Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
hi Theo, Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF board members are volunteers as well, quite like you. Unlike the FDC however, the WMF board has several elected members and has gone through quite a few iterations and external scrutiny. You seem to live a false assumption that the FDC does not have elected members at all. It does, and their proportion is going to grow in the incoming years. But I don't think it matters, anyway - what is more important, is the role of the FDC. It is not a decisive body, but an advisory one. In all major financial decisions it is good to have a chain of decision process, just to avoid groupthink. Moreover, it is quite a lot of work, the Board would unlikely be able to tackle on their own, with all other responsibilities. I strongly believe that none of the FDC members is driven by an urge to please anyone (WMF, the Board, the chapters). I quite believe the opposite might be true. Basing on?... So far in two rounds we have made some recommendations, which we had every right to assume that would not have been the most popular ones under the sun. So a direct path of conflict with the board. One can assume you'd expect the community to side against the board on some or any occasion and hilarity will ensue. ' If you're saying that the FDC may disagree with the Board and vice-versa, that's 100% true. I'm not sure if I would call this a conflict. Drawing different conclusions from the same data is not unprecedented in financial evaluations. The only thing the FDC and the Board will definitely want to avoid (each on their own shift) is to make mistakes. It is actually quite good, in my opinion, that there are two stages in this process: recommendation and an actual decision. If the Board disagrees with the FDC and makes a better, different decision, I think it would be a success of this model, rather than its failure. All in all the Board is accountable to the movement and has actual, fiduciary responsibility. Again, you perceive it as a flaw that an advisory committee makes recommendations, although is not empowered to enforce them. I respect this view, but such an organizational structure solution is quite common and your critique applies to the whole concept of advisory committees. I have one. Resign. Half the of current FDC should resign and open up the other half to some participation from the larger community - be it through an open election, arbcomm seat, board seats, then you'd need to add Jimmy of course - Hey! we can then have the same structure as the board. so, another quasi board that really has no legal authority or basis to comment, just disagree and create more conflict when some chapters don't get their way. This entire exercise with FDC has been futile, fixing little and consuming a lot of time and resources. I'm assuming good faith, but your advice and the conclusion seem to be contradictory (you say that we should resign, and as a result a new body would be created, but it would be identical to the Board). The whole purpose of the FDC is to have DIFFERENT people working as a committee and advising to the Board. What I read from your comments is that you believe that a two-stage decisionmaking process is dangerous, because it may bring conflict. Perhaps we simply disagree here - in my view it is better to have two different bodies look carefully at proposals worth millions of dollars, rather than to rush them through the Board (which, as already noted, has other duties, too and would not possibly be able to spend as much time on this process, as we do). As of now, all FDC members exclude themselves in the cases when their home chapters applications are considered, irrespective of their engagement in the boards. Those are some high standards right there. :) I'm assuming your comment was sarcastic. Any suggestions for systemic improvement are welcome. I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently being representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active community of all. well, as I am one of those, who never participated in any chapter actively (full disclosure: I've been signed up as a member of a Polish chapter, but I have never gone beyond that in terms of activity; I've never received a grant from the chapter, etc.) it is fair for me to comment that indeed there is quite many chapter activists in the FDC. I'm not sure if it can be avoided
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
On 10/23/13 2:08 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21: I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently being representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active community of all. Perhaps you might want to take a look at the dismal rate of actual community participation in FDC discussions. An year or so in to its formation, there isn't exactly a stellar record and high-opinions to go around. I hope I don't need to point to the recent news articles and comments about the FDC and possible issues of corruption, which might have even played a part in...whatever this is. I'm not sure how this matters for this proposal/request by the FDC: do such defects exist or apply only to evaluating the WMF budget? If not, how do they bring water to the idea of letting WMF be special compared to the other entities' funding? From my perspective as someone not really involved in either the WMF or chapters (or other committees), but just an editor and a community member, I tend to see the WMF as special in this sense because it already has a Board of Trustees that in a fairly reasonable way represent the community/movement, who I trust to make decisions on funding priorities. Therefore it's not clear to me why *another* advisory board should be a second layer of bureaucracy evaluating its budget proposals. They are already evaluated by the Trustees primarily, and by the community as a whole secondarily, which seems like enough oversight. If the community disagrees with the WMF's direction or priorities, they can vote for different trustees in the next election, or otherwise suggest changes in its structure or membership. But in general I trust their judgment on how to allocate the Foundation's money in accordance with the mission. Best, Mark ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
