Commons talk:Commons Photographers User Group/Board Elections 2023

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Dear members, please add your thoughts here. -- Ailura (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2024[edit]

I noticed that Wikimania is coming to Poland/Europe next year. Please keep me in the loop if the Commons Photographers User Group is going to have any involvement. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We hope so. Please see the group's main page/talk page for general informations. -- Ailura (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need an election committee?[edit]

Isn't that a bit overly bureaucratic? I trust anybody in our group to support the election (if there is any need for support at all). —DerHexer (Talk) 21:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We think support from members who are not in the board would be helpful and that it would be better to have more than one person. If there are lots of volunteers, three persons should be enough. --Ailura (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could have been first come, first serve. ;) —DerHexer (Talk) 09:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's right. next time we can try this. Ailura (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of context[edit]

The initial section, while concise, might benefit from a more detailed introduction. A brief explanation of the election's significance or the User Group's general mission might provide context, especially for newcomers. While the embedded links offer quick navigation, it's essential to ensure each leads to valid and updated pages; broken or outdated links can be confusing and disrupt the overall user experience. The roles are detailed, but there's a lack of stylistic consistency. For instance, the "Chair" and "Vice-Chair" start with a descriptive point, while others jump straight into duties. A uniform presentation could enhance clarity and readability. The responsibilities of the Vice-Chair and the Chair seem to overlap, particularly concerning meeting agendas, which warrants clarification on who does what. Although roles are clearly outlined, mentioning mechanisms for ensuring transparency and accountability in their execution could be beneficial. The election timeline is commendably specific, but a brief description of each phase, especially "Election committee starts work", would make the process clearer. The page might benefit from additional visual elements, such as a timeline graphic, to make it more engaging. A dedicated FAQ section or encouraging the community to contribute questions could be a valuable addition. Lastly, the format for endorsing Election Committee candidates is basic; allowing for comments or reasons for endorsement could promote more community interaction. Overall, the proposal is comprehensive, and with some refinements, it could serve as an exemplary model for community-driven election processes. Wilfredor (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Could you please point out where there are broken or outdated links? I added some detail to the election page, i hope that helps. --Ailura (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Photographers User Group[edit]

I know Frank has organized a series of online meetings. But I am not clear about the Board's purpose; what it has done; and how it communicates with Commons photographers active on FP, QI, VI and those who are involved with uploading images on Wikis. Apart from Frank's clear communications, I cannot recall any contact from the Board. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find our activites at Commons:Commons Photographers User Group#2023. Frank is part of the board and he is responsible for the communications, I don't think this is wrong. -- Ailura (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations[edit]

