Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Portal Activities Business History Participants & Supporters Privacy Resources Discussion


Wikimedia Conference 2018[edit]

Wikimedia Conference logo black.svg

Wikimedia Conference 2018 will take place from April 20 to 22, 2018 at the Mercure Hotel in Berlin-Neukölln (same location as in 2017). User Groups must have shown signs of recent activity (within the last six months) and be up-to-date on their reporting by the eligibility deadline (December 15, 2017). User Groups may send two delegates. The registration process will start on November 24, and will end on January 15, 2018.

This might seem far away, but really we need to start discussing now who is interested in attending the conference on behalf of the WMLGBT+ User Group. There were some issues last year regarding the decision process, so I'd like to get the ball rolling now. If you are interested in attending the conference, please indicate so here, and perhaps include why you'd like to attend and/or what your goals might be. Thanks! -Another Believer (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I am interested in getting Wiki LGBT up to current reporting and in supporting whomever wishes to go. I do not wish to volunteer to go myself. I have various projects to report, including an upcoming World AIDS Day event at the LGBT Center in NYC, and would like to talk with whomever will go so that they can share my updates. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that the attendees of the Diversity Conference with LGBT+ related interests are approached. The fact that they are active and going to the conference (from a variety of institutions) may mean that they could be interested in representing the user group for the WMCON. There are a number of people chipping in on the Telegram group who have never been to a past WMCON, and there should be a preference for encouraging new reps. Though the criticism that bounces around about sending too many "white men" to Wikimedia events may be unfair at times, there is a benefit to be had in engaging more visible, or at least t-shirt wearing, LGBT+ women and trans folks at events. I'll put a note on the Telegram group, maybe others could craft something for Twitter, the email list and a couple of relevant talk pages or notice boards?
As per Blue, as I went last year, I'll not be putting my name in the hat. -- (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please do whatever you can to help spread the word and encourage people to express their interest. In the past, very few people expressed interest in attending the conference and representing this group. I would be interested and willing to attend if there is limited interest, but I too would love to see new representatives. -Another Believer (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I went last year and if there is nobody who wants to go, I could do it again in 2018. It would be great if we can find someone else so that not the same persons attend every year. -- Freddy2001 talk 20:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat. I'm happy to represent our group, and would be willing to attend if no one else expresses interest, but would also like to see new representation. I did not attend the conference last year, but did in 2015 and 2016. -Another Believer (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm in Berlin anyway so if it is ok Berlin I might be able to go. I don't have that much free time on my hands though. So I could drop in here and there when it is relevant but likely not attend the whole thing unless it's on a weekend. So that's my two cents. As I would like organize a Wikipedia at World pride New York 2019 if you also be an opportunity to present that and of course everything else...--Earlyspatztalk 12:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Registration has opened, and I believe WMLGBT+ is eligible to send two representatives. Any ideas on how to decide who should attend? Don't want to kick this can too far down the road, nor do I want any individuals to be accused of making decisions without wider consensus. -Another Believer (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Today we had a World AIDS Day event in NYC at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center. The number of people who participate in LGBT+ wiki events in NYC is large enough and also represents an international demographic as many people here are immigrants. At the same time, even if individuals in this group are interested in wiki, and even interested in wiki organizing, it is challenging to identify people who are that and interested in connecting with wiki organizing issues outside of LGBT topics. Some of us are meeting to talk about next steps the weekend before Monday 11 December, so I might have something to report in that week. I will ask around. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to confirm on eligibility, see Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Participants'_List. Thanks everyone for letting new people have an opportunity to grow. --Nemo 13:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Nominations for representatives to attend[edit]

User:FULBERT

I nominate user:FULBERT to represent Wiki LGBT+ at the Wikimedia Conference in 2018.

User:FULBERT has been engaged with Wikimedia projects since early 2017. In that time he has attended NYC events, collaborated with Wiki Education Foundation to incorporate Wikipedia in the classroom for two classes (1) (2), attended and actively participated in Wikimania Montreal including the LGBT+ meetup, and he has made other efforts to encourage groups of Wikipedians to be more efficient either by scaling up outreach or making administrative changes to be more effective. FULBERT has day jobs as a professor at a major university in New York City and with a major national nonprofit organization in the United States but of international impact. He would be an ideal candidate to attend the Wikimedia Conference because after long conversations, we in NYC are nearing the end of what we can explain to him and his questions would be best answered by him meeting other Wikimedia community organizers at this sort of conference. I know that he is fairly new to engaging in Wikimedia projects, but as a professor who uses Wikipedia in the classroom he has demonstrated his ability to convince graduate students to contribute to Wikipedia and make them see this opportunity for their own benefit and to the mutual benefit of Wikipedia. In his nonprofit network I think that he similarly is in a position to encourage institutional engagement in Wikimedia projects if only he could access a bit more of the training and experience that he needs to speak confidently about wiki.

