We have seen various appointments to influential committees within the WMF "system" in recent weeks: the Funds Dissemination Committee and the Board Governance Committee Volunteer and Advisory members; the Board Election Committee is being geared up and new Board members will soon be selected by the Board itself and via community nomination. While I am sure that those people who have volunteered their time to serve in those capacities are well-meaning, conscientious and effective, and well-versed in how things have been done in the past, it seems to me that the selections have leaned too heavily on people already connected with the movement and its existing structures and processes. I suggest that in line with the Strategy/2016-17 process [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017] being planned, these committees, and especially the Board itself, needs an element not predisposed to the mere continuation of the current ways of doing things. In short the WMF needs to raise its game and to do that it needs constructive criticism from outside the existing cadres; it may be that the movement as a whole needs to see disruptive change of a sort unlikely to commend itself to a WMF/Silicon Valley view of the world. I urge those responsbile for selection of these important and influential groups to challenge themselves to look more widely and occasionally choose the uncomfortable option.
"Rogol Domedonfors" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
