Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: think along and bring the proposals to the board when the time is there (Alice, Kat, Patricio, SJ, and Ting: I'm looking at you) but of course I'm counting on it that also other board members will support the thought behind this. Any input on how to make this process more constructive would be appreciated. I also hope that the legal team will be watching the page and advise when something is legally impossible and how it could be made possible. I hope that our community selected board members will take this up as well, Hi Lodewijk! I really appreciate this initiative -although I think the subject does not make too much sense: it would be better Improving governance, perhaps-. Anyway, it will be an important input for us. Patricio Or may be... improving transparency? Governance is not transparency, governance is controlling. -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
2012/11/3 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: think along and bring the proposals to the board when the time is there (Alice, Kat, Patricio, SJ, and Ting: I'm looking at you) but of course I'm counting on it that also other board members will support the thought behind this. Any input on how to make this process more constructive would be appreciated. I also hope that the legal team will be watching the page and advise when something is legally impossible and how it could be made possible. I hope that our community selected board members will take this up as well, Hi Lodewijk! I really appreciate this initiative -although I think the subject does not make too much sense: it would be better Improving governance, perhaps-. Anyway, it will be an important input for us. Patricio Or may be... improving transparency? Governance is not transparency, governance is controlling. Hi Ilario! Improving transparency is far better that Democratizing WMF, though governance is not about controlling: is about decision making procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about transparency :) Anyway, despite the title we choose, I really think that this discussion is necessary, and that we need to improve (or even to set up) some basic rules and procedures of interaction and decision making. Patricio -- Patricio Lorente Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Transparency is necessary for democracy, but it is only one part of it. I think Lodewijk wants to discuss ways of involving the community in the Foundation's governance, not just ways to keep it informed. On Nov 3, 2012 12:48 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/11/3 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: think along and bring the proposals to the board when the time is there (Alice, Kat, Patricio, SJ, and Ting: I'm looking at you) but of course I'm counting on it that also other board members will support the thought behind this. Any input on how to make this process more constructive would be appreciated. I also hope that the legal team will be watching the page and advise when something is legally impossible and how it could be made possible. I hope that our community selected board members will take this up as well, Hi Lodewijk! I really appreciate this initiative -although I think the subject does not make too much sense: it would be better Improving governance, perhaps-. Anyway, it will be an important input for us. Patricio Or may be... improving transparency? Governance is not transparency, governance is controlling. Hi Ilario! Improving transparency is far better that Democratizing WMF, though governance is not about controlling: is about decision making procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about transparency :) Anyway, despite the title we choose, I really think that this discussion is necessary, and that we need to improve (or even to set up) some basic rules and procedures of interaction and decision making. Patricio -- Patricio Lorente Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ilario! Improving transparency is far better that Democratizing WMF, though governance is not about controlling: is about decision making procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about transparency :) Yes, it's a little bit complicated to explain but consider controlling as having the right information in a suitable time. -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Thomas Dalton, 03/11/2012 13:51: Transparency is necessary for democracy, but it is only one part of it. I think Lodewijk wants to discuss ways of involving the community in the Foundation's governance, not just ways to keep it informed. On the other hand, transparency's true aim is to involve people; otherwise it's just fake transparency. Indeed, Democratizing is the clearest term we've come up with. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: Transparency is necessary for democracy, but it is only one part of it. I think Lodewijk wants to discuss ways of involving the community in the Foundation's governance, not just ways to keep it informed. On Nov 3, 2012 12:48 PM, Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com wrote: This is a complex problem in my opinion. In a democracy the better solution would be to know the opinion of all people. For instance in Switzerland there are a lot of referendum but the people having a vote are relatively cut and a referendum may give an opinion the day after (I am speaking about opinion but in a perfect democracy this opinion is more an approval vote). The democracy is a good way if there is the possibility to have an opportune people's opinion in a well defined time. The problem of huge communities is to consult the people and to do it in a timely manner in order to have an opinion in short time otherwise the democracy may decide never and may spent the time only to find a consent. For this reason the biggest democracies use the way of the representative bodies. The community elects a parliament and this parliament votes and decides instead of people (in our case we may speak about board). All the modern democracies are structured in this way. For this reason I would not speak about democracy because there are people in the WMF board elected by the communities and by the chapters. I would speak about transparency in order to give to these representatives the opportunity to be clearer. The transparency may help them to keep a trusted link with the communities and may help the communities to build a more appropriate reliance. Ilario ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
