MR recommendations update

[Samuel Klein]

Dear working group,

Inputs from Wikimania and feedback shared since then have been combined into
a summary set of recommendations to the Board:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/recommendations/board

The charter in particular has been cleaned up:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/charter

And a draft Chapters Council proposal is quite far along:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters_council

Your reviews and comments on the above would be welcome.

The Board will review the recommendations to them, at a high level, at this
weekend's meeting. More public announcements and discussion will follow.

SJ

[Lodewijk]

Hi Samuel,

on this list and in this working group (as far as I know) nothing truely
happened since some months ago. I am a bit (positively/negatively? not sure
yet) surprised that things are still moving, and am actually quite unsure
whether this movement charter is actually supported at a movement wide
level. We envisioned some kind of final vote by all chapters on it and all
other outcomes, each individually agreeing on it (although I still have the
feeling that more discussion would have been nice, but it may not be so,
unfortunately, that the chapters have enough attention for this during the
discussion phase.

I am slightly worried by the fact that quite a lot changes happened in the
last days - and no significant time (or time at all, since this message
didn't reach them) was given to the chapters to review it /before/ the board
does. If they decide to disagree with some points or even whole concepts, it
would unavoidably mean yet another clash between the Foundation and the
chapters.

I can't help but feel that as a working group, we failed because we have not
been able to reach the level of involvement we were looking for.

Lodewijk

Post by Samuel Klein
Dear working group,
Inputs from Wikimania and feedback shared since then have been combined
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/recommendations/board
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/charter
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters_council
Your reviews and comments on the above would be welcome.
The Board will review the recommendations to them, at a high level, at this
weekend's meeting. More public announcements and discussion will follow.
SJ
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Samuel Klein]

Hi Lodewijk,

Everyone will be asked to review and provide feedback on the latest
changes. Starting with this list :-) Many people have been working on
Meta, including you and others on the chapter's council rec.

We will surely need to organize a wider review of the charter language,
likely including a personal contact with a rep from every chapter and other
current movement group.

I can't help but feel that as a working group, we failed because we have not

Post by Lodewijk
been able to reach the level of involvement we were looking for.

I do think that we need to continue to pursue involvement and participation,
more aggressively and personally in the coming month than we have sinec
Wikimania. We are still looking for engaged review and constructive edits,
but I think we are much closer to a clean set of recommendations that are
easy to comment on.

If you or someone else is willing to work on a Signpost series with me, I'd
like to cover each of the recommendations in some detail, as we intended
during the first months of this year, in a weekly series. By the end of
which we should have much more engagement, and people thinking actively
about how they will engage int he coming year's strategizing.

SJ

[Lodewijk]

Hi Samuel,

I'm quite lost where we are, and where we are headed - hence probably some
of my confused email(s). The impression I get at this moment is that the
draft on meta is supposed to be the final version that only would require a
vote etc. From your last email I understand that this is not the case (which
I'm glad about) although it is not entirely clear what *is* the intended
timeline forward.

Personal contacts are of course always good, and I do like the idea of
chopping the thing into pieces that are digestible for mortal people. I'm
not sure if the Signpost would be an ideal place to have this series (since
it is primarily enwiki facing) but I'm not sure whether WikiZine is such a
much better place to have it because of its more limitations on actual
involvement and discussion. What I would definitely cheer upon if we could
at the very least at the same moment every time launch a thread in internal
(and perhaps as well in Iberocoop in Spanish/Portuguese and on the Asian
mailing list etc?) to allow input. However we should be crystal clear what
the status of the document is, and how much input/changes/whatever is
preferred. If the board considers this in the weekend to be the final
version, we should at least be honest about that towards the chapters
(although I would highly regret it).

I'm happy to think along with any postings (quite in general), but I'm
currently not in any capacity to take the lead though.

Lodewijk

Post by Samuel Klein
Hi Lodewijk,
Everyone will be asked to review and provide feedback on the latest
changes. Starting with this list :-) Many people have been working on
Meta, including you and others on the chapter's council rec.
We will surely need to organize a wider review of the charter language,
likely including a personal contact with a rep from every chapter and other
current movement group.
I can't help but feel that as a working group, we failed because we have

not been able to reach the level of involvement we were looking for.

