Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
Hi Anne, On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions of the chapter agreement isn't widely accessible. It would be very demotivating for groups to come together, gather momentum to move toward a more formal relationship with the WMF, and then find out that their ability to form a chapter is proscribed by conflicts between local requirements and the WMF standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters. Just for clarification: did you actually look for these agreements or are you just assuming they aren't available publicly? The standard template for the agreement is published here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Agreement_between_chapters_and_Wikimedia_Foundation There are some small modifications for individual chapters but the general principles apply through all of them. Best regards, Sebastian Moleski President Wikimedia Deutschland ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:31 PM, church.of.emacs.ml church.of.emacs.ml@ googlemail.com wrote: Sure. I'd love to get opinions from more people (perhaps at Wikimania, too?) The (editing) community should to be comfortable with Wikimedia raising funds, and if it isn't, we need to find ways so that it will be (disabling banners for logged-in users is a low-hanging fruit, taking their wishes in the selection (not only creation) of banners into account might be another). If I remember correctly, banners were disabled for logged-in users some time into the fundraiser. It would be easy to do that again, maybe a little earlier. In terms of annoyance, I think we all need to be careful not to substitute our own judgment for that of others. Just because you or I find banners annoying, it's a far jump to argue that our readers in general also found them annoying. In fact, from what I've seen in terms of complaints, there have been few that didn't result from the Wikimedia project communities. It's hard to tell. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it should be smaller, but it is obvious that we need to think about stop growing at some point (and in my opinion sooner than later). You allude to an interesting point here: growth. Why do you think growth needs to stop, and why sooner than later? I would venture that growth, or rather size, is defined by what the Foundation wants to accomplish and what resources are needed for that. Would it be inherently wrong if, for example, WMF were an organization with a headcount of 10,000 and a budget of a billion dollars, if that's what it takes to accomplish the mission, e.g. allow every human to freely share in the sum of all knowledge? Best regards, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings
Hi all, to give a little insight here: about two years ago the German Wikipedia community reached consensus that, for the page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BZ (which is basically user statistics and ranking), an opt-in is required. That means only those users may be listed there who have added their name to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beitragszahlen/Opt-In. The reasoning behind this approach is simple: just because a piece of personal data is public, the aggregation of such data isn't automatically also public. Why is that so? Because such aggregations can provide insights into editing habits and other behavior of the person behind that user account which touches on their privacy. A similar analogy is: just because cookies exist and are public information from a website's perspective doesn't make it acceptable to generate viewing profiles and analyzing browsing patterns because that inforation touches the user's privacy. Why did the German community decide this? Germans have traditionally (at least since 1983) been particularly conscientious about personal privacy. The constitutional court here even claimed a basic right to control how one's personal data is used by others, regardless of whether that data is made public or not at some point in time. Retrieving, storing, using, aggregating, and publishing personal data is regulated by fairly strict laws that typically require compelling reasons for such activities before they are allowed - or the person's explicit permission. Some of these principles have also been codified at the European Union level under the subject of data protection so this isn't a strictly German approach (anymore). Hope that helps, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy, statistics and rankings
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The German Wikipedia is entitled to create whatever policies it likes as long as they don't go against global policy (and being more restrictive isn't against the global privacy policy) or against the fundamental principles of the movement. I think this policy is ridiculous (Sebastian's analogy to cookies is very unconvincing - the contributions page is already public, the analogy could be used to argue to the removal of all attribution, but if edits are going to be attributed (and, of course, they are) then the information is going to be public and making a rule that says only people with the time and technical expertise to write their own contributions analysis script are allowed access to contribution statistics doesn't make any sense to me at all), but it's not up to me. That's not quite what the rule tries to accomplish. Rather, the point is this: personal data being public does not allow anyone to aggregate such data in a way such that the result is still tied to individual people (also called 'profiling'). Why is that so? Because according to this German point of view, people have the right to control what their personal data is being used for. Since, when setting up an account on MediaWiki, there's no explicit statement saying that your editing data may be aggregated in such a manner, MediaWiki users didn't give permission to such aggregation and therefore such aggregation may not take place. Therefore, such aggregation without opt-in can't be published on German Wikipedia or on the Toolserver (which is run by Wikimedia Deutschland and therefore subject to German law). I understand that this position may seem odd to a lot of people, especially if they come from the US or UK. I'm just stating a perception that is very common here. By the way, neither the original poster nor the discussion on German Wikipedia implied that this point of view has to be applied to other wikis like Meta or Spanish Wikipedia. Best regards, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Announcing my departure from the Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Cary, Thank you for everything you've done for the Foundation, the projects, but also the chapters. I will definitely miss you. Best wishes for your new degree. Sebastian On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: It is with deep regret that I tell you I will be leaving the staff of the Wikimedia Foundation at the end of December. I'm leaving the staff, but I will continue to be involved with the Wikimedia movement as a volunteer, both as a contributor and in the organization of the annual Wikimania conference. Much of my work with Wikimedia will continue, except now I will be doing it as a volunteer rather than as a paid staff person. The Wikimedia Foundation is not planning to hire another volunteer coordinator to look after the specific range of work I've been doing, so if you are unsure about who will handle things I have been responsible for, please feel free to ask me, and we'll work it out over the next several months. I have decided to continue my education and have begun the process of enrolling in post-graduate studies to pursue a theological path that I've been considering for many years. I have very much enjoyed my time with the Wikimedia Foundation, and I look forward to continuing to work alongside you all, as a Wikimedia volunteer. I enjoy working with each and every one of you. Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
Hi Gerard, On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, One of the reasons, for many the only reason for giving a\t the annual fundraising drive is exactly to provide money to maintain our infrastructure. Take that away and you take away the reason to give. Once people get it in their mind that we have reserves to pay for our infrastructure, they will remember this and not support us for our other goals. In my experience, donor motivation is much more complex than that. While the donor survey is still in preparation, anecdotal evidence suggests that donors do not just provide donations to cover our infrastructure but also, for example, - as a voluntary payment for using Wikipedia - as an act of charity to support education for people not typically provided with decent educational material (i.e. the economically disadvantaged) - as an act of appreciation for the work of thousands of volunteers Setting up an endowment to cover part of the fixed costs of running the Wikimedia projects is something that IMHO is definitely sellable to donors. Check also the rationales given at the moment for not pursuing an endowment: they are not related to donor motivation but rather to effort required, opportunity cost involved, and funding sources cannibalized. In general, I think the arguments made against pursuing a general endowment are sound, at least for the moment. For an endowment to be meaningful, it needs to be fairly big. Let's say that we want to cover half of the current year's technology budget (about $1.65 million) and we can expect an annual ROI of 5%. The endowment would have to be at least $33 million to cover that. That's not an impossible amount to raise, in general, but it's definitely not easy. You would have to spread this out over several years considering that our existing donor base doesn't yield that sort of revenue. So it might take you, let's say, five years to get this together. Now it's 2016 and you've got a $33 million endowment yielding $1.65 million payout. Yet, from all we can tell at the moment, our tech budget won't be anywhere near $3.3 million in 2016 (it's already planned to be $9.8 million in 2011). So what to do? Personally, I think we should an endowment drive when we've found our donation revenue, but also our operational spending to approximately level off. We are in a period of rapid operational growth, which will end eventually. When that happens, we will have a better understanding of our own actual financial need as well as our worldwide fundraising potential. Until then, let's focus on what has the most benefit at the least cost which, as it turns out for the moment, is community giving. Best regards, Sebastian Moleski President Wikimedia Deutschland ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Plan Now Posted to FoundationWebsite
Hi Samuel, On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Samuel J Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote: One can always keep increasing operational spending. Reserves or long-term funds should grow in tandem with those increases -- otherwise as we come to rely on this new spending, there is additional risk that efforts may collapse if funding dries up. Example: the coming year's Annual Plan includes a 50% drop in our effective reserve -- the reserve is staying the same while the annual budget doubles. My point was that working on an endowment at the current situation isn't a very sensible thing to do. An endowment isn't a reserve, though, so I'm not sure where the two are related here. The former is a means to generate revenue, the later a means to handle revenue shortfalls. It makes sense of course to have your reserves grow with your spending. Neither I nor anyone else was advocating something different. Regardless of what we do with reserves and long-term funds, keeping the projects online forever was the premise of the last fundraiser. We have an immediate obligation to make progress towards that goal. A new datacenter will help, but I'd like to see specific long-term forecasts and plans published. Isn't the strategy project providing just that? Best regards, Sebastian Moleski President Wikimedia Deutschland ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising banners
