Welcome to Meta!Edit
I was looking at the ideas put forward by the Strategy process, and I'm intrigued by the idea of the creation of a broadly-representative Global Council, with many elected members. I spent some time over the past week starting to work on some ideas for how the seats could be distributed; see User:Yair rand/Global Council distribution formula. The strategy people seem fairly confident that the Global Council is going to happen, but the impression I get from the various Board reports and minutes is that the Board is generally, ah, rather more skeptical. And if I understand correctly, whether or not this goes ahead depends on what the Board decides. Do you think it's likely that this will go forward? Is it worthwhile to continue preparing for that possibility? --Yair rand (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Yair. I just answered you in another thread, and I'm happy to see a comment relating to the actual processes here (which is part of what I was asking for in the other discussion). To your question, the board has approved the strategy recommendations. We, as a movement, were supposed to begin the implementation process in the Berlin Summit, which as you probably know was postponed due to COVID-19. The implementation discussion are still something that needs to happen. Part of it is a discussion on priorities, timeline etc. WMF staff are working together with volunteers to adjust to a COVID-19 reality, including envisioning new paths for continued conversation with our communities. I am not sure how you got the idea the board is skeptical. Can you refer me to specific resources so I might better understand where your impressions come from? You know that other than that I cannot disclose what individuals on the board think, but I can say that the board will not make any decision relating to any recommendation, including a Global Council, without getting feedback from both the communities and WMF staff. As I said, that still needs to happen. The UCoC in that sense is unique case, as the board decided it is a critical pre-step to any implementation of the strategy recommendations. So my advice would be -- if you passionately feel it's a good move and have ideas about how to implement, please join the discussions on it when that happens. Best, Shani (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information.
- I got the impression that the Board was skeptical from a few things like this, from the Board feedback summary: "the term “governance body” suggests that it will have power to make a lot of decisions; against using anything worded around “governance” - a community advising committee, etc., is necessary; ok if renamed to “global advisory council”", and some of the concerns mentioned in the February minutes, which sounded contrary to the role put forward in the recommendations. But if it's already been approved, I assume that the difficulties must have been figured out.
- I hope to participate in the discussion regarding the Global Council when it happens. Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy RecommendationsEdit
|Thank you very much for everything you did to help create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations! I am especially grateful for the enormous amount of work you did in the Partnerships working group and all the care and commitment you brought to the process. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)|
I think you may have missed that the owner of the comment decided against restoring it. Sometimes it's good to allow a comment to be retracted without unnecessary attention. (No reply necessary.) Alsee (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this note, Alsee. Let it be noted that from the way the note was phrased, it wasn't clear to me that it was with consent from [[user: Alexis Jazz]|Alexis Jazz], and I honestly thought it may be a mistake. Specifically because it was a "heated" comment, I wanted to avoid the appearance that I shy away from criticism and therefore restore and answer. I'm quite ok with you removing the second one. All in all, I welcome everyone to the discussion, and was glad to see that Alexis Jazz was finally able to engage constructively, even if we disagree. Best, Shani (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
"Wouldn't have stood a chance"Edit
Hi, I was just listening to the recording of the Board's office hours, and I was surprised to hear your point relating the change in the ASBS system and your own election. (I also heard basically the same thing from User:Raystorm in another office hours.) Just in case the Board is taking this as evidence for a "insufficient diversity (or other skills or some such) -> Board intervention -> problem solved" pattern, I thought I'd look into the 2019 election to see if the assertion that you would "never stand a chance" had only chapters voted was actually correct. (Also, I was interested in how the possibility of adding a third seat would have affected things.) So, after some coding, a few points:
- A lot of the STV results are sensitive to slight changes one way or another. You're presumably aware that in the actual election, you were one vote away from losing to two different candidates. Had there been three seats up for election, the results would have been Nataliia, Pharos, and then you.
- Had only chapters and the one (at the time) thematic org voted: With two seats up for election, the winners would have been Nataliia and Maor Malul, with you falling slightly short; with three it would have been the two of them followed by you. (Pharos, interestingly, actually would have only had a single vote in support before being eliminated early on.)
- I did some more fiddling with various possibilities, and it doesn't look to me like the inclusion of the usergroups actually generally influenced things towards more diversity.
I'm not trying to argue against the decision to include usergroups (which seems reasonable to me), but the idea that things would have been hopeless without Board intervention looks incorrect to me. It is true you would not have won had the change not been implemented, but it is clearly not correct that you "wouldn't have stood a chance" in your words.
I wouldn't ordinarily think it relevant, but the fact that it came up twice by different trustees makes me think that maybe in came up in a discussion? Or at least maybe it's near something trustees have been thinking about recently, so the info could be useful somehow. Hope this helps in some way. --Yair rand (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of TrusteesEdit
(This was mistakenly posted to my personal user, Esh77, rather than my Board of Trustees user, by user:Barkeep49, at 02:50, 30 March 2021. It was moved here for further discussion). Shani (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Shani. Can you confirm that the board as a whole as received the letter? We were unable to find any email address for the board as a whole. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t) 22:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, KevinL. I have just replied to the open letter in the Board's noticeboard. As per no email to address the Board, the CAC (which was formed just recently) is working on setting up new lines of communications with the Community at large, so stay tuned. More details on that and things like "Board Office Hours" will follow as soon as we can. In the meantime, thank you for all your work and dedication towards a safer and healthier community. It is truly appreciated. Best, Shani (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)