I do think that we need to continue to pursue involvement and
participation, more aggressively and personally in the coming month than we
have sinec Wikimania. We are still looking for engaged review and
constructive edits, but I think we are much closer to a clean set of
recommendations that are easy to comment on.
If you or someone else is willing to work on a Signpost series with me, I'd
like to cover each of the recommendations in some detail, as we intended
during the first months of this year, in a weekly series. By the end of
which we should have much more engagement, and people thinking actively
about how they will engage int he coming year's strategizing.
SJ
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Samuel Klein]

Post by Lodewijk
Hi Samuel,
I'm quite lost where we are, and where we are headed - hence probably some
of my confused email(s). The impression I get at this moment is that the
draft on meta is supposed to be the final version that only would require a
vote etc. From your last email I understand that this is not the case (which
I'm glad about) although it is not entirely clear what *is* the intended
timeline forward.

The Board is reviewing the recommendations to them, and will indicate
whether it supports moving towards formal resolutions to realize those
recs.

Two recommendations will require close attention by other groups:
* The Charter will require review and endorsement by individual chapters.
* The accountability standards should be checked with similar care to iron
out rough spots [by groups for which they don't match self-assessment of
what is needed to be accountable].

Some Chapters have been reviewing the recommendation for a Chapters Council,
but the language is still going through review, and this too will need
another round of focus.

Any language will be open to public review for a few weeks, even where it is
purely a resolution for WMF process improvement.


Personal contacts are of course always good, and I do like the idea of

Post by Lodewijk
chopping the thing into pieces that are digestible for mortal people. I'm
not sure if the Signpost would be an ideal place to have this series (since
it is primarily enwiki facing) but I'm not sure whether WikiZine is such a
much better place to have it because of its more limitations on actual
involvement and discussion. What I would definitely cheer upon if we could
at the very least at the same moment every time launch a thread in internal
(and perhaps as well in Iberocoop in Spanish/Portuguese and on the Asian
mailing list etc?) to allow input. However we should be crystal clear what
the status of the document is, and how much input/changes/whatever is
preferred. If the board considers this in the weekend to be the final
version, we should at least be honest about that towards the chapters
(although I would highly regret it).

I'm being clear about the process with the board. "this high-level
recommendation has tentative approval" pending specific language is the sort
of thing I hope to be able to say about all recommendations.

Post by Lodewijk
I'm happy to think along with any postings (quite in general), but I'm
currently not in any capacity to take the lead though.

Excellent, thank you! Can you help get the current drafts reviewed by
someone from WM:NL ?

S

Post by Lodewijk
Lodewijk

Post by Samuel Klein
Hi Lodewijk,
Everyone will be asked to review and provide feedback on the latest
changes. Starting with this list :-) Many people have been working on
Meta, including you and others on the chapter's council rec.
We will surely need to organize a wider review of the charter language,
likely including a personal contact with a rep from every chapter and other
current movement group.
I can't help but feel that as a working group, we failed because we have

not been able to reach the level of involvement we were looking for.

I do think that we need to continue to pursue involvement and
participation, more aggressively and personally in the coming month than we
have sinec Wikimania. We are still looking for engaged review and
constructive edits, but I think we are much closer to a clean set of
recommendations that are easy to comment on.
If you or someone else is willing to work on a Signpost series with me,
I'd like to cover each of the recommendations in some detail, as we intended
during the first months of this year, in a weekly series. By the end of
which we should have much more engagement, and people thinking actively
about how they will engage int he coming year's strategizing.
SJ
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Alice Wiegand]

Hi Samuel,

to begin with: I am really glad to see that this list isn't forgotten. I'm spending this weekend with a friend and lots of art, so please forgive me for choosing a few clear words instead of an extended diplomatic talk.

Within the last weeks, started after Wikimania, there were some smaller and some not so small and more significant changes in the movement roles articles. I registered them and tried to get some idea, where the origins of these developments laid. But there weren't any explanations on this list and not even on the discussion pages. And questions and comments (not that much, but there were some) on the discussion pages were ignored at the same time.