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: That's interesting. I had always thought that it was done at this time of year to coincide with Wikipedia Day on Jan.15 but that we just reached our goal early. To that end, Wikipedia Day in 2011 will be our 10th Birthday and potentially there is a lot of fundraising/media potential around that date. I agree. WMDE has already put aside a portion of its budget to plan for Wikipedia's 10th birthday in 2011. There's definitely a lot of potential here, not just from a fundraising perspective. Yes, I can see how the Christmas giving spirit would increase the potential donations. If that is the reason why it's run in December, why don't we investigate how donations to WM could be given as a present to a friend/relative. I know a lot of charities offer gifts where what you personally receive is a certificate to give as a present to your relative, but the money is actually going to the charity for a nominated purpose. For example: http://www.oxfamunwrapped.com.au/Product.php?productid=94 Could donating to WM somehow be made into a christmas present? I believe we've previously talked about saying things like donating $30 will run your language's Wikipedia for 'x' minutes - perhaps we could turn that into a certificate kind of thing? (so long as it was made clear that this was nominal, rather than making a false promise that your donation would be spent at a precise moment in time). I think that's an excellent idea :) As for the tax-adjustment aspect, that may be the case for the US (and granted, that's where most of the money is being raised currently), but different countries have different periods - here in Australia for example the fiscal year is July-June. It's country-dependent. From what I know, personal income tax returns in most European countries cover a Jan-Dec period. So the last few days of the year are also the last chance for donations to be included in that return. From a purely revenue-maximizing perspective, it makes sense to keep the fundraiser in November/December. Best regards, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recent firing?
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:22 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: And the reason for speculation is that people first found out by rumor rather than foundation announcement. Basic communication management. Get stuff out before someone else can put their spin on it. I have to disagree. The reason for the speculation is not the rumor. The reason for the speculation is a misguided sense that there's some sort of absolute right to know about these things. Jimmy's right: it makes sense that board or upper level management positions are discussed among the project community (although I would not consider this list to be a useful forum of community discussion). It does not, however, make sense that this principle be applied to someone responsible for office IT. I don't know what the reasons were for why this particular employment is scheduled to end. And there's no reason that I or anyone other than those directly involved with it internally to the foundation should know. It's a simple case of none-of-your-business. Best regards, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters as intermediaries between WMF and communities (was Re: Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation)
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/28 Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com: First because it requires the chapter to actually agree to a certain degree with the action of the Wikimedia Foundation. I would prefer it if the WMF didn't do things the chapters don't agree with. If the chapters make their decisions based on community opinion (I think all chapters have elected boards, so presumably they will) then the WMF should make its decisions based on chapter opinion. I keep reading such statements and I'm having to admit: I have more and more problems following your logic. Let's take this apart: I would prefer it if the WMF didn't do things the chapters don't agree with. Each chapters as well as the Wikimedia Foundation are distinct organizations, each with their own stakeholders to server and interests to protect. While the general goal and mission of these organizations are the same, there are also differences that need to be accounted for. This diversity is a good thing, in fact, because it prevents a sort of thinking that the best solution to any significant problem is the one everyone can agree with. That doesn't mean that there should be no conversations between individual organizations. But it does mean that each organization, in the end, makes its own decision on how to best fulfill its mission. If the chapters make their decisions based on community opinion (I think all chapters have elected boards, so presumably they will) This statement presupposes that an elected chapter board is equivalent to it representing community opinion. It also presupposes that there's such a thing as community opinion. The first part doesn't carry really if one considers that chapter boards tend to be elected by the chapter's members. Now, the sets chapter members and community may be overlapping but they're not identical. In fact, if community means those contributing to Wikimedia projects, there may well be a significant number of chapter members who are not part of the community. There's thus no good reason assuming or expecting that a chapter's board represents community opinion. But even if all chapter members were also members of the community, it