Dear Dariusz, thank you for your interesting answer, I learned a lot from it. I can imagine that some things will look different when the movement is a little older, with more former board members who would like to serve in the FDC. Kind regards Ziko Am Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2013 schrieb Dariusz Jemielniak : hi Theo, Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF board members are volunteers as well, quite like you. Unlike the FDC however, the WMF board has several elected members and has gone through quite a few iterations and external scrutiny. You seem to live a false assumption that the FDC does not have elected members at all. It does, and their proportion is going to grow in the incoming years. But I don't think it matters, anyway - what is more important, is the role of the FDC. It is not a decisive body, but an advisory one. In all major financial decisions it is good to have a chain of decision process, just to avoid groupthink. Moreover, it is quite a lot of work, the Board would unlikely be able to tackle on their own, with all other responsibilities. I strongly believe that none of the FDC members is driven by an urge to please anyone (WMF, the Board, the chapters). I quite believe the opposite might be true. Basing on?... So far in two rounds we have made some recommendations, which we had every right to assume that would not have been the most popular ones under the sun. So a direct path of conflict with the board. One can assume you'd expect the community to side against the board on some or any occasion and hilarity will ensue. ' If you're saying that the FDC may disagree with the Board and vice-versa, that's 100% true. I'm not sure if I would call this a conflict. Drawing different conclusions from the same data is not unprecedented in financial evaluations. The only thing the FDC and the Board will definitely want to avoid (each on their own shift) is to make mistakes. It is actually quite good, in my opinion, that there are two stages in this process: recommendation and an actual decision. If the Board disagrees with the FDC and makes a better, different decision, I think it would be a success of this model, rather than its failure. All in all the Board is accountable to the movement and has actual, fiduciary responsibility. Again, you perceive it as a flaw that an advisory committee makes recommendations, although is not empowered to enforce them. I respect this view, but such an organizational structure solution is quite common and your critique applies to the whole concept of advisory committees. I have one. Resign. Half the of current FDC should resign and open up the other half to some participation from the larger community - be it through an open election, arbcomm seat, board seats, then you'd need to add Jimmy of course - Hey! we can then have the same structure as the board. so, another quasi board that really has no legal authority or basis to comment, just disagree and create more conflict when some chapters don't get their way. This entire exercise with FDC has been futile, fixing little and consuming a lot of time and resources. I'm assuming good faith, but your advice and the conclusion seem to be contradictory (you say that we should resign, and as a result a new body would be created, but it would be identical to the Board). The whole purpose of the FDC is to have DIFFERENT people working as a committee and advising to the Board. What I read from your comments is that you believe that a two-stage decisionmaking process is dangerous, because it may bring conflict. Perhaps we simply disagree here - in my view it is better to have two different bodies look carefully at proposals worth millions of dollars, rather than to rush them through the Board (which, as already noted, has other duties, too and would not possibly be able to spend as much time on this process, as we do). As of now, all FDC members exclude themselves in the cases when their home chapters applications are considered, irrespective of their engagement in the boards. Those are some high standards right there. :) I'm assuming your comment was sarcastic. Any suggestions for systemic improvement are welcome. I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently being representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
Delirium, 23/10/2013 13:33: From my perspective as someone not really involved in either the WMF or chapters (or other committees), but just an editor and a community member, I tend to see the WMF as special Note that I wasn't saying it isn't special in some way, I was just saying that *that* argument didn't IMHO add good reasons for the WMF being special as regards this specific point, i.e. using a process which the WMF itself has created and which the WMF supposedly believes useful, given how much it has invested in it. in this sense because it already has a Board of Trustees that in a fairly reasonable way represent the community/movement, This argument is a slippery slope and for this reason I was not touching it. Anyway, note that the most voted elected member of the FDC has received more votes than the most voted WMF board elected member. ;-) Nemo who I trust to make decisions on funding priorities. Therefore it's not clear to me why *another* advisory board should be a second layer of bureaucracy evaluating its budget proposals. They are already evaluated by the Trustees primarily, and by the community as a whole secondarily, which seems like enough oversight. If the community disagrees with the WMF's direction or priorities, they can vote for different trustees in the next election, or otherwise suggest changes in its structure or membership. But in general I trust their judgment on how to allocate the Foundation's money in accordance with the mission. Best, Mark ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Hi, I've been aware of this brewing, but can only say that I'm pleased to finally reach the surface. There is no good reason for part of the WMF's budget to be privileged or quarantined from the same scrutiny that the rest of movement spending is subjected to. I therefore urge Sue and the WMF to accept the FDC's proposal in full. Regards, Craig Franklin (personal view only) Except that from both a practical and legal perspective the authority of the FDC comes from the WMF; this is the fundamental problem with having it purport to review the Foundation's spending and activity. If the Foundation's Board disagrees with the FDC decision on funding the WMF, it has not just the option but the legal duty to overrule it. The most likely outcome, then, is that the FDC functions as a rubber stamp for the WMF - perhaps with cosmetic adjustments or changes for appearances sake. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
