On 30 April 2013 10:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey Florence > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : > >> > >> > >> It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in > >> some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. > > > > What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the > Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? > > Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me > and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the > FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed > amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those > of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are > divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the > community review process as a important addition) ensures much more > transparent processes. > > > > > Supporting > >> chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of > >> countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We > >> need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the > >> best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, > >> publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best > >> situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same > >> way the WMF itself was created and has grown. > > > > I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement > efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision > made some months ago to deflate WMF role. > > But we may agree to disagree on this. > > I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to > help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better > alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters > and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan > this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for > all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for > others. > > > > > Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current > stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a > rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison > to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may > have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) > > True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they > should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are > both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of > luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it > impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely > necessary. > > > > It would be a poor use > >> of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant > >> chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a > >> recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste > >> of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision > >> by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite > >> criticism and Sue's impending departure. > > > > I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions > (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, > not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not > become WMF ones). > > Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope > to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final > say in these matters as a matter of governance) > > > > > In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What > I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated > volunteers to stay healthy. > > True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into > positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk. > > > > > We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk > about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well. > > I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in > Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise > affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes > different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and > keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big > bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn > out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those > problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk > of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically > and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)... > > > In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania > plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good > outcome. For no-one. > > And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing > Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy > strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, > mis-management and waste of donor resources". > > I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not > > > > Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more > respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do > not. I do. > > I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but > I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the > other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are > not isolated, but they are not the same either. > > And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do > think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and > reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place > for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply > to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any > funding is being in compliance. > Last time I've checked, GAC explicitly disallow proposals for full-time permanent staffing and administrative costs, stating that FDC is the only place we can get funding for that. Having project funding alone wouldn't help - it is precisely because the grants team disallows the use of project grants for administrative purposes that WMHK ended up in its current awkward situation. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
