Talk:Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees
Add topicDoes Arbcoms not like others contributors?
[edit]Case is about:
"one person with experience as an arbitrator...should be added as a member of the drafting committee"
Really??? WHY?
Is local communities' Arbcoms' members are "different type" of Wikimedia Foundation users (some sort of selected ones) in view of global community's?
Why they have to have any privileges compared to other users on participation in Phase 2 Drafting committee?
I think Including such sort of users that was involved in quite powerful local structures as Arbcoms to the UCoC (that is by definition ["applies equally to all Wikimedians without any exceptions"] targeted to ANY user's free will and behaviour unifications globally ignoring any local communities', breaking such global policy, superstitions that is met too frequent nowadays) drafting committee already is a big mistake as "power corrupts".
An even bigger mistake to make them a "selected by quota" UCoC drafting commitee members with the same reason, as ones who signed the open letter obviously do not understand meaning of UCoC, as marks themselves as "selected" contributors, who have to be "picked-up" by quota. How can they participate in drafting commitee that way?
Does ones who signed Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees at least translated to their own communities' language an Universal Code of Conduct or Universal Code of Conduct/Policy text or exactly Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee (where they want exactly to participate in) to make their communities be free to familiarize with what is it and why is it and how anyone from their community participate in it?
To be clear for now there's:
- 9 languages ("Bahasa Melayu • Deutsch • English • français • polski • suomi • čeština • русский • українська") Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees, where they (Arbcoms) tell they [automatically] SHOULD TO PARTICIPATE in drafting commitee is translated to;
- 8 languages ("Bahasa Indonesia • English • español • français • português • русский • 日本語 • 한국어") Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee, where exactly they (Arbcoms) yearn to (automatically) participate in is translated to;
with 3 only interferred between such pages languages (to English, français and русский) of existing pages' translations with NOONE of ones who signed the Open Letter who made any Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee page translations; the only ONE [of ones who signed the Open Letter] who made something useful to Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee initial page and one who was interested in participation on Phase 1 drafting commitee exactly doing it as any other ordinary user and one who long-advertized himself at Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee page instead of doing it in separate email marking interest on main drafting commitee page in brief only.
So... What way that users (Arbcoms' members) are not like other contributors and why they should to be "quoted" to drafting commitee? I see no any reason.
UCoC itself and it's drafting committee is not the career grow (that case - for Arbcoms' members) place - that is what have to be free of ANY narrowly focused [any way biased] contributors' POV's as, based on Arbcoms work and have to follow their local community's policies, and obviously will be affected by such ones [local policies], that will interfere them to be globally neutral and having balanced (independent form their own's local communities') view.
if Arbcoms's members want to try their best at UCoC Phase 2 drafting commitee they have to apply on general basis as any other contributors interested to participate do but NOT to be "quota-selected" there any way. No more no less.85.238.106.86 13:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from the UCoC Project team
[edit]The UCoC Project team read the Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees with interest. We share the belief that large projects with mature community governance systems need to have meaningful input about the application and enforcement section of the Universal Code of Conduct. While we are aware that the Board, to whom the letter was addressed, will be considering and responding after the upcoming Functionaries meeting, we wanted to share some of our own thoughts and expectations.
The current plan calls for Maggie Dennis to select the committee members, and she has confirmed that at least one person with experience as an arbitrator, or similar experience dealing with complex and difficult behavior issues, will be added as a member of the drafting committee, and at least one additional person with this experience, or experience as a Steward. However, this is naturally contingent upon qualified volunteers with the required experience applying for the role. We hope the signing members will consider applying!
The Open Letter also indicated a need for the Universal Code of Conduct to remain a living document subject to an amendment process involving meaningful input from communities and individuals. We agree and had built into the plan a review one year after implementation, following which we believe the UCoC should remain subject to periodic reviews. We understand the position that a community-involved amendment process should be formalized.
The project team wants to thank the signing members for taking the time to provide these thoughts. We would appreciate it if Arbitration Committee members who are able to attend the meetings scheduled 15:00 UTC on 10 & 11 April 2021 make time to do so. If you require language or other accommodation, please let Keegan (WMF) (talk · contribs) know.
We are inviting participants on every interested project with an Arbitration Committee, as well as any and all interested Wikimedia projects in any language to hold discussions starting 5 April 2021. Community members are invited to submit summaries of the discussion by 10 May 2021 for the drafting committee's use in designing proposals that will be brought back to the same communities for a comprehensive community review period later this year.
We will shortly be sending out an an announcement seeking input about these discussion topics (some translations pending) during global consultations. We are working to translate these pages into as many languages as possible and would appreciate any assistance. If anyone is interested in helping to organize local discussions and requires assistance, please post here.
The team is committed to a strong collaborative effort with communities as we move forward together with the Universal Code of Conduct and would like to thank all the signing members for their ongoing community building efforts. We look forward to hearing more of your thoughts in the April 2021 consultations and learning more of the Board’s thoughts in their coming response.
On behalf of the project team, Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Xeno (WMF): thank you for this response, but it has one massive missing point, which it doesn't even mention, let alone satisfiy sufficiently - that of Community ratification. That is completely different from "meaningful input", "periodic updates" and so on. No amount of consultation is a substitution for ratification. Otherwise we should consult with the Board and then decide and notify them of what has been decided. Now there certainly is space for valid disagreement as to what form that takes - I for one would suggest a majority of communities that consider the question, plus a majority of editors who participate. Others might want a majority of affiliate membership to also be needed, or just 2/3 of communities, etc etc. However, the fact that it is not covered despite being such a key plank of the letter is severely concerning to me, and renders it a non-sufficient response. I hope it can be passed up and accepted by the end of the week as a required conceptual plank, and then discussion can commence as to what form that should take. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Board statement
[edit]See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard/January 2022 - Board of Trustees on Community ratification of enforcement guidelines of UCoC, posted today. A quote: "The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of Arbitration Committees for community voting on the enforcement guidelines proposal prior to the Board’s own ratification of the final guidelines. Trustees also recognize the support of such a vote expressed by surveyed volunteer functionaries, affiliate members, and the drafting committee." --Yair rand (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)