Although FULBERT does not take the development of LGBT+ content as his focus, he has shown special interest in helping anyone else bring this content to Wikipedia. Also, he has professional training and experience in administration and organizing, and I think that Wiki LGBT+ and the larger Wikimedia community would benefit from having more people with this background. At the conference FULBERT would advocate for greater inclusion of LGBT+ people, allies, and perspectives in every field of outreach. I also like his ideas about better integrating advocacy for LGBT+ projects with issues of fairness and equality for all demographics, because I think that gives Wiki LGBT+ synergy with other, similar groups. I think that his professional and Wikimedia background make him able to advocate in this way to an extent that anyone without his experience could not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the nomination, Blue Rasberry . My work over the past year with all things Wiki, from Wiki NYC to Wikimania, its connection with nonprofits, and its link with the open education movement has convinced me it is one of our ways forward in advocating for equality, equity, and credibility as a counter to the effects of bias and fake news. I accept this nomination and, if given the opportunity to attend and represent Wiki LGBT+ at the Wikimedia Conference in 2018, will do all I can to help us move our shared work and contributions forward. FULBERT (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I support User:Fulbert's attendance, and trust he will attempt to document and report appropriately. -Another Believer (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Earlyspatz: Thank you for offering to attend. However, saying "I could drop in here and there when it is relevant but likely not attend the whole thing" makes me wonder if we can send another representative who is able to be fully present and assist with documentation and reporting. Your presence in Berlin is convenient, but I think we should send 2 people who can commit to all the duties and responsibilities that come with attending the entire conference. -Another Believer (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Freddy2001

I would like to nominate User:Freddy2001 to represent Wikimedia LGBT+ at the Wikimedia Conference 2018.

User:Freddy2001 has been involved with Wikimedia projects since 2012, mostly on the German Wikipedia and on Commons. She has attended many Wikimedia activities and conferences, including Wikimania 2016 and 2017 (including the LGBT+ meetups), the Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2017 and German Young Wikipedian meetups (which she helps organising). She is a very keen photographer, which is useful in documenting conferences.

She has also attended the Wikimedia Conference representing Wikimedia LGBT+ before, namely last year. She has shown interest to do so again, and I think it would be valuable for this user group to have her attend. Seeing the nomination of User:FULBERT, I think they would complement each other well, given both users' background and experience.

I would also like to remind that registration closes 15 January, so if Wikimedia LGBT+ would like to send two representatives, we'd need to decide rather quickly. SPQRobin (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support This user attended last year and did good reporting at Wikimedia LGBT+/2017. This group could use the stability of continuity in representation and participation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the nomination SPQRobin. I attended last year (Bluerasberry has linked my report) and have heard from many users on different conferences what challenges they face and what successes they have. I do a lot of work for underrepresented groups (not just limited to LGBT+ people) in the Wikimedia projects, for example the young wikimedian project. The WMCON is a precious opportunity to connect to other affiliates and work together on our goals: equality, free knowledge and open possibilities for everyone. I accept the nomination and if I will get the privilege to represent WMLGBT+, I will do everything to bring the project, our work and our values and goals forward. -- Freddy2001 talk 22:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I support User:Freddy2001 attending. I want to acknowledge some editors' preference to rotate representatives, but I have no problem with Freddy2001 returning to contribute to the conference with WMLGBT+'s goals in mind, and help with documentation and reporting. I propose waiting a couple more days to see if any other editors express support or concerns, otherwise I believe we've selected two representatives. Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. -Another Believer (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

*bump* Since there has been no additional discussion, I support having the two reps above going ahead and registering. @FULBERT and Freddy2001: Please confirm once you've registered, thanks! -Another Believer (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Another Believer for the go ahead. I will register on this today and then report back. It will be a good opportunity to articulate some of our work and needs, per the preparation for the registration questions. FULBERT (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I am now registered for #WMCON2018, and look forward to working with Freddy2001 to represent our community at the conference. FULBERT (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I am registered for the Conference and was accepted to attend the the Learning Days. -- Freddy2001 talk 07:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! -Another Believer (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Planning for Wikimedia Conference 2018[edit]

Now that Freddy2001 and I are scheduled to attend the conference, it may be a useful time to gather input from our community here. I have some ideas and thoughts about organization, communication, and the like, though really hope to get input from our community here.