After just being in our first FDC committee session, I do want to promote this way of handling issue to be spread to other issue areas too. The FDC is a committee consisting of community members looking into on specific issue area and preparing recommendation to the Board. This enables broader involvement but also greater transparency, as all preparation material and assessments are public. We also have a GAC with a similar approach and the group that took over after ChapCom. Why not extend this to other areas having thing like a GLAM Advisory committee, preparing material for the Board and any global framework needed in the are. A software/operation advisory committee overlooking everything related to our server operation and products. A community advisory committee, handling issues like legal support, wikimania, global arbcom etc. Ie democratize the preparation of issues for the board, rather then discussing the internal operations of the Board Anders Patricio Lorente skrev 2012-11-03 13:47: Hi Ilario! Improving transparency is far better that Democratizing WMF, though governance is not about controlling: is about decision making procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about transparency :) Anyway, despite the title we choose, I really think that this discussion is necessary, and that we need to improve (or even to set up) some basic rules and procedures of interaction and decision making. Patricio ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Ilario Valdelli, 03/11/2012 14:11: For this reason I would not speak about democracy because there are people in the WMF board elected by the communities and by the chapters. I would speak about transparency in order to give to these representatives the opportunity to be clearer. As Nathan noted, the WMF board is not a representative democracy example: it's not elected, it's self-appointed. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Ilario Valdelli, 03/11/2012 14:11: For this reason I would not speak about democracy because there are people in the WMF board elected by the communities and by the chapters. I would speak about transparency in order to give to these representatives the opportunity to be clearer. As Nathan noted, the WMF board is not a representative democracy example: it's not elected, it's self-appointed. Nemo http://www.wikimedia.ch/ Partially self-appointed, partially elected. It means more transparency. Ilario ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Anders, while I appreciate all these discussions - I don't think we should try to solve every problem in a single discussion page. Perfection is the enemy of progress. I definitely think also the Affiliations Committee (formerly known as Chapters Committee) can be improved, and as well the GAC and FDC (Grants Advisory Committee / Funds Dissemination Committee). If there are general issues with these committees that need resolving within this specific field (involving community in the decision making process and improving transparency) you're of course more than welcome to submit them at the page. Best, Lodewijk 2012/11/3 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se After just being in our first FDC committee session, I do want to promote this way of handling issue to be spread to other issue areas too. The FDC is a committee consisting of community members looking into on specific issue area and preparing recommendation to the Board. This enables broader involvement but also greater transparency, as all preparation material and assessments are public. We also have a GAC with a similar approach and the group that took over after ChapCom. Why not extend this to other areas having thing like a GLAM Advisory committee, preparing material for the Board and any global framework needed in the are. A software/operation advisory committee overlooking everything related to our server operation and products. A community advisory committee, handling issues like legal support, wikimania, global arbcom etc. Ie democratize the preparation of issues for the board, rather then discussing the internal operations of the Board Anders Patricio Lorente skrev 2012-11-03 13:47: Hi Ilario! Improving transparency is far better that Democratizing WMF, though governance is not about controlling: is about decision making procceses, guidance, communications... in fact, is also about transparency :) Anyway, despite the title we choose, I really think that this discussion is necessary, and that we need to improve (or even to set up) some basic rules and procedures of interaction and decision making. Patricio __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Anders Wennersten, 03/11/2012 14:43: [...] undramatize the role of the Board Frankly, I think it's certainly not needed to dramatize it even less than it currently is (i.e. to increase its rubberstamping hall appearance). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Federico Leva (Nemo) skrev 2012-11-03 15:03: Frankly, I think it's certainly not needed to dramatize it even less than it currently is (i.e. to increase its rubberstamping hall appearance). Nemo I do no understand. If they have a rubberstamping hall appearance who is then perceived as having the power to decide. And do you mean the preparation process is so excellent so no direct action is needed by the Board (which I would take to be the ultimate sign of a well functioning democracy) what is then the issue at hand in this thread? Anders ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Anders Wennersten, 03/11/2012 15:32: I do no understand. If they have a rubberstamping hall appearance who is then perceived as having the power to decide. And do you mean the preparation process is so excellent so no direct action is needed by the Board (which I would take to be the ultimate sign of a well functioning democracy) what is then the issue at hand in this thread? Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation, in my opinion, means making the board stronger, not weaker. In two ways: 1) more power (i.e. a greater impact in its actions; not discretionary power for the sake of it) to a well functioning collegial body, which acts clearly and transparently and is accountable for its decisions, means more democracy, not less[1]; 2) more democracy in the board and the WMF in general would mean a greater legitimacy/ability to take important decisions and have a bigger impact, i.e. more power. Of course this assumes that increasing democracy relative to the current situation is good, but we need to start from something (that's why the subject of this thread is a productive premise). Given the audience, there are also other major assumptions on legitimacy sources, as Nathan hinted, and in particular that wikimedians have something to say, that power doesn't legitimate itself and that dollar voting by donors is not a source of legitimacy but that would bring us too far. Nemo [1] Maybe less anarchy. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.sewrote: Federico Leva (Nemo) skrev 2012-11-03 15:03: Frankly, I think it's certainly not needed to dramatize it even less than it currently is (i.e. to increase its rubberstamping hall appearance). Nemo I do no understand. If they have a rubberstamping hall appearance who is then perceived as having the power to decide. And do you mean the preparation process is so excellent so no direct action is needed by the Board (which I would take to be the ultimate sign of a well functioning democracy) what is then the issue at hand in this thread? Since, you took this thread into the direction of FDC, advocating how extending that model would undramatize the role of the board. And you asked the question about who has the power above, try and consider for a moment - who picked you for the FDC? who thought of the FDC to begin with? who laid out the framework, and facilitated its creation? I can go on to point out the presence of board members, and this evaluation period for the FDC when it's useful will be decided in 2 years. who will decide then, to even have the FDC around anymore? Right, Democracy. There isn't a lot of doubt where the centers of power are. Regards Theo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Theo10011 skrev 2012-11-03 16:12: There isn't a lot of doubt where the centers of power are. Regards I do not understand what you refer to in this statement. Could you please elaborate what you believe is the centers of power? Anders ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Thanks. Even while admiring Sue and all the good she does, I share your view that a lot of (too much?) power is centered around her as a person. For a new enterprise an entrepreneur if often a good thing to have in the beginning, but as the organization matures it is often optimal that at some moment in time the entrepreneurial type of leadership is shifted to a more traditional one that in our case should be characterized by the non-hierarchical culture with a multitude of point of influence as in the community But should we not then discuss organizational development in this direction? And repeating (harping?) myself, I see the model I have sen in FDC (and earlier ChapCom) as something that can be transferred to other areas of activities and that this will make the Movement less dependent on a central person, and perhaps in the end can also give the Board the opportunity to put more energy in the important strategic issues that should be its key role and which also will make the Movement less dependent on on single person Anders for my merits see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Anders_Wennersten I actually believe it was my merits which made me become one of the members of FDC not a single persons patronage Theo10011 skrev 2012-11-03 19:38: On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: Theo10011 skrev 2012-11-03 16:12: There isn't a lot of doubt where the centers of power are. Regards I do not understand what you refer to in this statement. Could you please elaborate what you believe is the centers of power? Sure, let's see. You questioned who has the power to decide, as opposed to Nemo's analogy of a rubber-stamping hall. Centers of power, are dominant forces that define a particular time and decide the overall direction. They influence rather than give the appearance of direct interaction. In this context, I was pointing out that these ideas are conceptualized by a small minority in private, suggestions like let's have an FDC, let's remove fellowships, cut spending and narrow focus, even earlier decisions like the image filter and chapter fundraising change might have been byproducts of that - it is hard to distinguish. Depending how closely you followed these developments, the centers of power that came up with those suggestions never changed, the discussions and arguments did, but they emerged from the same place. What you might perceive as control and power, is a limited sandbox provided to give the appearance of power, for example, Sue placed her thoughts on Meta before presenting them, between the hundreds of points on the talk page, not a single thing was reconsidered, the board unanimously approved. Your own meeting with the FDC, a hand-picked committee proposed and formed by the same group, with the presence of two board members, in WMF offices, who will eventually decide