Well, this change won't make things perfect - there is still something of a conflict of interest there and obviously the WMF board can choose to ignore the FDC's recommendation altogether and award itself an unreasonably generous budget. However, from last year's experience, where the WMF plan was apparently discussed in depth and opposed by at least one FDC member, I'd say that it doesn't look at all like it's a rubber stamp so far. We should encourage each step forward rather than moan that there are many steps yet to take. Perfection is the enemy of the good., and all that. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 22 October 2013 22:52, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Hi, I've been aware of this brewing, but can only say that I'm pleased to finally reach the surface. There is no good reason for part of the WMF's budget to be privileged or quarantined from the same scrutiny that the rest of movement spending is subjected to. I therefore urge Sue and the WMF to accept the FDC's proposal in full. Regards, Craig Franklin (personal view only) Except that from both a practical and legal perspective the authority of the FDC comes from the WMF; this is the fundamental problem with having it purport to review the Foundation's spending and activity. If the Foundation's Board disagrees with the FDC decision on funding the WMF, it has not just the option but the legal duty to overrule it. The most likely outcome, then, is that the FDC functions as a rubber stamp for the WMF - perhaps with cosmetic adjustments or changes for appearances sake. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
Actually, I'd say that the opportunity for conflict of interest is extremely high, and there's pretty much no way that the FDC can make recommendations on the overall budget (and the very sizeable portion of said budget that is largely dispensed based on their recommendation) without crossing the line into at least perceived conflict of interest. Risker On 22 October 2013 09:03, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Well, this change won't make things perfect - there is still something of a conflict of interest there and obviously the WMF board can choose to ignore the FDC's recommendation altogether and award itself an unreasonably generous budget. However, from last year's experience, where the WMF plan was apparently discussed in depth and opposed by at least one FDC member, I'd say that it doesn't look at all like it's a rubber stamp so far. We should encourage each step forward rather than moan that there are many steps yet to take. Perfection is the enemy of the good., and all that. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 22 October 2013 22:52, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:27 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote: Hi, I've been aware of this brewing, but can only say that I'm pleased to finally reach the surface. There is no good reason for part of the WMF's budget to be privileged or quarantined from the same scrutiny that the rest of movement spending is subjected to. I therefore urge Sue and the WMF to accept the FDC's proposal in full. Regards, Craig Franklin (personal view only) Except that from both a practical and legal perspective the authority of the FDC comes from the WMF; this is the fundamental problem with having it purport to review the Foundation's spending and activity. If the Foundation's Board disagrees with the FDC decision on funding the WMF, it has not just the option but the legal duty to overrule it. The most likely outcome, then, is that the FDC functions as a rubber stamp for the WMF - perhaps with cosmetic adjustments or changes for appearances sake. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
hi Nathan, On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Except that from both a practical and legal perspective the authority of the FDC comes from the WMF; this is the fundamental problem with having it purport to review the Foundation's spending and activity. If the Foundation's Board disagrees with the FDC decision on funding the WMF, it has not just the option but the legal duty to overrule it. The most likely outcome, then, is that the FDC functions as a rubber stamp for the WMF - perhaps with cosmetic adjustments or changes for appearances sake. I have no idea what gave you this impression. The FDC is composed of Wikimedia volunteers and serves as an advisory committee by the Board. The Board itself is not the foundation, neither - it is a body overseeing and supervising it. If the Board disagrees with the FDC recommendation, it naturally can overrule it, but how is this possibility relevant? The FDC at no point is inclined to provide rubber stamps to any entity in the process in general, and WMF in particular. We use our best judgment, experience, and skills to give meaningful evaluations. What possible motivation could we have to do otherwise? I strongly believe that none of the FDC members is driven by an urge to please anyone (WMF, the Board, the chapters). We are motivated to recommend sensible resources allocation within the entire movement. At no point do we take part in a popularity contest (and I believe we've shown that already). Moreover, keep in mind that even though we only prepare recommendations, and decisions are made by the Board, our responsibility is to the movement as a whole for our recommendations, and not for what the Board does with them. If we recommend cuts and the Board overrules them, the community will decide which of these two bodies went wrong. best, Dariusz Jemielniak (pundit) -- __ 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