What are the greatest needs you think Wikimedia LGBT+ has that we can bring to and hope to be informed by our attending the Wikimedia Conference 2018? FULBERT (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to locate previous reports or materials from any past Wikimedia LGBT+ representation at Wikimedia Conferences, though am not able to locate them. Can somebody point me to anything we have so I can better understand where we are starting from in this area (as we are preparing for 2018)? Pinging Another Believer, OR drohowa, Bluerasberry, Tom Morris, Shujenchang, Sou Boyy, and Freddy2001. I envision we can build off of our previous accomplishments, and welcome any insight or guidance from anybody on this. Thanks in advance! --- FULBERT (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to include Hexatekin too! --- FULBERT (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@FULBERT: I invite you to poke around Category:Wikimedia LGBT+, and pay special attention to some of the event links at Wikimedia LGBT+/Business and Wikimedia LGBT+/Wikimania. Some of the Wikimania meetup pages link to Etherpad notes. Also, our annual reports provide overviews of previous Wikimedia Conference experiences: Wikimedia LGBT+/2015, Wikimedia LGBT+/2017. I hope this helps! -Another Believer (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and just FYI, "Hexatekin" and "OR drohowa" are the same editor. -Another Believer (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Another Believer for the pointers; will do! --- FULBERT (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a spot for an LGBT+ meetup at WMCon here. Freddy2001, any suggestions for day/time? --- FULBERT (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

What's about Friday, 19:30? -- Freddy2001 talk 16:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure Freddy2001; will add it as a suggestion. I suppose if it conflicts with dinner or too many other sessions they will let us know. --- FULBERT (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I was going to suggest just showing up or contacting us or me, rather than having a sign-up form as some of the other groups have. Does that sound a good idea Freddy2001 due to some attendee needs? --- FULBERT (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this, Freddy2001, and wonder if perhaps we should create and link to a dedicated meetup page for this? While I do not think it is necessary for people to register, I think it would be useful to have a spot to list us, perhaps have a link to our work here, and begin to draft an agenda (even if only rough ideas). I am also wondering if that may not be a place to discuss our work overall at WikiCon related to promoting the LGBT+ opportunities, needs, and thoughts for our community? What do you think? --- FULBERT (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I created a meetup page for us at the Wikimedia Conference 2018 here Freddy2001. Anybody here, feel free to add any ideas or suggestions to it, including those who may not be attending in person. FULBERT (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Report from the Wikimedia Conference 2018[edit]

I created a new page for our user group's 2018 accomplishments and put my summary report from attending the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin as one of our representatives. I think the page (or at least my section) still needs some formatting, but I wanted to get it up while it is still timely. I will be adding notes from our LGBT+ Meetup at the Conference in the next day or two. Very interested in feedback on it. FULBERT (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I know we have a number of reports from previous Wikimedia Conferences in addition to mine above, though I think they are difficult to find. Anybody have a suggestion where they should be more clearly linked? Thinking under Activities or Business? I am happy to round them up and link them, just wondering where the most appropriate spot make be? Pinging Bluerasberry Another Believer RachelWex for thoughts --- FULBERT (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I've aways tried to associate LGBT-related pages with Category:Wikimedia LGBT+. -Another Believer (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, and makes sense, though that alone may not be easy to locate for people looking for them. I will take a spin at linking to them someplace directly as well, Another Believer --- FULBERT (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, great idea, just wanted to recommend a place to start searching for related pages. -Another Believer (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for feedback on brochure about editing LGBTQ+ articles[edit]

Wiki Education is developing a guide to help students write about topics related to sexuality. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that they consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. Staff would like to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Cassidy (Wiki Ed)/Sexuality studies. If you're interested, please provide feedback by April 18th. Thank you! -Another Believer (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging us about the draft of the new resource being developed on issues related to sexuality Another Believer. FULBERT (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

LGBT+ User Box[edit]

