that is correct (about the FDC involvement; we have not participated in consulting or idea exchange in any systematic way).
dj "pundit" On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Gregory Varnum <[email protected]>wrote: > While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having > a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that > AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined > occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was > taken into consideration, but that may give the wrong idea of what > happened. > > While it is true we provided feedback before the decision was made, I would > not consider it consulting with us or even communicating with AffCom in a > way that allowed us to provide the level of feedback I think the community > has come to expect. Frankly we got a lot of our information second-hand, > and am still not sure personally we know the full story. My personal > expectation would have involved a lot more communication before the > decision was made, and most importantly, some two-way dialogue. At the very > least I think the chairs of FDC and AffCom should have been looped into > parts of the conversation during the meeting. > > I think it is fair to say that AffCom got notice before the broader > community, and we had opportunities to express our concerns and objections > - however I would not characterize it as a conversation or true feedback > gathering. I am not personally convinced it was taken into much > consideration as the people proposing this bad idea were physically there > to speak to their idea, but no one opposed to it was invited. My > understanding is the same was true for FDC - but I obviously cannot speak > to that. > > Aside from my disappointment in the decision, I am perhaps even more > disappointed with the process. Without going into lengthy details, I was > not impressed with how AffCom was consulted on this (or not consulted > depending on your take) and frankly the board's attitude I think calls into > question their true interest in utilizing FDC and AffCom as actual advisors > to the board. In a world and movement so woven into technology, the notion > that we could not bring some "advisors" in for parts of these meetings just > doesn't make sense to me. I recognize that has not generally been done, but > that seems like something to change and not a pattern to stay within. > > I also want to be clear that I have a lot of empathy for the board, these > are difficult roles, and I think the people in them are genuinely trying > their best. I like them all on a personal level, and am confident these > disagrees won't harm that. I also know that while the board stands united, > these decisions are not privately made without debate. However, they are > our board and I think sharing concerns like this is a healthy part of the > process. Some of the tone people have taken on this thread is less helpful, > and I hope we can get it back on a more civil track. > > -greg > > PS. I send this a volunteer and not wearing any official AffCom or WM > anything hat (although that hat obviously formed my opinion). > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly > > hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem > > statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of > > these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In > > the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented? > > If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were > > disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about > > progress and benefit the movement on a global basis? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Cynthia Ashley-Nelson > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > Dear Frederic, > > > > > > > > > On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Phoebe, > > > > > > > > thanks for your answer ! > > > > > > > >>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must > have > > > >>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic > > organization. > > > >>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the > > group > > > >>> actually got there should have no influence on the result. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group > to > > > do > > > >> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they > > > will > > > >> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove > > > that > > > >> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's > > the > > > >> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm > > > concerned). > > > > > > > > What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the > > > > actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track > > > > record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have > > bylaws". > > > > > > > > What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic > > track > > > > record over the past two years, and you have successfully > incorporated > > > > two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract > external > > > > funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the > kind > > > > of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic > > > > organization". > > > > > > > > How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ? > > > > > > I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this > > > impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track > > record > > > is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having > > > bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good > > > indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic > organisation. > > > > > > > > > > >>> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not > > > endorsed > > > >>> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the > > > >>> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize > itself ? > > > > > > > > I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, > I > > > > don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the > > > > discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change > whatever > > > > amount of discussion we have) and not before. > > > > > > Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it > > > should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself > > > (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the > > > recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there > > is > > > now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic > > organisation, > > > which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic > choice > > > brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure > will > > > help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both > chapters > > > and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance > > responsibility. > > > > > > For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and > FDC > > > into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were > > really > > > the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both > > > committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision > which > > > was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which > > > were provided by the Affcom and FDC). > > > > > > <SNIP> > > > > > > >> > > > >> thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let > us > > > know. > > > >> We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get > us > > > all > > > >> on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups. > > > > > > > > The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why > this > > > > proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the > > > > community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to > get > > > > exceptions. > > > > > > Hmmm.... I would say that > > > 1) We made a decision in which we took several factors into account > > > 2) We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have > > > taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this > is > > > the case. > > > > > > would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback > about > > > the decision's impact in specific cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision > > > > beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing > > > > ("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize > > > > yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it > is > > > > bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of > the > > > > movement ?") > > > > > > I really think that the FAQ gives a pretty good indication. What > concerns > > > me (and other board members) is the fact that there is a natural > tendency > > > to incorporate a group of volunteers into a chapter or thematic > > > organisation even if there is no real track record or a good reason to > > want > > > to do so (especially since the revised trademark policy gives user > groups > > > much more freedom to make use of the trademarks). Chapters and Thematic > > > organisations are an essential part of the movement and we would like > > each > > > and every one to succeed in furthering the goals of the movement as a > > > whole. Asking these groups to be a user group for the first two years > > while > > > doing programmatic work really gives a good indication of the ability > of > > > the "future chapter/thematic organisation" to succeed. > > > > > > We also reference the strategic planning which is due to start this > > > summer. One of the things we really have to solve is the > > > roles/responsibilities/privileges of each player in the movement. The > > basic > > > answer to the questions: > > > > > > 1) What are our long term goals > > > 2) Who is best positioned to achieve these goals > > > > > > should lead to a "who does what" picture of the movement (and maybe > just > > > as important "who will stop doing what"), and it is on the basis of > this > > > picture and the underlying goals that we should create and fund > different > > > players in the movement. I would argue that at this time the picture is > > not > > > as clear as it should be before committing the resources we currently > > > commit to it. > > > > > > (just as a small note: when I talk about movement I mean the range from > > > the individual volunteer to the Wikimedia Foundation itself) > > > > > > > > > > > As a side note, this is the only point that I will keep from Rupert's > > > > email: this decision completely ignores international cultural > > > > differences in terms of funding, fundraising and organization in > > > > general. Indeed, in a quote above, you talk about "good lawyer in the > > > > group who can draw up bylaws"; this reinforces the incorrect premise > > > > your decision is based on: that incorporation is a complicated and > > > > bureaucratic process that should be avoided. And this is something > that > > > > can not be decided globally. > > > > > > This is true. But to be clear, its not the possible "bureaucratic" > aspect > > > which concerns us greatly (as I mentioned above). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frédéric > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Jan-Bart de Vreede > > > Chair Board of Trustees > > > Wikimedia Foundation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Cynthia Ashley-Nelson > > "Yes. *Her again.*" > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- __________________________ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