I see @Ailura and Frank Schulenburg: that there is no option to oppose nominations. I struggle to understand why any of those nominated could usefully represent CPUG and photographers who are active on FP, QI, VI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask @Fredericknoronha: about the election. Why didn't you nominate yourself or somebody else who is more active on FP/QI/VI? --Ailura (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main reason why I decided to nominate myself was because till very last day of already extended (!) period no-one else volunteered to "represent CPUG and photographers who are active on FP, QI, VI". Current board members also left space for new people to nominate, and there were lots of reminders about elections. There were also no proposal to change election process or governance. So with all due respect your remark a month later in the process leaves me slightly puzzled. If my nomination stands in a way of anyone wanting and able to represent Commons photographers I'll frankly happily yield a way to her/him now or later. I also welcome any feedback, including negative about my candidacy, so feel free to share. And if elected one of my personal measures of success would be more active and enthusiastic elections next time - as a sign of more ownership taken by Commons photographers. And we would need your help in achieving this. --Xelgen (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp, I've not been involved directly in running this year's election. However, I understand where you're coming from and I'd support a broader discussion about how we'd like to run elections for this user group in the future. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few years in, it may be worth having a[nother] broader conversation about the purpose of the group.
First, whom does the group serve? My sense is the group is not intended to cater to participants at FPC/QIC, but all commons photographers. While many of us are active with those processes, I worry about making it seem like that's where the "important" members are. There are people who take photos for Commons whose primary concern is documentation and breadth of coverage and people who focus on quality/artistry; people who use smartphones and people with gear that costs more than a car; people who focus on taking photos and people who take some photos but focus on other ways of contributing. In other words, there are a lot of different people doing a lot of different things under the heading of "commons photography", and I'm not so sure we need to prioritize one of them (especially when members of that group aren't willing to actually help organize).
Second, what are the expectations of the board in concrete terms? We're a thematic rather than geographic affiliate, which means we're spread out all over the world. That makes events difficult. There also aren't all that many of us. I dare say the focus of this group should be on things that can be done online or the pursuit of special, funded events. It would be nice to set some clear goals for the next board. Perhaps three quarterly virtual meetings and one special event, with at least some funding, in a different geographic location each year? Having goals like that would shape who runs for the board and what qualifications we should look for (not just "is this person a photographer" but "will this person be able to help photographers in this specific way"). — Rhododendrites talk |  22:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to see how meetings can benefit the community; they might benefit individual participants. There are too many different interests, priorities and agendas. I believe that the priority is huge improvements in the software and processes we have to follow to upload images and add them to wikis. It is so cumbersome. If there is any funding, it should be for marketing to encourage skilled photographers to contribute their images for use in Wikis, especially the Wikipedias. For me, Commons has no other purpose. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going to disagree with this. I believe that the priority is huge improvements in the software and processes we have to follow to upload images and add them to wikis - But it's the Commons Photographers User Group, not the Commons [Users] User group. marketing to encourage skilled photographers to contribute their images for use in Wikis - I get this, but affiliates already do a lot of this. The people in this group are the photographers, not necessarily the people who know about and care about marketing and outreach. Recruiting new photographers is good, but I'd say to the extent there should be a user group specifically for Commons Photographers, it should focus on the interests of Commons Photographers. My main question is what those interests/needs are. Maybe there's overlap with a broader, hypothetical "Commons User Group" or perhaps it would make more sense to start that separately. I don't know. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We know very well that there is a need to improve the software, we supported the Open Letter that started in one of our virtual meetings and we took part in the following discussion with WMF. I think e.g. uploading concerns all of us. If you have a concrete plan how to move more, please tell us about it. I strongly believe that our virtual meetings are helpful for the photographers (and until now we had different topics trying to fit different interests and priorities), i have no idea how to benefit an abstract thing like "the community". Maybe the new board should try to research more about the needs of the members. --Ailura (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed choice for the Commons photographers user group is problematic and reflects a serious lack of understanding of what the community really needs. The absence of opposition and the scarcity of candidates indicate a poor electoral process, which not only lacks transparency but also legitimacy. A representative elected under these circumstances could hardly be considered a genuine spokesperson for the interests of the photographic community. Furthermore, the mere act of self-nominating in the absence of other candidates, as Xelgen did, guarantees absolutely no competence or commitment to the specific needs of photographers active in FP, QI and VI. This vote could be interpreted as an opportunistic power grab rather than an act of responsible leadership. An effective representative should not only be deeply involved in these key areas that I have already mentioned, but also be recognized and respected by his peers within the community, something that is not clear in this case where a representation that does not represents no one. Furthermore, the lack of a robust and participatory debate on the nominations suggests an alarming apathy and disconnection between the user base and governance processes. I have serious doubts about the relevance of the group and its ability to genuinely represent the photography community as a whole. A monetary interest in receiving WMF subsidies for projects without results? We are tired of this Wilfredor (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lacks transparency - We were all notified of the upcoming election back in September, with a clear timeline for feedback about the process, nominations, voting, etc. Where is the lack of transparency? You, Charles, me, and other FPC members on this page -- none of us put ourselves forward to be on the board. The people who did volunteer are listed. What is the group supposed to do, if there are members who criticize the process but refuse to take part in it? — Rhododendrites talk |  20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, I think it makes sense to consider a more inclusive approach. The Commons ecosystem is incredibly diverse, encompassing not only dedicated photographers but also a wide range of users who may not primarily identify as photographers but still add significant value through their images. By focusing too much on the needs of a specific group, we risk overlooking the contributions and needs of this broader community. Furthermore, your suggestion of setting concrete objectives and organizing structured events, while commendable for its clarity and direction, may not fully consider the varied nature of participation in the Commons. Users come from different backgrounds and have different levels of engagement and availability. Setting rigid goals or expecting uniform participation in events may not be feasible or attractive to everyone. Remember that the ultimate goal of the Commons: to serve as a repository of free-to-use multimedia files for everyone, not just for the benefit of a particular group. The governance and activities of the Commons Photographers User Group should align with this broader mission, ensuring that they support the Commons as a whole, rather than prioritizing a subset of its users. As for transparency, simply being informed about an election does not necessarily equate to transparency. Transparency is more than just communication; it is about ensuring that the process is open, understandable and fair. This means providing clear information about how decisions are made, who makes them, and giving every member of the community an opportunity to participate and influence the results. When a process is transparent, it is not only about disseminating information but also about engaging with the community (sections already discussed above), asking for their opinions and making them feel part of the decision-making process. Wilfredor (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can find all of our activities including all board meeting protocols on the User Group Page, i have no idea what else we could make transparent. Up to now, we didn't reject any ideas from non-photograhers. Shreya's edit-a-thon focused explicitly on metadata and not on taking pictures. As far as i know, many unorganized community members don't like affiliates to represent them, that's why we are only representing our members. I don't think the voting process was too complicated. Ailura (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a member of cpug[edit]

Hi @Ei'eke: thanks for your vote. but I can't find you in the CPUG Membership list. I guess you're unfortunately not eligible to vote. Greetings Z thomas 11:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z thomas I was unaware that i have to be listed on the CPUG Membership list before i can vote. Thank you for pointing this out. I will add my username to the list. Greetings. Ei'eke 10:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ei'eke (talk • contribs) 10:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are needs of FP, QI and VI contributors?[edit]

Dear @Wilfredor and @Charlesjsharp you both mentioned "specific needs" of photographers and reviewers of FP, QI and VI. While this is still fresh, can you please share what you think are needs specific to those contributors. I am truly curious to understand your needs and expectations from UG/Community/Web tools and WMF better.
P.S. Since voting has already ended, I hope it no longer be interpreted as pre-election "fishing for votes". I am saddened to see strong lack of trust and I'll address it in original posting, later. Xelgen (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, but let's talk about it on the Talk page of the group. Ailura (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Make it easier to upload and categorize images and insert them into Wikipedia in many languages, update Wikidata etc. I need to be able to create a customisable upload page. When I upload a new photo that is Vi and going to be the top right corner image on English Wikipedia, it should be easy for me to update other language Wiis , Wikidata etc. The nomination and voting procedues for FP, QI and VI are clunky. I have said mnay times that I don't see Commons as having any purpose other than providing a place to host images that are, or may be, used in other Wikis. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment QI is very different in purpose, its there to encourage and promote the provision of good quality images that will never meet to demand of FP. That purpose arose because there was nowhere for Commons Photographers to be recognised for their effort, unlike FP which is dominated by images scraped off other sites. We need many more quality images of the munday every day life around us, especially from our own contributors. Gnangarra 11:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we move this discussion to Commons talk:Commons Photographers User Group please so that it can't get lost? We should work on this. In my personal opinion, the process of QI voting is not really fair and should be done differently. Ailura (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Commons_Photographers_User_Group/Board_Elections_2023&oldid=844809846"