would still be very shortsighted to expect a chapter's board to base its decision solely on community opinion (whatever that would be). A chapter's board has a fiduciary duty to that chapter. The community certainly is one of the chapter's stakeholders, it's not the only one though. Aside from the community, there are other stakeholders to consider and it may very well be that a chapter has to make decisions for which widespread community support may not exist. It might be that your based on already accounts for this sort of differentiation; it's not clear to me that it does though. then the WMF should make its decisions based on chapter opinion. The same arguments above for chapters can be applied here too. The job of the Foundation's board is to act in the best interest of the Foundation. Now, paying attention to the wishes and expecations of the community can reasonably be expected to often be part of that. I would not support the notion, however, that it's always the case. When I re-read your statement and prior ones, there appears to me some sort of unity theory that (1) there's a discernabe community opinion and (2) chapters and foundation should follow whatever that community opinion is. It feels like a sort of majoritan dictatorship where change becomes dependent on (1) broad support for that change and (2) coming through the community. The corollary appears to be that, if one cannot convince the community of a necessary change, you're out of luck. It just doesn't seem to leave much room to diversity in approach or pluralism in activities but rather cement much of the reluctance to reform/conservatism already manifest on some of the Wikimedia projects. Please, do correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words. I would, in fact, be very glad if I am misinterpreting because this sort of vision would not be something I want to have a part in. Best regards, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters as intermediaries between WMF and communities (was Re: Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation)
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/28 Sebastian Moleski seb...@gmail.com: I keep reading such statements and I'm having to admit: I have more and more problems following your logic. Let's take this apart: I think any response I can give will basically boil down to: [D]emocracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. (Winston Churchill) That's unfortunate. I was hoping for more. I will also correct one slight mistake in what you say - the Foundation's duty is to do what is best for the Foundation's goals, not for the Foundation itself. If the goals of the Foundation and the chapters are the same (which they pretty much are, it is one of the requirements to be a chapter) then their interests should completely align. The fact that two orrganization share goals does not mean that their interests align completely. Not all of the goals of the foundation are goals of a chapter and vice versa. And even when they are the same, they may go about them in different ways. There are, for example, hundreds of organizations worldwide trying to save the environment, promote world peace, eradicate poverty, spread education, etc. Overlapping goals, overlapping interests, but no uniformity or unity. It's great that there are so many different groups with similar goals trying different things and not agreeing on everything. I'd like to see that same sort of pluralism within the Wikimedia universe as well. I think it's helpful to have that because (1) no one and no organization here has all the right answers (if they even exist) and (2) having different groups autonously trying different things is more likely to lead to finding out what works best. None of that is possible if there's some sort of direct mandate through all institutions. Best regards, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Thomas, On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Those answers don't address the fact that you've just given a seat on the board to someone that has just given you a big pile of cash. I am open to being convinced that this is a good thing, but you haven't even tried to convince me. I am not arguing that Matt isn't a good choice for the board, I am arguing that the circumstances of his appointment are inappropriate. Had you discussed the general principle of selling board seats with the community you might have got a positive response, but you didn't ask. This may be a heretic question but I'd like to pose it anyway: why should it be necessary or appropriate for the Foundation to discuss this subject with the project communities? How does this appointment have any impact on the activities within the projects? Best regards, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
Hi Thomas, On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: Wikimedia is a community driven movement, big decisions should be made by the community. Those are undoubtedly interesting assertions. Assuming the second one is the case (big decisions should be made by the community), it raises even more the question of why it is necessary or appropiate for the selection of Foundation board seats to be discussed with the project communities, doesn't it? That would really only make sense if you expect the Foundation to make decisions that significantly impact activities within the projects, something you just ruled out. So why? Best regards, Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
... The WMF has
always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
Germany
{{citation needed}}
Sebastian
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
...The WMF has
always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
Germany
{{citation needed}}
What do want a citation for, the WMF statement or the fact that
Germany is part of the world?
I'm asking for citation that the foundation always said it intends to
follow US law only.
