On 09/02/11 12:11 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: > ... > > We are facing rather severe challenges right now. Let's say it straight, > Wikimedia Foundation is simply trying to absorb/control the chapters as > is they were simple bureaux of the WMF locally and chapters kind of > disagree with WMF idea that centralization is a good move for the > mouvement... > > I can not begin to imagine how unconfortable a representant of WMF would > be if he were on the board of a chapter. Would he be loyal to the > chapter ? Would he be loyal to the WMF ? How fair would that be to ask > *anyone* to be put in such type of situation ? And which would be the > impact to the public ? (in particular to other funding organizations ?) > And how much chance is there that WMF could actually shoot itself in the > foot in doing this ? > > Maintaining an arm's length relationship between chapters and WMF and a legal denial by chapters of responsibility for project contents has certainly been a strategy that has protected chapters from liability in foreign courts. Neither would WMF be responsible for difficulties that chapters may create of their own accord. That strategy has worked well until now.
When we moved away from a funding model that depended on Jimmy and his Bomis Corporation the key objective was to have a structure capable of maintaining Wikipedia that did not depend on the fortunes of one man. It also became the owner of the trademarks. That's all fine, but things have changed since then, and those changes are not implicit in the message of the vision, the mission, or the values. These are key documents, and we do wise to look at them from time to time as a reality check. Professionalization has crept into the vocabulary even though we are all amateurs, and we must never pretend that we are anything but amateurs. That apparent weakness can also be our strength. That strength is what makes us a viable top-10 website with a much lower budget that the others in that club. How does a strategy of growth fit with the key documents? There is nothing in there about a large central organization. Reaching out to the Global South, and promoting gender equality in our activities are both commendable ventures, but success will ultimately be measured in the self-reliance of the disadvantaged groups. I see more benefit in Wikimedia Israel's outreach into Cameroon than in some massive injection of head-office think across a swath of third-world nations. In the movement roles discussion it borders on the offensive when an organization arrogates upon itself the term "movement". When I reflect upon it the Wikimedia Movement is an amorphous entity that includes the WMF and its associated structures, but it also includes individuals with whom we may never have had contact and who nevertheless propagate our contents elsewhere. More responsibility should be devolving to the chapters, including outreach. This could also apply to a series of US sub-national chapters. This could allow the Foundation to go back to its core objectives. The organization itself is not the objective. Ray _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