And that was the time you've lost me. Sure, there was always the opportunity to come up here or on the discussion pages and ask, but to be honest, there were other discussions, for example the chapters council idea, which were much more asking for input and cooperation and therefor get more attention.

I know that I wasn't very active the weeks before - but who was? I absolutely understand that you are trying to keep this thing alive and push it forward. But today it looks more like a board-thing than it ever has looked like. It is ok to have the board in charge to get a result, to lead the process and to set milestones and deadlines. But now it seems that charter and additional documents were written by a board member, to be discussed at the upcoming board meeting, to then be introduced to "the movement" by the board.

I just don't believe that you will get the necessary support from all concerned parties with this approach. I am with Lodewijk and his concerns here.

To come to an end of this nagging mail: I still think that it is possible to work on the movement roles thing cooperatively. But it needs more than only board intention, it needs to bind parallel initiatives like the concrete chapters council ideas and it needs to be more communicative. Rearrange the movement roles core group, redefine the core tasks of the group and ask for new participants. Let us try to not just bury this group without a single word of sorrow, but let us bury it honestly with a deep and public regret if it doesn't make sense to reanimate it.

Best, Alice.

Some Chapters have been reviewing the recommendation for a Chapters Council, but the language is still going through review, and this too will need another round of focus.

Can you elaborate this? What were the reactions, which chapters were involved?

[Samuel Klein]

Post by Lodewijk
Hi Samuel,
to begin with: I am really glad to see that this list isn't forgotten. I'm
spending this weekend with a friend and lots of art, so please forgive me
for choosing a few clear words instead of an extended diplomatic talk.

Thanks Alice! Lovely to hear from you, as always.

Post by Lodewijk
Within the last weeks, started after Wikimania, there were some smaller and
some not so small and more significant changes in the movement roles
articles. I registered them and tried to get some idea, where the origins of
these developments laid. But there weren't any explanations on this list and
not even on the discussion pages. And questions and comments (not that much,
but there were some) on the discussion pages were ignored at the same time.

<checks for discussions and questions> -- yes, we all should & will address
those.

I know that I wasn't very active the weeks before - but who was? I

Post by Lodewijk
absolutely understand that you are trying to keep this thing alive and push
it forward. But today it looks more like a board-thing than it ever has
looked like. It is ok to have the board in charge to get a result, to lead
the process and to set milestones and deadlines. But now it seems that
charter and additional documents were written by a board member, to be
discussed at the upcoming board meeting, to then be introduced to "the
movement" by the board.

Well, if you follow the diffs the edits to the charter, for instance, they
were narrative and structural, not substantive.

Recommendations that were primarily to the Board have indeed been changed,
and will get discussed here too (soon -- I'll post a report back tomorrow
night).

Post by Lodewijk
I just don't believe that you will get the necessary support from all
concerned parties with this approach. I am with Lodewijk and his concerns
here.

Just to be clear -- Bishakha and Arne and I share those concerns; so do most
of the Board. Consider the recent updates a consolidatino of various
private feedback, and one more step towards a good solution; but not a
replacement for the need of broad participatory involvement.

Post by Lodewijk
To come to an end of this nagging mail: I still think that it is possible
to work on the movement roles thing cooperatively. But it needs more than
only board intention, it needs to bind parallel initiatives like the
concrete chapters council ideas and it needs to be more communicative.
Rearrange the movement roles core group, redefine the core tasks of the
group and ask for new participants.

<nod> Let's see if we can find a way to realize your and Lodewijk's
suggestions for more cooperative engagement.


Let us try to not just bury this group without a single word of sorrow,
Let's not bury it!

Sam.

[Joan Goma]

I am sorry for not being able to participate more actively in the movement
roles group last months. I hope I can be more active soon.

I want express my thanks to Samuel and Huggett for continuing working in the
movement roles. I think they have done a good job without many aid from the
rest of us.

From the beginning I have seen that this process is very big and complex and

if we want to do everything simultaneously this will never end.

I think the only way to end with good results is doing steps forward and
applying the Wiki style. Be bold and go ahead improving Wikimedia. If there
are some step where people don’t agree don’t worry then we will have
participation and discussion and by sure we will reach a final consensus but
if we do nothing people will continue not participating and we will become
the most conservative movement in history.

