Talk:Movement Charter/Committee
Add topicWMF representation
[edit]Pharos, thank you for launching this page. I am not convinced yet by the proposed representation distribution (7-7-7) --this has been discussed elsewhere, so I won't bring it to here.
I have a new point, pertaining to this sentence: "members appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation; method: whatever is appropriate for the WMF, members chosen could be board, staff or others". I don't think it is appropriate to have these appointments as framed as "whatever is appropriate for the WMF". We might want to think of what is appropriate for the Wikimedia Movement, and WMF appointments should take into consideration the WMF wide, diverse expertise and stakeholders. I would say we would benefit from having at least one representative from some of the key WMF departments as well as at least one representative from the BoT. I hope this makes sense. --Joalpe (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm just a bit confused as to how 21 people will organise themselves into a working group that actually produces the expected outcome. By which criteria should the WMF pick its appointed members and which skillsets do they need? How do we not end up with 80% Western European and North American members when the other two selection processes are the opposite of an equal and diverse selection process, especially a vote on Meta, which is notoriously en.wp biased? Braveheart (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Please mark for translation
[edit]Please mark for translation. Thank you in advance! Cheers --Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 09:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have done so.--Pharos (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are affiliates getting as much representation as the whole community?!
[edit]This structure reads as no less than a power grab by the affiliates. That they think their representation should be as large as the whole Community is to me, insulting. Affiliates are of wildly different sizes, can be easy to form for no less reason than wanting a seat at the affiliate table, poor governance control and only exist as a support mechanism for parts of the various movement projects. I think a case could be made for an affiliate seat, but at a maximum, must be less than 50% of the community at large representation. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that this is distribution is too affiliate-heavy. I would recommend something like a 5:1 community:affiliate representation ratio. --Yair rand (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. The link above might be of your interest. --Joalpe (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Move?
[edit]@Pharos: I'm afraid this page may cause serious confusion to those looking for up-to-date information about the current MCDC process. The only difference in the names of the two pages is, currently, the "Drafting" word: Do you think it would make since to move this to the Interim Global Council's namespace and to mark it as archived? --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC).