then an advantage the others doesn't. If they have access they would know who supports then and who doesn't, and what people want the candidate to do and he could make his campaign over this. The second part is to have the chapters to say what they really think of the candidates (I can't really say why I would never vote for candidate A or B if I know that candidate is seeing the message during the election time). *I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing with regards to Chapter selected seats?* We use a SecureWikiPoll vote method. That is also private like the community one is. :) *Béria Lima* [1] If I'm not mistaken only 2 candidates last year had access - and none of then got appointed so they both regain it. * Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 19 February 2013 11:32, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.comwrote: On 19 February 2013 13:48, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not published. Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? Looking at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Processit appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members of chapters, during which time candidates lose their access to that wiki/mailing list but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all the discussions are deleted, what is the benefit of having these discussions in private, especially if the candidates will see what was said about them after the election? I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing with regards to Chapter selected seats? -- Thehelpfulone http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