Do we have any Wiki user boxes related to our LGBT+ User Group? I have not located any, so wondering if one exists? --FULBERT (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not that I know of... -Another Believer (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@FULBERT: Everything is new in the space of wiki community organizations. There are almost no well-established Wikimedia user groups. The entire concept of a user group is new and there is no alignment in various people's imagining of what they do. Getting synced with WMF staffers' imagined role of user groups is a challenging disconnect too, because internally they have few wiki community members and as a culture have different perceptions than wiki community members.
Not only is there no wiki LGBT+ user group box, I am not aware of a user box for any wiki community organization. User boxes, except for language, are more of an English Wikipedia thing than for every project. The user profile on meta propagates out to the 500+ Wikimedia projects, and I think if the equivalent user box does not exist on all those other projects, then it might not render. The only boxes which are everywhere are the babel boxes for language. I could be mistaken about this.
I do not think there is an obvious way to indicate group affiliation. I see this as a problem because it should be easy for users to define affiliation somehow and user boxes are the most popular way to signal this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
There is one on Meta and Commons, I thought folks knew about it:
It uses the standard Userbox template and is in use on my user page. It renders perfectly well in multiple language Wikipedias where my User page defaults to the one on Meta, but needs to have language variations added. It would be easy enough to export specific versions to other projects if the Meta based one were not sufficient. -- (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that userbox ; I added it onto my user page. Will convert to a userbox template and share that once the conference this weekend is over. FULBERT (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

LGBT+ User Group Meetup - Discussion[edit]

I want to share the report I wrote about my experiences as an LGBT+ User Group representative at the Wikimedia Conference last month in Berlin. My notes and a summary of the discussion with our opportunities, challenges, and next steps raised at our LGBT+ Meetup are all online: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT%2B/Wikimedia_Conference_2018#LGBT+_User_Group_Meetup We are really interested in your thoughts and feedback! Due to the many channels we have and our intentions to engage with as many of our LGBT+ User Group members as possible, we ask if we can focus the feedback replies via our email list https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/lgbt or via the Talk page on the post itself. Looking forward to continuing our opportunities together! --- FULBERT (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There has been some discussion across several channels on a remote Pride Editathon. Anybody know if anything like that is already planned or in process? FULBERT (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2018 will run during the month of June, at least as an English Wikipedia project. -Another Believer (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Another Believer for the link. On there is a page for a Remote Wiki Loves Pride event page for discussion and ideas related to engaging in Pride Month events for people who do not have a local Wiki Loves Pride presence. --- FULBERT (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

LGBT+ User Group representatives[edit]

One of the issues that arose when I met with the Affiliations Committee about our user group is it is unclear who our two representatives are in their system, namely the contacts who they reach out to when they need to communicate with us or who they will ask for reporting. I was told that they should be listed on our site and input in their system, which they did not have. Does anybody know who they are so we can make sure they are listed here and do not miss any communications. Pinging User:Another Believer User:Bluerasberry User:Nattes à chat User:RachelWex to make sure you see this and inquire if you know. I volunteer to be one of these, even if temporary, if nobody is currently in place. I think that, going into Pride Month (in many parts of the world) we need to begin sorting these issues to remain in good standing. --FULBERT (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

