I think there is some poor wording being used ignoring nuances of the English language and how different people speak it. One point that hits hard for me is the way its being framed as "policy" rather than "principles". Policy is too strong a word for its something that is beholden with political obligations that shifts the WMF away from the core pillars. For many jurisdictions the term policy is going to translate into activism, advocacy, even into the realm of labelling all Wikimedians as lobbyists, or trouble makers.

Whereas if we take as a principle it sets this as an expectation of our community and our internal activities, it does not cross that line into areas which cause concern, dissent, and fear within governments, GLAMs, government agencies with whom we need to work. It also limits the risk to communities who are charitable organisations, and individuals that want to contribute without the fear of being labelled as a subversive.

Its one thing to consider what we do and put guides in place its another for the WMF to step into areas, or push our contributors into positions that have implications beyond sharing knowledge.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 at 22:02, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:12 PM Dan Szymborski <dszymborski@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip)

The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this *is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.

Best,

Dan

There's a misunderstanding here, I think. The Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia projects are community-driven and collaborative. The WMF itself is not and has never been. People who expect the WMF to be managed by consensus, determined by RfC, are destined to always be disappointed. The WMF certainly knows many people in the Wikimedia world have that expectation, and I suppose they considered and rejected the possibility of engaging in a community process for this policy. My criticism of the policy itself is that it contains very aspirational statements; I would have preferred it to be focused on what practical actions the WMF can take, and build a policy around how and when those actions will be taken.

In any case, the WMF is not a governance experiment. The projects are, to some extent, although that is not their purpose. Expecting every policy and decision to be workshopped with "the community" is essentially demanding the WMF be dissolved.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/G2SSMJBZ6FFGHSH3ILMHBS6GVKLULVMD/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org