Talk:Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Diversity and Expertise Matrices

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Abbad (WMF) in topic Open-source background?

The following Wikimedia Foundation staff monitor this page:

In order to notify them, please link their username when posting a message.
This note was updated on 11/2021

No Disabilities again, too?[edit]

I am very disappointed the Disabilities are excluded from the 'diversity': I express regret to the Wikimedia Foundation for the Foundation does not regard any wikimedians with Disabilities to their party for cooperation. - Ellif (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ellif,
I apologize for not attending this question in a timely manner, especially considering the extent of disappointment you have expressed. I am the person responsible for bringing different threads of conversation together to the diversity and expertise matrices, and as a result also responsible for the omission of disabilities in the matrices.
I want to be clear that not having disabilities especially outlined in the matrix, does not mean that we do not see value in collaborating with disabled or impaired individuals and organized groups standing up for accessibility during the work on movement charter. The intent is quite the opposite.
The reason for this omission is mainly related to the discreet nature of the disability or impairment, which means that often individuals would rather not publicly disclose such information. The matrices are mainly put forward as a working tool to evaluate diversity in the Movement Charter Drafting Committee and as a result need to operate with data publicly available.
This being said, I would like to understand better how to communicate well the intent to include people with disabilities in the conversation to build a more accessible and diverse future for Wikimedia. What would be in your perspective the right approach to matrices to convey the right message? How to treat this somewhat discreet matter in public conversations? Any guidance for improvements would be appreciated.
Thank you for raising this topic and take care! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply


Hi, @KVaidla (WMF): which people are tagged as "Functionary", are those project functionaries (admins, arbcom-members) or affiliate/ staff functionaries? Best regards Christoph Jackel (WMDE) 08:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Christoph Jackel (WMDE): Not sure if this is still at all helpful (I've not been monitoring this page before), but I'm fairly sure it's meant to be on projects, since both staff and boards/committees have separate labels in the matrix! --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

Open-source background?[edit]

I'd have liked to see knowledge of open-source technology processes in the expertise matrix. I'd like the Charter to refer to the processes and advantages of open-source approaches since it's something our movement can bring to educational content development that is different from more hierarchical organizations. And I don't see anything very close to this listed presently. But I recognize that I am mentioning this late as voting/selection of Charter drafters is already underway. -- econterms (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Econterms: Yes, unfortunately the matrix is now locked because the candidates have already expressed their positions about it. Open source background, though, is surely an important component both for candidates (I believe many of them have it, judging by their statements) as well as for the Charter itself. Even if it's not in the matrix, this can surely be something to include in the Movement Charter's content - if you have a relevant link, feel free to add it there --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC).Reply