Sebastian
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com wrote: They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law. How do you know? And who is we? Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
Hi Florence, First, when a meeting occur with say, 25 people, there is room for discussions and work. When a meeting occur with 100 people, much less. Last year was fine. This year will probably be okay in terms of figures. But every year will become more and more difficult. How many people will join this year Guillom ? I don't really see why it would be more difficult. If numbers increase, we have to change the format of some of the events during the meeting. We could, for example, have full assembly sessions with all chapter representatives combined with committee meetings/workshops of a smaller size where not every chapter is represented. The meeting would turn more into a sort of conference which, as regards efficiency, isn't a bad thing at all. Second, one person may speak in the name of its board on issues they have discussed previously. Far less on new discussions. And at the end of the discussion, the representant may not vote because legally speaking, only the entire board can take a decision. I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. Which means that the meeting may be an opportunity to meet and exchange experiences. But it may not be an opportunity to reach agreements. If any doubt on this, a show case is the procedure chosen to select the two representants to the board. One procedure was identified by the group at last year chapter meeting. But we are doing another procedure because in the end, most did not agree with the procedure identified during the meeting. Not to say it was a loss of time of course, but the meeting can simply not be used as a decision-making time. On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter meeting had no mandate from their chapters to enter into any sort of agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting that binds the chapters that attend. Walking on eggs, I will also point out that not all chapters always send the most appropriate person to this meeting. When two or three people can come, the chosen people will usually be the chair and the one person doing a lot of work at international level and with many relationships with many chapters. When only one person come, I think in many cases, the chair will be selected, as representant of the chapters. And I think this person is not necessarily the best choice. I would find it ideal to have each chapter send two people. That way, there's some deliberation possible among representatives from chapters and less likelihood of scheduling conflicts during the meeting. In the future, we'll have to decide whether we want this annual meeting to be a small one, with max one representative (in which case, it will mostly be a sharing experiences time). Or if we want more a convention, with open membership (in which case, it will mostly be a agreement reaching time). If we accept some sort of democratic process as the premise of decision making, open membership creates a range of problems fixed membership does not. If, for example, each chapter gets two voting representatives, it's easier to make up the rules that follow regarding quorum and debate. It's much harder if every chapter can bring as many as they want. Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com wrote: It is interesting how the power distance thing is playing out here. :) I'm not getting the reference. Can you help? I don't agree that that's necessarily the case. It's entirely within the realm of possibility for a chapter (board) to appoint a representative who can make decisions/vote on behalf of the chapter. [snip] On of the main issues I see here was that those attending the chapter meeting had no mandate from their chapters to enter into any sort of agreement. If that is addressed prior to the next meeting, i.e. each chapter sends a representative with the necessary mandate to vote, I don't see why we would not be able to make a decision at the meeting that binds the chapters that attend. I tend to agree with you, but I believe you have to keep in mind many singularities within chapters. This, if it happens, would be a very big strech for some of the chapters, where decisions are made collectively all the time, and the decision is a product of consensus and debate, and can only with difficulties be handed to one person. Yes, I agree too. That's why I wrote it would be ideal to have two people. Make it a cultural particularity or a wiki-culture heritage, whatever, but I think that some chapters might have a very hard time appointing who they consider the right person to make decisions that could engage the chapter for a long term plan of any kind. If only because their strength lies in having very different individuals in their board and/or membership, with different ideas, which act as synergy when put together, but could lead to a standstill if left alone (think for an extreme example, the person mandated says yes and then is disavowed by the board/the members etc.). If the chapters each send two representatives and there's disagreement among the board, the mandate could also stipulate that they both have to agree to give a vote on behalf of the chapter. This obviously gets quite unwieldy with more than two representatives. I do believe it is something to consider. If decisions are made on a consensus basis, then maybe this does not have such an influence. As soon as you try and introduce some voting system or other, the balance might be heavily tipped one way and not reflect what would come out of a consensus, taking all particularities into consideration (which does not mean you have to accommodate them, but which does mean you have to look at them). Yes, this does open a few issues. It's something we should discuss in April. Perhaps it might be useful for the chapters represented there to formulate some common opinon on chapters or the chapter-foundation relationship. But then, take all of the above with a grain of salt, I'm French, and we French think we deserve our place in the sun ;-) Diversity in opinion and thought is what makes us strong :) Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board resolutions (chapters)
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some discussions in a binding way, in others only in an advisory/consultative manner. Correct. Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting with all chapters... :-( I don't quite follow. I suggested an exclusion by topic. So some decisions they will participate and vote, others they will not. It entirely depends on what authority they get from their board/chapter. Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only afford to send one? LOL. Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others are not ? Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak one that can not float over the general noise ? Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others are rather discreet and shy ? Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ? There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-) No need to belittle my point. I was talking about an approach to fairness that involves giving each chapter as fair a voice as is possible. Like above, some compromise needs to be made. Having each chapter choose two representatives is such a compromise. Sebastian ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
