2010/9/22 Austin Hair <adhair(a)gmail.com> Hmm, I hate to be the nagger here - I just hoped that right from the beginning the openness and transparancy could be clear by doing this kind of things, that are not secret, as much as possible in the open :) Although I also hope everybody will agree with it - it would be helpful if people could lend you their thoughts on it, even if they are not involved in the group formally fostering the discussion. Although you hopefully did not mean it like that, "will be made available for comment" does not sound exactly inclusive :) Lodewijk

Anon, The percentage of community members interested in doing meta organizing and research for the movement as a whole will always be much smaller than those interested in working on a single project (or just a single task or subject within a project). It's a fact of life when it comes to any movement, online or off, and Wikimedia is not unusual in this regard. It's important to remember that working groups such as Movement Roles try hard to get a diverse array of perspectives in on a project, even if they don't alway succeed. If you want to see some new blood involved, I would suggest either joining in yourself or making sure the right people know that they can join in, * especially* if they aren't normally the type to self-select for groups such as Movement Roles. Steven Walling On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:05 PM, who this <whothith(a)gmail.com> wrote:

why not throw in florence and aprhabhala into the mix and we can round up the same "advisory group" cabal. maybe they are in rotation for the next one...... anyway seeing the same names over and over again irked me and I decided to comment on the issue which like many other editors I try to avoid. looking forward to seeing more of the same Anon On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:07 AM, who this <whothith(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All, I would just like to point out that this specific working group is dealing with the relationship of chapters, the Foundation and possible other forms of Wikimedia groups that have offline activities. In this sense, no outcome of the proposal put to the Board or the Charter that should come out of the process in a year's time would affect any editors directly -- it will, however affect the Foundation and the chapters and to some degree the future development of the movement. It is indeed very important that those affected are part of the process and are heard – this group of people, myself included, will not be the ones doing most or even the majority of the input that goes into the charter to be; they should be seen as the ones doing the preparational and other background work that doesn't get done otherwise. To be innovative, it is also very important that those not affiliated to any of the mentioned groups participate, as well. It is a matter of practicality of who is involved in what degree in the * preparation* of the actual work that will begin after October and be very open. (In comparison to other working groups, consider the current approach a *bit* more open – oftentimes you don't hear about the preparation that goes into establishing various new initiatives). As for the members of the group, I think I should shed some light on actual affiliations: The current membership represents the above mentioned stakeholders (chapters, WMF Board and staff), with the exception of 'other forms of 'offline Wikimedia groups'', which there aren't that many of yet. The over representation of Chapcom is just a curious coincidence: Arne, SJ and Bishakka are WMF Trustees and non-voting Chapcom liaisons, not involved in the actual work of the committee. Austin and I are indeed members of the committee, Austin being one of the longest-serving members and thus having a huge experience in handling WMF-chapter relations and me being a member only since this March (if I may be so bold, I would still consider myself a relatively fresh face in WMF comitology). The call to join the Chapters committee was public, that is how I got in. Morgan's and mine actual background - and also that of Lizzy and Galileo - is being on boards of chapters. Barry is indeed on the staff of the Foundation, his portfolio includes global development and WMF-Chapter relations. Jon is a new employee hired for this group in order to help the process and provide research and insight on the organizational questions to be discussed. In the case of the same people repeatedly showing up to these committees and groups, I would note that these groups tend to form on some form of self-nomination or public nomination and that anyone involved puts in his free time and work that should not be taken lightly. Some people do amazing and unbelievable work; their numerous group membership is a sign of their dedication not their embeddedness into some cabal. The invitation to fresh people is always open and I think their application is always encouraged. I hope this clears up those questions I think I know the answer to. Best regards, Bence On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:45 PM, who this <whothith(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:36 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, to be blunt, the goal of the process isn't to foster innovation. The goal is to codify the roles and responsibilities of the various organizations, groups, people, what have you in Wikimedia—everyone who's already working to make the "Wikimedia movement" the awesome thing that it is. I could personally sit down in a weekend and write down what I think a chapter should be, what the WMF's role should be, what to do with Brazil/Catalonia/NYC/Kansai/Whatever. You'd probably disagree with me on at least one point, and you'd be right when you said that there's no reason whatsoever to listen to me. The reason it's meant to take a year is that everyone's thoughts, everyone's opinions, everyone's—dare I say it—"input" is incorporated into the final outcome. A Wikimedia Charter is useless if people aren't willing to accept it, so everyone with an opinion needs to weigh in and make sure it's heard. The reason it's meant to have milestones is that without them, very simply, the process just drags on indefinitely. If you have better ideas about how to go about the process, great! Leave a note on the talk page where everyone can see it, and we'll go from there. Austin

oh I agree the entire process is so transparent.......like mentioning the existence of the group 10 days after their first meet. That is the sort of thing I am talking about, the said group was formed already had its first meeting and you are announcing it now more than 10 days later, its almost the definition of open and collaborative. Just that you want "discussions" and you are open to comments and input, but most people do not know what the agendas are, there is no info on what you are planning to do just the same old corporate goodbledy and vagueness. Austin you might as well sit down write it over a weekend or the next chapcom meet, most people have no idea what the agendas are.....just a page on meta and a meeting that already went on without anyone knowing about the existence of the said group. I thought defining wikimedia movement roles and a charter would the biggest possible policy decision for all the project and the entire organization, clearly its not, you can do it at the next chapcom meet and add notes on meta weeks later. Anon On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com> wrote: