Talk:Wikimedia LGBT+/Participants

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


@OR drohowa, Bluerasberry, Tom Morris, Shujenchang, and Sou Boyy: Do you all still wish to have your name mentioned in the "Board" section? I don't mind either way, I just know the list has not been updated in a very long time. -Another Believer (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this question, Another Believer. This is consistent with something that came up in my discussion with the Affiliations Committee at Wikimedia Conference last week when I met with them. I will include more about that in my summary report from representing the LGBT+ User Group at the conference, which I hope to have completed within the week. FULBERT (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, looking forward to learning more about your experience. -Another Believer (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I am indifferent. The group has no process for appointing a board. I would agree to remain listed as a point of contact. I continue to do projects in the scope of this organization and wish for its development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not part of the board. I occasionally edit about LGBT topics (especially when they intersect with other topics I'm interested in), but to suggest I have much of a connection to the group as it currently exists might be stretching it a bit. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. -Another Believer (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


I think we should update the Representatives section to note the 1) original AffCom/User Group reps, 2) current reps, 3) social media reps for various platforms, and 4) Wikimedia Conference reps. Any others? @Bluerasberry, , FULBERT, RachelWex, and Varnent: Care to share thoughts and/or help update? As evidenced by the recent confusion re: reps and reporting, we need this page to have better documentation. -Another Believer (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If folks can add what they think is right, it can be discussed at the next zoom meeting in a couple of weeks. It would be great if this page were updated to highlight the most "active" points of contact for stuff like social media channels and non-English communications. Though we have some very long term contacts like AB and myself, which is good for continuity, we also need to reconcile that some busy channels, especially Twitter, which actually need someone logging in and taking care of content every week, would benefit from several maintained known contacts to make it easier to deal with the primary contact taking a sabbatical, or just needing a social-media-wiki-break. Other channels like Telegram, virtually take care of themselves by their nature and are fine so long as there is plenty of participation. -- (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. And not to encourage discussions across multiple spaces, but there's related discussion at Talk:Wikimedia_LGBT+#Representatives, which will be archived some day so not bad to keep a more longterm discussion here as well. -Another Believer (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. Actually this point got raised during the LGBT+ User group meeting that happened in Wikipedia for Peace Vienne this June, and one of the suggestions was to chose representatives for the different geographic regions (eg: western Europe, North Africa, South America, etc) so that it makes it easier to coordinate work on a local scale by taking into consideration the language, political and cultural factors in communication. I personally support this idea.--Kawayashu (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree this is an important issue to clarify, and see this conversation is now happening in two places. I just added my own reply on our general User Group discussion page where this issue was raised and think it may be helpful to continue / refine / finish this discussion there so as not for things to be left out or drop off. --- FULBERT (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)