Curiosities and challenges with the current approach[edit]
Context, motivation, intent
"Participate in this call for feedback and help us form a more diverse and better performing Board of Trustees!"
Noted in comments so far: most of the lack of geographic diversity has been in the Board-appointed trustees. This should be discussed as long as we're dedicating months to this topic.
Communication, clarity
New channels for chat: Telegram is not SLOPI and has confusing norms
Set up by Quim who is great. Community facilitator team speaks in the plural 'we', since it's TG it feels like there are private side chats elsewhere.
Channel / chat division is a bit confusing. Are announcements all just links to more details on Meta?
New channels for chat: there are too many, with no primary place.
Duplication of threads, even within one community + language
No Schelling point for a community of interest to form and moderate / synthesize for one another.
Communication, explanation, consolidation is by paid staff.
This is slower, distancing, confusing in that most people are waiting for others to speak.
The language and regional focus is a plus; better when implemented as a complement to a community process
Top-down
Introduction of paid facilitators who are not explicitly facilitating an existing community process
Unique to this process? Unclear how long (heard: 6 mo, half time?)
Consolidation + moderation + explanation, when not led by community groups, is slower, distancing, confusing, as above. Not made better by having the staff be temporary and active community members (since it's the social constructs of not knowing who can speak where, who should feel free to chip in where, all the frictions finessed on wiki). Unclear that this is compensated for.
This can work well when there's an active community process (w/ people making the wikis + categories + templates work, and sharing their own thoughts + questions as they do so) that others can support by adding languages + subprojects + availability on other fora. That doesn't feel the case here, either origin or continuation.
There's also no social mechanism for others to contribute (to moderation and refactoring) -- compare ombuds and clerks and general boldness. As a result the only ones contributing in that way are unhappy, actively bucking a perceived unhelpful system, so a generally-helpful modality has a perpetual gloss of conflict.
