On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 11:51, Ray Saintonge <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Just a bit of different perspective: I could make a list of chapters, besides WM RS, which would be happy to get a representative from WMF (but from any other bigger chapter, as well) in their Board, if that means that the representative would really do something. For a number of chapters it is not a matter of having influence from any other entity, but a matter of getting one person capable to help chapter. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
