Hello David, > I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement, because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone.
Indeed, asking for native Portuguese speakers on the groups is a bit simplistic and not granted, and I generally agree with you in theory. However, when we are talking about the language with the highest number of speakers in the South Hemisphere, ranking 5th/6th in the world, with the native speakers almost entirely distributed through the "Global South", in South America, Africa and the Far East, with only "emerging communities" or no communities at all, I fail to understand why, among the dozens of people chosen to be part of the Working Groups, there's not a single one that can be identified as a representative of that community. My feeling, when I see those lists, is that we have been excluded from the WMF Strategy objectives for 2030. All the best, Paulo 2018-07-24 10:03 GMT+01:00 David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com>: > > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not > distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our focus > was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with the > Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to > those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. > > "The organized part of the movement" is very small in comparison to the > whole. For instance WMFR has 274 members out of 17,500 contributors [1]. It > is true that some do not care at all about "strategy" or the "global > movement" as long as they can keep doing their work, but others are not > organised because they do not understand or feel the added value of being > organised, yet they might want to participate. > I also think that it would have been nicer to have new people with new > ideas, instead of having the existing establishment (as Chris has noted) do > the recommendations, because I fear that they will get entrenched in the > status quo instead of being bold and asking for different, and perhaps more > inclusive, approaches. > > > We would like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for > people not interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have > ideas, I would be really interested in hearing them. > > Ideas: > - Newsletter to interested people for frequent updates (weekly/bi-weekly) > - Multilingual Massmessage to pump villages/mailing lists for less frequent > updates (monthly/bi-monthly) > - Blog posts every 3-6 months > - Central talk page on meta for ongoing discussions between working group > participants and community members > - Ask digital communities (or select from the applications, or existing WG > participants) for a group of people to act as liaison to bridge language > and participation barriers > - Ask working groups to document arguments on meta > > > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project > communities. > > I think more specific criteria are needed since a large number of > applications have been rejected without indicating which criteria they were > not fulfilling. > > > As the names and background of the Working Group members is also > published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your thoughts > regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your letter. > > "Person X from group X" doesn't say anything to me about which ideas the > participants espouse. Would it be possible to publish on meta the > motivation letters of the participants? > I believe it is the lowest effort option, and it would help to get to know > the people behind the working groups. If you don't have time to > format/structure it, I can help there. > > > I do not agree that there should be speakers of all languages in the > working groups. The language a person speaks says nothing about the ideas > they support. There are monolingual English speakers that appreciate the > value of having multilingualism play a prominent role in the movement, and > there might be also Portuguese speakers that do not respect the diversity > within their linguistic community or in the world. What is important is > that we have liaisons/ambassadors that connect with the broader movement, > because I doubt that the working group participants can do that alone. > > Thanks for your readiness to give space for this discussion to take place, > and I am looking forward to knowing your reaction to the views that have > been posted here, and how they can fit into the process, considering the > resources available. I also hope that more volunteers are ready to apply > once the needs of the Working Groups have been clarified. Looking also > forward to hearing how it went with the strategy discussions in Wikimania. > > Have a nice day! > Micru > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 7:13 PM Kaarel Vaidla <kvai...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > > Dear Micru, > > > > Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the current composition of > > the Working Groups. It is valuable feedback and relates to some of the > > offline conversations we have been having within the Core Team and with > > different stakeholders. The points you bring out resonate well with the > > current status of the process. > > > > >It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects > are > > not directly represented. Where is the representation of volunteers from > > our digital communities like Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, > Wiktionary...? > > It is not the same to have members that work in those communities, that > to > > have members chosen by those communities. > > >I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital > > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only > > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working Groups > do > > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by having > > discussions away from the volunteer community. > > > > The messages about our application process that we ran in June were not > > distributed directly to the broad variety of project communities. Our > focus > > was indeed on the organized part of the movement, and then to work with > the > > Working Groups on getting the message to the project communities and to > > those who would be interested in such discussions and enrich them. We > would > > like to be especially careful to not create too much noise for people not > > interested in or fatigued by the strategy process. If you have ideas, I > > would be really interested in hearing them. > > > > The Working Groups will also be tasked with developing a variety of > > engagement approaches and opportunities to ensure an inclusive and > > collective process. > > > > >You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity > > that represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity > > aspect is lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, > > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition of > > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to > > know what the participants think of their assigned area? > > > > With regards to Diversity, the parameters for the diversity > considerations > > are outlined here, and do include voices that are not yet included in > > strategic discussions. > > > > We are seeking a large spectrum of diversity, including volunteer project > > communities. Diversification of the membership of the Working Groups > helps > > us to prevent recreating the existing biases with our strategic process. > > > > We will be having discussions with the Working Group members and the > > Steering Committee to map the existing gaps and proactively work on > filling > > these gaps. As the names and background of the Working Group members is > > also published on meta, it is also possible for everyone to share your > > thoughts regarding the existing gaps, just like you have done in your > > letter. > > > > >Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have > > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the > > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia > movement > > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff > > members? > > > > In the first round of applications, 36% were from volunteers. As we > accept > > further applications, and select additional Working Group members, we > > expect the overall ratio of volunteers will increase and these > proportions > > will change > > > > Thank you for your kind attention and time in bringing these issues up > in a > > more public manner and look forward to hearing from you and maybe other > > interested members of our communities in resolving the issues related to > > the diversity of the Working Groups and inclusion of diverse voices in > the > > strategy process. > > > > Have a great weekend! > > Kaarel > > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Dear Kaarel & Nicole, > > > > > > It saddens me that in the selection of candidates our digital projects > > are > > > not directly represented. > > > Where is the representation of volunteers from our digital communities > > like > > > Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource, Wiktionary...? It is not the same to > have > > > members that work in those communities, that to have members chosen by > > > those communities. > > > I acknowledge that it is difficult to bridge the gap between digital > > > communities and real-life ones, but if some effort is not made the only > > > possible outcome is even more alienation. I hope that the Working > Groups > > do > > > not repeat the errors of WMFR outlined in the governance review by > having > > > discussions away from the volunteer community. > > > > > > You say that "the Working Groups don't yet have the level of diversity > > that > > > represents the movement", but you don't mention *which* diversity > aspect > > is > > > lacking. Is diversity only considered as region, gender, race, > > > organization, "new voices"? Or can we have a more inclusive definition > of > > > diversity by considering also "diversity of thought"? How can we get to > > > know what the participants think of their assigned area? > > > > > > Also with so many "exceptional applications" that you said you have > > > received, it is unclear to me why volunteers represent only 30% of the > > > total (40% staff members, 30% board members). Isn't the wikimedia > > movement > > > a volunteer-based movement? If so, why to give so much weight to staff > > > members? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Micru > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:12 AM Nicole Ebber < > nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Wikimedians, > > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who applied to participate in a Working Group and > > > > for your interest and engagement in the process! We received a lot of > > > > exceptional applications and we are excited to announce the first > > > > round of selected members for our nine Working Groups. You can find > > > > all names on the respective Working Group pages on Meta.[1] > > > > > > > > Even though we received many exceptional applications, the Working > > > > Groups don't yet have the level of diversity that represents the > > > > movement and brings in new voices. This means we will increase our > > > > outreach efforts and accept additional applications. > > > > > > > > We will use Wikimania to reach out existing contacts from previous > > > > processes, and will identify more connectors and multipliers to get > > > > their expertise and support. This also means that the first task for > > > > the selected members is to map the gaps and increase the diversity of > > > > their Working Groups in consultation with the Core Team. After that, > > > > we will also start bringing in external expertise to the groups. > > > > > > > > == Wikimania Strategy Space == > > > > At Wikimania, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, the Core Team will be > > > > hosting Strategy Sessions, and a Strategy Bar, to provide an update, > > > > seek your feedback, harvest your expertise, and respond to all > > > > questions as the Movement Strategy advances. Please check the > detailed > > > > schedule on-wiki.[2] All are welcome at these sessions, and we look > > > > forward to seeing many of you. > > > > > > > > Following Wikimania, we will provide an update on progress to date, > as > > > > well as information on the process and timelines for collectively > > > > advancing the Movement Strategy. We are thankful for your ongoing > > > > contribution to the Movement Strategy process and look forward to > > > > hearing from you during future consultations. > > > > > > > > In the name of the Core Team > > > > Kaarel & Nicole > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_ > movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#Thematic_areas > > > > [2] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030 > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Nicole Ebber > > > > Adviser International Relations > > > > Program Manager Wikimedia Movement Strategy > > > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin > > > > http://wikimedia.de > > > > > > > > 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, guidelines at: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > -- > > *Kaarel Vaidla* > > Process Architect for > > Wikimedia Movement Strategy > > 2030.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