if they even want an FDC in 2 years. There seems to be a nebulous mix between the executives, along with certain board members, not all, perhaps even advisers and outside forces that dictate whatever decisions are to be made, for everyone. Maybe this is a particular area where transparency would be appreciated. Given that individual board votes are made public now, there aren't a lot of instances where board members disagree, if ever, with whatever the Executives provide them. Most of these decisions rarely try and conflict the wider editor base directly, as learnt from some past instances. To clarify I'm only talking about where these ideas are proposed and conceptualized, not what follows, the process of complaint, feedback and the eventual approval. There is no recourse for challenging these changes, no other side of the argument, no veto power, perhaps that's what the aim of this exercise ought to be. Regards Theo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
2012/11/2 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: Dear all, I have set up a brainstorming page on metawiki ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Democratizing_the_Wikimedia_Foundation) where I would like to invite you to think about ways to democratize the Wikimedia Foundation. This doesn't mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is totally undemocratic, but it does mean that in my humble opinion, improvements are possible. This was triggered by me after the third time in my memory that the Foundation board has changed the bylaws of the Foundation without even consulting the community - but this doesn't have to be the only possible improvement. This is not intended as a huge complaint 'moo, the WMF is evil and dictatorial' but rather as a constructive exercise. I invite you to approach this also constructively, and think about possible improvement to current procedures - to ensure that there is a large community involvement in the governance of the Wikimedia Foundation - directly or indirectly - and that processes are transparent. I hope that our community selected board members will take this up as well, think along and bring the proposals to the board when the time is there (Alice, Kat, Patricio, SJ, and Ting: I'm looking at you) but of course I'm counting on it that also other board members will support the thought behind this. Any input on how to make this process more constructive would be appreciated. I also hope that the legal team will be watching the page and advise when something is legally impossible and how it could be made possible. Hi Lodewijk! I really appreciate this initiative -although I think the subject does not make too much sense: it would be better Improving governance, perhaps-. Anyway, it will be an important input for us. Patricio -- Patricio Lorente Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Patricio, I am especially focussing on democracy (community involvement) and transparency. I am afraid 'improving governance' is too broad and vague for most of us to grasp. I realize that the title is a bit challenging and tickling - that was intentional :) I'm glad you appreciate it, and i hope you will also participate in it. Best, Lodewijk 2012/11/2 Patricio Lorente patricio.lore...@gmail.com 2012/11/2 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org: Dear all, I have set up a brainstorming page on metawiki ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Democratizing_the_Wikimedia_Foundation) where I would like to invite you to think about ways to democratize the Wikimedia Foundation. This doesn't mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is totally undemocratic, but it does mean that in my humble opinion, improvements are possible. This was triggered by me after the third time in my memory that the Foundation board has changed the bylaws of the Foundation without even consulting the community - but this doesn't have to be the only possible improvement. This is not intended as a huge complaint 'moo, the WMF is evil and dictatorial' but rather as a constructive exercise. I invite you to approach this also constructively, and think about possible improvement to current procedures - to ensure that there is a large community involvement in the governance of the Wikimedia Foundation - directly or indirectly - and that processes are transparent. I hope that our community selected board members will take this up as well, think along and bring the proposals to the board when the time is there (Alice, Kat, Patricio, SJ, and Ting: I'm looking at you) but of course I'm counting on it that also other board members will support the thought behind this. Any input on how to make this process more constructive would be appreciated. I also hope that the legal team will be watching the page and advise when something is legally impossible and how it could be made possible. Hi Lodewijk! I really appreciate this initiative -although I think the subject does not make too much sense: it would be better Improving governance, perhaps-. Anyway, it will be an important input for us. Patricio -- Patricio Lorente Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.orgwrote: Dear all, I have set up a brainstorming page on metawiki ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Democratizing_the_Wikimedia_Foundation) where I would like to invite you to think about ways to democratize the Wikimedia Foundation. This doesn't mean that the Wikimedia Foundation is totally undemocratic, but it does mean that in my humble opinion, improvements are possible. Agree with the reading that improvements are possible - the page name is a bit dramatic, with an underlying whiff of revolution: Democratize! (exclamation mine). Personally, I think this is a timely, useful and constructive initiative and I've added a bunch of comments to the page. Hope we will hear from a wider cross-section of the community. Cheers Bishakha ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