hi Nathan, I'm not saying that the problems you're pointing out are non-existent. Rather, I'd say that they are likely unavoidable. I'm not certain about Western Europeans' solidarity anyway - I have serious doubts if any of the Western European FDC members would have any preference for other Western European chapters, just as I (coming from Eastern, or, more accurately, Central Europe) would not perceive other Eastern/Central European chapters as more suited for funding. If you have any thoughts on how should the future FDC composition be altered from a systemic point of view (election criteria, etc.), I'd be very much interested in learning about them - especially if the changes would only improve the results (rather than bring other problems on their own). As of now, all FDC members exclude themselves in the cases when their home chapters applications are considered, irrespective of their engagement in the boards. best, dj On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Five members are from Western Europe, where the wealthiest chapters are located, but only one from North America, two from the Indian subcontinent (but none from the rest of Asia) and no voting member at all from South America. Only one is not a member of a chapter, and most members have a history of chapter leadership. Actual conflicts in this situation seem unavoidable, due to split loyalties between the Board and chapters and a natural preference for Western European funding proposals. (The FDC members page even lists chapter affiliations as part of the table of members!). Of nine voting members, only two are women. I think the problem with that should be immediately clear - although I realize efforts were made to recruit more women to the committee. I hope now you see the source of my impressions of the FDC, and why I am skeptical about certain parts of its role and execution. -- __ 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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
Dear Dariusz, dear other FDC members, thanks for your brave and necessary step. Best Cornelius Cornelius Kibelka Twitter: @jaancornelius Mobile:+258-84-4260524 (Vodacom MZ) German number currently offline On 22 October 2013 13:00, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: hello, below I'm copying the letter I've just sent to Sue on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee, related to the way we see WMF should participate in the FDC process. A little background: In the first year, the WMF submitted part of its annual plan 2012-2013 budget as its proposal to the FDC. WMF also submitted the proposal for its current fiscal year, so when the proposal was funded, implementation of that plan had been ongoing for six months. Reviewing a partial plan and after implementation had started was ultimately not deemed viable neither by the FDC nor by WMF. In April 2013 the Board, WMF and FDC agreed that WMF budget for 2013-2014 should not be handled by FDC in Round 1 2013-2014, in order not to repeat to discuss a plan under implementation. Instead it was agreed that FDC should discuss WMF budget in Round 2 2013-2014, in this case then the WMF budget for 2014-2015. After internal considerations within FDC and discussion with key stakeholders including Sue herself, FDC has now taken the below position regarding WMF participation in FDC process. best, Dariusz Jemielniak (pundit) -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM Subject: WMF in FDC process To: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org Dear Sue, I am writing to you to present the FDC's view on WMF participation in the FDC process. We believe that it would be best if the FDC was commenting on the whole WMF budget, in its 1.4 or 1.5 version, and recommending cuts/increases basing on the overall evaluation of the plan (while pointing to specific areas, when appropriate). The advantages of the approach are numerous: - It goes along the same lines as chapters are treated, - It gives opportunity to comment on any part that the FDC is interested in, - It is not limited by a fixed amount or percentage - gives us more decision power and influence, - It better allows the whole community the opportunity to participate in an organized review if the WMF budget. The proposed approach clearly shows that WMF does not get a special/preferential treatment. What is even better is that it takes a lot of burden from the finance department (much less preparations specifically for the FDC process). We understand that to make this project work, ideally the timeline for application should change. Thus, we would recommend that the timeline shifts by a month, from March submissions of proposals to April submissions. The initial checkup with several entities who might apply in Round 2 indicates that it should not pose a problem for them. best, on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee Dariusz Jemielniak (pundit) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