By default one was probably me, but if anyone would like to setup a consensus process we could nominate reps. There is no official procedure and the affcom contacts may have no special relationship to how the group might be represented elsewhere. BTW, I think we can have as may points of contact as we want,we should naturally inform Affcom when they change or become inactive. (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we should have as many male representatives as female representatives. I think that a group of people instead of only two representatives would be better.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 16:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the original reps were User:Fae, User:Hexatekin (formerly User:OR drohowa), and myself. I have no problem letting someone else be the official rep, and I'm not sure Hexatekin is very active these days. But, like Fae suggested, I also don't think the official contacts are really afforded any special privileges or relationships, so this may be an unnecessary worry. We needed names to create a group, but now that the group is created, the reps are really just the folks who step up, apply to attend conferences and other events, propose and run online campaigns, contribute to on- and off-wiki discussions, etc. Sparrow, re: "I think that a group of people instead of only two representatives would be better." This is how I see this group already. There are not really official leaders. And, just for the record, User:Hexatekin is female, so there were 2 male and 1 female reps originally. -Another Believer (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
AffCom informed me when we met that there should be two user group reps who are their points of contact and who should be listed on our User Group site; I did not inquire if there could be more than two or how other groups handled this (I only had 15 minutes with them). When I asked them who our reps were now, they did not have any names in their system for when they looked us up. FULBERT (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Their system has missed our existing foundation agreement for some reason. The 3 reps are named on it, alongside our signatures. We should ask Affcom to correct their data to match the user group agreement they have on record.
Our website is these pages on meta, and I'll double check the agreement later today and add a section on our portal with names and original dates. Affcom asking for this is a new requirement, so I'll drop them a confirming note. We are deliberately run with the minimum possible bureaucracy, but as the reps are in the agreement we should take care to record the baseline and be able to link to a user group consensus for changes. Unless someone wants to propose another way, that probably needs nominations and a vote on meta, supported by a note out on our linked comms channels. (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Checking through my email archive, I added our three signatures to the Wikimedia Foundation PDF User Group Agreement on 9 October 2014 and Another Believer officially sent the document to WMF Legal on 10 October 2014. The User Group "Effective Date" stated in the document by the WMF is September 18, 2014. During my role with Chapters, these WMF agreements often get published on-wiki, but as the User Group is not a legal entity, there is no requirement for us to make this document (with our signatures and full legal names) a public record. As we want anyone to be able to participate in WMLGBT+ while respecting their privacy, I suggest we avoid publishing full legal names unless this is a firm requirement, as this would lock out people who prefer to keep their legal name confidential, even if they are happy to have it associated with their Wikimedia accounts in private.
What I'll add to the portal page is that from 2014-09-18 the WMLGBT+ UG representatives have been Hexatekin, Another Believer and . All of our three Wikimedia accounts have email enabled, as well as us remaining active and available via on-wiki pages.
As there is no urgency, I suggest we consider putting out a note later this week/month asking for feedback on the process for nominating or reconfirming representatives, so the discussion is not limited to meta. It is a requirement that potential representatives are comfortable with confirming their identities with the WMF, which means sharing "Government ID", name and address if requested by the WMF; however apart from this and the normal annual activity reporting requirement for user groups, the procedure is deliberately light-weight. My understanding is that the 2014 agreement with the WMF will continue to stand, even if our representatives named on these meta pages changes. However that's something that I will confirm in my email to Affcom to make sure.
It's worth repeating that the UG reps are an administrative necessity, the reps have no other agreed role in the User Group, we were three active members who happened to be available to meet up during Wikimania with Affcom. As we have had the same reps for 4 years, asking for nominations and potentially refreshing our named reps to ensure they are active participants and likely to be available for any questions from Affcom or the WMF is a sensible idea. The process discussion may also be a good time for people to question whether we need to have a more regular committee-type structure with, say, a set of annual minutes. -- (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the due diligence in keeping these records and reaching out to AffCom to make sure they are current and we do not get left out of any important communications. I agree that our maintaining and sharing what they require is a good idea, and as this was the first of the immediate recommendations that came from my meeting with them in April (along with the companionship of User:Imacat who joined me in the meeting). I also agree that using real names or User: names here on Wiki is also a good option due to some complexities our community faces globally. As we discussed in the Meetup as well, this is a great step in our thinking about how we may want to develop and what needs of our community we may want to better understand and meet. --- FULBERT (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added a representatives list to the Participants page diff. If the User Group changes this list, one of the reps needs to then "formally" tell Affcom.

As mentioned above, an email has been sent to Affcom informing them of the publication of representatives on our Portal page, along with naming them in the email. The email subject is "Wikimedia LGBT+ representatives" and was sent a few minutes ago; just in case anyone needs to reference it or help an Affcom member find it. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this for our user group ; really glad we could get this in order as it keeps us current with AffCom needs. --- FULBERT (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2018[edit]

I've mentioned this briefly above, but I'd like to invite project members to please consider contributing to this year's Wiki Loves Pride campaign in some way. The results are already coming in and looking nice. It'd be nice to have even more to showcase, so spare a moment if you have one. Thanks to all who help keep this going! -Another Believer (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Any thought on having this via a project tracker (projects dashboard)? Wondering about this for the remote participation as well. Very glad this is here, as I initially missed it! So very important we gather some of these data to show some of the impact of our work --- FULBERT (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed board[edit]