I fear that if we put on the table a draft Charter written by movement roles
group and ask for participation to improve it we will get no answers.
Unfortunately we have long experience in this.

But if we have a quite good charter approved by the board then we can have
two scenarios. Perhaps almost nobody says anything and everybody accepts it
because everybody sees it reflects pretty well the movement values we share.
If this is the case we have a charter and we have done a step further. But
perhaps the approved charter raises a lot of discussion and comments and we
end consensuating an improved charter. In this case we also end with a step
further and an even better result.

In summary than you to those of you who have been more active then me for
doing the job and for being bold.

[Béria Lima]

I agree with Alice in general and I will repeat the question:

*Some Chapters have been reviewing the recommendation for a Chapters

Post by Alice Wiegand

Council, but the language is still going through review, and this too will
need another round of focus.*

*
Can you elaborate this? What were the reactions, which chapters were
involved?* *
*

I can't see that in meta, can you point me to and explain why that is not in
Chapter Council talk?
_____
*Béria Lima*
<http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.*

Post by Alice Wiegand
Hi Samuel,
to begin with: I am really glad to see that this list isn't forgotten. I'm
spending this weekend with a friend and lots of art, so please forgive me
for choosing a few clear words instead of an extended diplomatic talk.
Within the last weeks, started after Wikimania, there were some smaller and
some not so small and more significant changes in the movement roles
articles. I registered them and tried to get some idea, where the origins of
these developments laid. But there weren't any explanations on this list and
not even on the discussion pages. And questions and comments (not that much,
but there were some) on the discussion pages were ignored at the same time.
And that was the time you've lost me. Sure, there was always the
opportunity to come up here or on the discussion pages and ask, but to be
honest, there were other discussions, for example the chapters council idea,
which were much more asking for input and cooperation and therefor get more
attention.
I know that I wasn't very active the weeks before - but who was? I
absolutely understand that you are trying to keep this thing alive and push
it forward. But today it looks more like a board-thing than it ever has
looked like. It is ok to have the board in charge to get a result, to lead
the process and to set milestones and deadlines. But now it seems that
charter and additional documents were written by a board member, to be
discussed at the upcoming board meeting, to then be introduced to "the
movement" by the board.
I just don't believe that you will get the necessary support from all
concerned parties with this approach. I am with Lodewijk and his concerns
here.
To come to an end of this nagging mail: I still think that it is possible
to work on the movement roles thing cooperatively. But it needs more than
only board intention, it needs to bind parallel initiatives like the
concrete chapters council ideas and it needs to be more communicative.
Rearrange the movement roles core group, redefine the core tasks of the
group and ask for new participants. Let us try to not just bury this group
without a single word of sorrow, but let us bury it honestly with a deep and
public regret if it doesn't make sense to reanimate it.
Best, Alice.

Some Chapters have been reviewing the recommendation for a Chapters

Council, but the language is still going through review, and this too will
need another round of focus.
Can you elaborate this? What were the reactions, which chapters were involved?
_______________________________________________
Movementroles mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles

[Bishakha Datta]

Post by Alice Wiegand
I know that I wasn't very active the weeks before - but who was? I
absolutely understand that you are trying to keep this thing alive and push
it forward. But today it looks more like a board-thing than it ever has
looked like. It is ok to have the board in charge to get a result, to lead
the process and to set milestones and deadlines. But now it seems that
charter and additional documents were written by a board member, to be
discussed at the upcoming board meeting, to then be introduced to "the
movement" by the board.

I just don't believe that you will get the necessary support from all

Post by Alice Wiegand
concerned parties with this approach. I am with Lodewijk and his concerns
here.
To come to an end of this nagging mail: I still think that it is possible
to work on the movement roles thing cooperatively. But it needs more than
only board intention, it needs to bind parallel initiatives like the
concrete chapters council ideas and it needs to be more communicative.
Rearrange the movement roles core group, redefine the core tasks of the
group and ask for new participants. Let us try to not just bury this group
without a single word of sorrow, but let us bury it honestly with a deep
and public regret if it doesn't make sense to reanimate it.
Just looked at this - the last thread on this list (before the current

one). Agree with the general sentiments about re-arrangement, re-defining
etc.

Best
Bishakha