This seems like a preposterous proposition, if not for the distinct recollection that this might have been insinuated by Ms. Gardner in the discussion leading up to the formation of FDC. It still reads like a poorly thought out attempt at some form of a coup or the making of one. This is as bad an idea, as the actual formation of the FDC. On Tue, Oct 22, 2013, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: I have no idea what gave you this impression. The FDC is composed of Wikimedia volunteers and serves as an advisory committee by the Board. The Board itself is not the foundation, neither - it is a body overseeing and supervising it. Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF board members are volunteers as well, quite like you. Unlike the FDC however, the WMF board has several elected members and has gone through quite a few iterations and external scrutiny. If the Board disagrees with the FDC recommendation, it naturally can overrule it, but how is this possibility relevant? The FDC at no point is inclined to provide rubber stamps to any entity in the process in general, and WMF in particular. We use our best judgment, experience, and skills to give meaningful evaluations. What possible motivation could we have to do otherwise? I strongly believe that none of the FDC members is driven by an urge to please anyone (WMF, the Board, the chapters). I quite believe the opposite might be true. We are motivated to recommend sensible resources allocation within the entire movement. At no point do we take part in a popularity contest (and I believe we've shown that already). Moreover, keep in mind that even though we only prepare recommendations, and decisions are made by the Board, our responsibility is to the movement as a whole for our recommendations, and not for what the Board does with them. If we recommend cuts and the Board overrules them, the community will decide which of these two bodies went wrong. So a direct path of conflict with the board. One can assume you'd expect the community to side against the board on some or any occasion and hilarity will ensue. On Tue, Oct 22, 2013, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: I'm not saying that the problems you're pointing out are non-existent. Rather, I'd say that they are likely unavoidable. I'm not certain about Western Europeans' solidarity anyway - I have serious doubts if any of the Western European FDC members would have any preference for other Western European chapters, just as I (coming from Eastern, or, more accurately, Central Europe) would not perceive other Eastern/Central European chapters as more suited for funding. If you have any thoughts on how should the future FDC composition be altered from a systemic point of view (election criteria, etc.), I'd be very much interested in learning about them - especially if the changes would only improve the results (rather than bring other problems on their own). I have one. Resign. Half the of current FDC should resign and open up the other half to some participation from the larger community - be it through an open election, arbcomm seat, board seats, then you'd need to add Jimmy of course - Hey! we can then have the same structure as the board. so, another quasi board that really has no legal authority or basis to comment, just disagree and create more conflict when some chapters don't get their way. This entire exercise with FDC has been futile, fixing little and consuming a lot of time and resources. As of now, all FDC members exclude themselves in the cases when their home chapters applications are considered, irrespective of their engagement in the boards. Those are some high standards right there. -- I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently being representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active community of all. Perhaps you might want to take a look at the dismal rate of actual community participation in FDC discussions. An year or so in to its formation, there isn't exactly a stellar record and high-opinions to go around. I hope I don't need to point to the recent news articles and comments about the FDC and possible issues of corruption, which might have even played a part in...whatever this is. I also don't understand why FDC alone should have this right to evaluate and offer recommendations. Why not the GAC? Arbcomm? or even individuals, like Risker or Nathan,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
Theo10011, 23/10/2013 00:21: I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently being representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active community of all. Perhaps you might want to take a look at the dismal rate of actual community participation in FDC discussions. An year or so in to its formation, there isn't exactly a stellar record and high-opinions to go around. I hope I don't need to point to the recent news articles and comments about the FDC and possible issues of corruption, which might have even played a part in...whatever this is. I'm not sure how this matters for this proposal/request by the FDC: do such defects exist or apply only to evaluating the WMF budget? If not, how do they bring water to the idea of letting WMF be special compared to the other entities' funding? I also don't understand why FDC alone should have this right to evaluate and offer recommendations. Why not the GAC? Arbcomm? or even individuals, like Risker or Nathan, heck, even my cat should have that right! There is an Auditcomm kicking around still I think. There is also some conflation in the comments over how much authority FDC is looking for- is it to merely offer feedback, suggest increases /decreases - which like feedback, WMF can reject at will or the authority to go head-to-head with the board, as the following comments allude to. The latter is quite preposterous, the former not so much. I suppose sharing the plan with everyone openly, and letting everyone comment might be the quickest solution there. Anyway, of the dozen reasons why this is a bad idea here are a few- -The internal structure - the foundation recently built up and then expanded a grants department, added to the internal finance department including some global work, the executive leadership - it would make somethings redundant, making a whole lot of resources so far wasted. -The external structure - hierarchy between the board, WMF executives, the FDC, auditcommittee, the FDC steering committee (if it's still around), not to mention the external auditors and consultants. Issues of privacy and control are likely to arise. -FDC has no real world existence - in the legal sense. There are legal and fiduciary responsibilities a board and executives have, real world laws about compliance, contracts, hiring and so on - they can't be abandoned or handed over to a completely virtual entity with little prior experience, who live across the