So as the discussion gotten off-track, as 100% volunteer for the past 7 years, I'll echo and support every line which Nicole, as a WMDE employee wrote. Thank you for summarize what many of us feel and think in a clear and detailed response.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Nicole Ebber <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, dear > Wikimedians, > > I would like to share a few thoughts and questions with you. Thoughts > and questions that I would love to see being addressed when talking > about these movement issues. I have the feeling that this substantial > decision is coming somewhat out of the blue, without a prior > discussion among the broader movement – at least none that I am aware > of. It would be helpful if you can provide some insights into the > bigger picture or broader evaluation these decisions are based upon. > > == User Groups == > Not only two years ago, two new movement affiliate models were > introduced, resulting from an extensive, transparent and collaborative > process that involved all movement stakeholders. The current decision > kind of neglects this process, the people involved, and its outcome. > > At first sight, I can understand your approach of giving UGs time to > develop governance as well as structures and experiment with their > capacities. But since there is hardly any structured support for these > young and aspiring volunteer groups to grow, to develop and to become > trusted partners, I fear that time alone won’t do the trick. > > Defining affiliates’ goals and providing guidance for development > paths are inevitable tasks for a healthy movement, but it remains > completely unclear who has (or should have) a mandate for this > support. Without securing this support and empowerment, our movement > might miss the unique chance to uncover the treasures of Free > Knowledge around the world. > > The most pressing question here remains: In an ideal world, how would > an organization model for Wikimedia look like? And does the > restriction of choices for affiliations' models help us to reach this > goal? I’ve got the impression that this step is more a patch for the > symptoms, while we as a movement should strive for a fix for a – yet > unspecified – “problem”. > > == FDC funding == > Similar questions arise regarding the FDC freeze. Why now? Wouldn’t it > make sense to wait for the FDC Advisory Group, who is charged with > reviewing and evaluating the funds dissemination process as a whole? > Do we have to understand this decision as a declaration of bankruptcy > of the FDC process already? Which data is this freeze based upon? > > For a young movement like ours, with a cause that is so new and > unique, how can we even dare not to invest into exploring new > territory, into finding the right things to do? Why do we not embrace > all the exciting projects that the affiliate volunteers and staff are > offering to our movement, and which fulfill our common mission? > Together, we have to figure out the best balance between > effectiveness-driven and money-driven decisions. We need to define > what is meant by “healthy growth”, taking different circumstances and > stages of development into account. The Wikimedia movement is in the > luxury position that our donors generously support our endeavors, they > trust us with our efforts to advance our mission, and I wonder if it > is reasonable if we artificially limit the support that is available > to our global movement. > > Our whole grantmaking process is unique, we are pioneers within the > non-profit world. And the same goes for the evaluation of our work. Of > course, we are all – big and small – facing growing pains and need to > scrutinize our processes over and over again. Does retracting from > this experiment at such an early stage, without proper assessment and > evaluation, reflect our movement’s culture of being bold and > innovative? > > What also puzzles me is the fact that on the one hand your decision > encourages affiliates to seek funding from outside sources, but on the > other hand speaks against building structures. One of the reasons for > centralizing the fundraising in 2012 was the argument that chapters > should focus on their work and leave the collection of funds to the > WMF. Now that they have lost their capability and skills for raising > funds, you not only ask affiliates and volunteer groups to start > building up these capacities again, you also put them in jeopardy of > becoming dependent from corporations, governments and other sponsors > that we as a movement hardly have any control over. Would it not be a > good idea to at least support the process and make WMF funds available > to build up structures for a sustainable external fundraising, full of > integrity? > > == Outlook == > My hope is that these decisions can serve as an initial spark to bring > all involved parties together and frankly (I mean it!) discuss > questions relevant for the future of our movement and the > organizational structures that benefit our mission in the most > effective way. I see several occasions in the not too distant future, > for example: > > In the FAQ, you are referring to the strategy process as the place to > discuss and solve all these issues. It would be really helpful to know > more about this process and the involvement of the different movement > stakeholders. > > Some of the topics covered in the decisions and FAQs are already on > the agenda for the Wikimedia Conference[1], but it is still early > enough to adjust the agenda accordingly. The program team is surely > happy to help with figuring out how to best address these topics at > the conference. > > Best regards, > > Nicole Ebber > > [1] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme#Theme_1:_Organisation.2C_structures_and_grants > > On 11 February 2014 19:46, Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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> > > > > -- > Nicole Ebber > Leiterin Internationales > Head of International Affairs > > Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin > Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0 > > http://wikimedia.de > > Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg > unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das > Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