I have removed the old "proposed board" from the Participants list diff. Though the User Group has meetings, the idea of a formal Board with necessary roles and committee structure never appeared to take off. In practice the User Group defaults to minimal bureaucracy, but if anyone wishes to pursue more formal structuring to help enable better communications or coordination, they are welcome to raise similar ideas on our communication channels or here. -- (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this, and now we are in compliance with AffCom, at least we are current and our origination story is clarified and listed here. I also agree that being contacts to make sure our user group gets communications and remains current is more vital than having a structured board or leadership group as we are a bit more informal and flexible. We should likely want to make sure that User:Hexatekin and User:Another Believer want to remain as our other two AffCom contacts. Can you both let us know? --- FULBERT (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I have sent a private email to Hexatekin as she has not commented here yet, though she is active. We should be cautious to give people weeks rather than days to reply to stuff going on. Everyone has times where they are busy at work, study, or committed to other real life events and may not be able to participate for a while. Face-smile.svg
With regard to process, we should have a defined procedure for taking nominations, set voting rules, and any steps expected for changing our representatives. As has been mentioned, though the rep has no required other roles, it would be healthy to be seen to encourage positive diversity and avoid having all representatives being the same gender or identified sexuality. Though the UG does not have members, we can run a consensus based procedure by notifying all our channels about nominations and possibly leaving on-wiki notices for all the signed participants on the portal.
So long as people have had their say about process and we have time for anyone to put ideas for alternatives, we could run a process to confirm new reps and give an opportunity for past reps to step back.
The requirements are to be available, active and legally identified to the WMF, but the role itself is not burdensome. There is an expectation that if things go wrong in some way, the reps will be available and comfortable to answer potentially difficult questions and be in a position to take timely action, including handling governance issues. Fortunately as the UG has no direct control over money, governance problems are unlikely. Naturally this would change if a Board or regular Committee were to be established, as processes for governance and authority and responsibility would then form and be delegated.
The current three reps have been in place for almost 4 years, which is a good term for these roles, similar to the terms we see for charity trustees. We might want to consider whether after 4 years we should have a documented light-weight procedure for reconfirming and voting in new reps. We would not want to have reps "retire" by default through not self-nominating, and fail to have new candidates lined up, so I would encourage the idea that we see 2 reps as an absolute minimum, and preferably continue to have 3 or more named reps so that we can rely on at least one always being currently active, aware of WM-LGBT+ projects and available to respond to any urgent Affcom/WMF questions within a business day. -- (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the "board" list -- I never really understood why we kept for so long, apart from aspirations of growing into an organization. I am indifferent about remaining a user group representative. I'm happy to have been one for several years, and I'm also fine with someone else taking my place. I'm more interested in the group's activities and representation at Wikimedia events than who appears on the user group agreement. -Another Believer (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement‎ 2018-20‎ Working Groups[edit]

I hope everybody here saw that the Strategy‎ | Wikimedia movement‎ | 2018-20‎ | Working Groups call for participants is now available. I engaged in a number of these discussions at the Wikimedia Conference two months ago, and strongly encourage anybody who is interested to volunteer for one of the working groups. It is very important that we have our voices included in this work. I am not involved whatsoever with the processing or selection of the volunteer applications, though encourage others to apply for this valuable work. FULBERT (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Women in Red - a proposed User Group[edit]

Having worked for 2 years editing articles for Women In Red, a group of organizers have concluded that sourcing is one of the biggest hurdles in creating articles on women and non-binary genders. Though it is true that a lot of sourcing simply doesn’t exist, it is also true that there are sources, but we have no access to them. As these groups did not typically become subjects for academic study until the 1970s, many of the sources are not on line or are behind paywalls. Failure to include women and non-binary people in the encyclopedia presents a one-dimensional view of society and history. To address those issues, we are forming a new User Group aimed at referencing and support for like-minded groups and would appreciate your input or input from your supporters in our organizational process. See link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Women_in_Red SusunW (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: I have raised an area of concern on the talk page of the proposal, I would not want to reopen the same discussion here. However there is some disagreement with the apparent positive view of the proposal, for example "The various LGBT/LGBTQ stuff can have its own user group, and as contributors they are just as welcome to work on all of this stuff as the men are.", refer to diff. It comes over as a positively anti-LGBT+ attitude, which is very unfortunate for the proposed new User Group, sorry. -- (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I am dismayed and strongly objected to that statement and the exclusionary view that it represents. (Would that you Europeans were on the same time schedule as Mexico. I am always so far behind). SusunW (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)