world. Correct. They can't. :) As you say, the FDC's decisions don't exist in the real world, before the WMF board approves them. Nothing happens, from a legal perspective. For a conflict to exist, you'd need a board resolution rescinding a previous board resolution (which happens all the time anyway). -The scale is quite relevant here- the chapters have less than a tenth of the revenue and access to those fundraising abilities as the WMF. They have no engineering department, some are starting to hire their first employee and rent an office. -WMF and the board, proposed and created the FDC. They set up a steering committee, dedicated staff, and provided things like the travel budget to get these members under one roof to actually have, an actual FDC. The board has representatives who don't vote present within FDC. But it still poses a whole lot of issues about conflict that might have legal repercussions for non-profit operating in the US. -As Nathan pointed out, the FDC has very limited exposure to US laws and little participation from the US, and by extension the English-speaking majority. Majority of the members also have little exposure to the flagship project, presenting a gap of expertise and relevance where it would be needed the most. Again, I can't imagine any legal consequence. Moreover, if it's so true that FDC lacks an USA-centric know-how particularly needed by and abundant in the WMF (and viceversa), all the better! It would mean they'll complement each other rather than overlapping as you feared above, wouldn't it. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF
Hi Nemo I'll get straight to my point here before answering in-line. I see this as yet another move to change or one-up the power structures at play here. WMF created this FDC to evaluate chapter finances, FDC is still limited in what they believe is their scope, WMF still has a great deal of control over it but the recent comments about its effectiveness, and who knows perhaps even future dissolution/re-evaluation, might have brought upon this request to one-up the WMF. For example, in this scenario, accusing a chapter of corruption or nepotism would exacerbate a given situation, which in return might allow FDC to say something similar publicly about WMF or disagree with its requests. Since, the majority of FDC is composed of chapter specialists, the entire dynamics will get skewed to one side, composed primarily by chapter members overseeing mostly chapter grants, who will also have a platform to oppose the board if need be and little in the form of opposition. This issue might lay claim to the odd nature of WMF between an Tech/IT firm internally and the external non-profit part of the equation with chapters around the world, that have little to do with the online identity. It might seem ludicrous to think the WMF engineering and tech departments will be scrutinized by random members of chapters, more so, they might be able to dictate the terms and influence expense and programs(with little participation from the largest community), as such, I believe their opinion should only rest on the same footing as yours and mine. No more-no less. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently being representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active community of all. Perhaps you might want to take a look at the dismal rate of actual community participation in FDC discussions. An year or so in to its formation, there isn't exactly a stellar record and high-opinions to go around. I hope I don't need to point to the recent news articles and comments about the FDC and possible issues of corruption, which might have even played a part in...whatever this is. I'm not sure how this matters for this proposal/request by the FDC: do such defects exist or apply only to evaluating the WMF budget? If not, how do they bring water to the idea of letting WMF be special compared to the other entities' funding? I'm not sure I follow your earlier point there. As for WMF being special - there were extensive debates about this around 2 years ago related to decentralization. A lot of chapter members apparently saw things as WMF should be the same as them. I don't believe that can be possible, first an attempt was made to separate these entities on the basis of payment processing, and an independent body dispensing funds while WMF merely collects and holds them - true to that structure this suggestion might fit in but It's far too late now. WMF can not be judged by the same logic, chapter funding is. I'm also not sure if the recent issues Ms. Gardner alluded to are real with the FDC, but they should offer pause when handing over control to a body that its creators think is still flawed and broken. Not to mention, WMF is the only one who actually has full control of the funds, the servers, the trademarks - basically everything, and FDC derives its authority from a page on meta. I also don't understand why FDC alone should have this right to evaluate and offer recommendations. Why not the GAC? Arbcomm? or even individuals, like Risker or Nathan, heck, even my cat should have that right! There is an Auditcomm kicking around still I think. There is also some conflation in the comments over how much authority FDC is looking for- is it to merely offer feedback, suggest increases /decreases - which like feedback, WMF can reject at will or the authority to go head-to-head with the board, as the following comments allude to. The latter is quite preposterous, the former not so much. I suppose sharing the plan with everyone openly, and letting everyone comment might be the quickest solution there. Anyway, of the dozen reasons why this is a bad idea here are a few- -The internal structure - the foundation recently built up and then expanded a grants department, added to the internal finance department including some global work, the executive leadership - it would make somethings redundant, making a whole lot of resources so far wasted. -The external structure - hierarchy between the board, WMF executives, the FDC, auditcommittee, the FDC steering committee (if it's still around), not to mention the
