Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[phoebe ayers]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Frédéric Schütz  wrote:

> On 11/02/14 06:33, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> > I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees
> decisions
> > that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual
> > plan grant process and Board approval of chapter/thematic organization
> > status. In a nutshell, the Board decided to allocate approximately the
> same
> > amount of funding to the FDC for the next two years.
>
> Some chapters have asked to consider the possibility for multi-year
> funding, in order to make planning easier. The WMF indicated that it was
> something difficult to do since the funding of the whole movement is
> planned on an annual basis. Does it mean that this argument is now moot ?
>

That's a good point, and a good question. Personally I think we are trying
to find a balance between stability and not wildly changing budget
allocations, and the fact that yes, we receive revenues and pass a budget
on an annual basis.

I hope other trustees can weigh in on this point too though.


>
> > The Board also decided
> > that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two
> years
> > of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally
> incorporated
> > entity (either a chapter or thematic organization).
>
> My first reaction to this: why is the WMF board pretending to be more
> and more a board overseeing the whole community ? I can understand
> concerns "about new groups legally incorporating before they need to or
> are ready to", but this remains up to the groups to decide -- and one
> thing about which there is no doubt is that they will know better than
> the WMF board if they need to be incorporated and when (if only because
> they know they local legal landscape much better than the WMF does).
>

We aren't trying to oversee the whole community. We do have a
responsibility for this area though. That's not a change, I think; the
Board has always approved chapters.


>
> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization.
> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group
> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
>

Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to do
stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they will
stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove that
they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the
crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm concerned).


>
> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not endorsed
> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the
> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?
>
> So if you had asked the Swiss chapter, for example, we would have
> mentioned that a "user group" would be close to useless in our country.
> That would basically be a group of people having meetings in a
> restaurant once in a while, but it just does not exist as a group: it
> can not get access to grants (it can not even have a bank account, so
> any money received would be received by a single member in his own name
> -- making the user group useless), can not be granted trademark usage.
> This is why creating an association in Switzerland is an extremely light
> process: take 2 people, get them to write one page of bylaws and voilà,
> the association is incorporated and it can open a bank account. So long
> for "becoming a chapter or thematic organization involves much more
> corporate overhead".
>

Sure. See the last faq:

"What if a user group doesn't make sense for us? We want to do a specific
project, and really feel we need chapter or thematic organization status
for our situation.

Please tell us what part of user group status is problematic, and for what
reasons. We do not want to hinder planned or ambitious projects; we also do
not know of any current cases where this would be a problem."

Really, if you or anyone is forming a group, has some projects planned, and
thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us know.
We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us all
on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.

It is late and I am going to bed now, but I expect many more interesting
questions to come tomorrow, and hopefully other trustees will be able to
weigh in too.

best,

Phoebe







* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[phoebe ayers]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:46 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:

>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER  > wrote:
>
>> pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying:
>>"wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow"
>>"the affiliated organisations are recommended to seek other funding
>> (which the foundation did try and did not succeed very well)"
>> i am disappointed personally by you. you as a person, you as an american,
>> and you as a board member of the foundation. especially about your
>> inability to grasp international cultural differences in terms of funding,
>> fundraising.
>>
>
> I'm sorry you're disappointed in me.
>
>
>
>> because "trust" is mentioned: the FAQ and the minutes are written by a
>> lawyer now, who has maximum 300 wikipedia edits as his lifetime
>> achievement. 
>
>
>
> Just so it's clear -- Stephen *posted* the FAQ and minutes for us -- he
> helps out the board by posting documents and taking minutes during the
> meeting -- but the decisions, and the FAQ, were written by members of the
> board in what I can promise was a highly collaborative process :)
>
> That said, I find it strange that you would accuse him of anything. Not
> that it matters, but in his free time he's been volunteering with Wikipedia
> events, coding and editing for years. Regardless, though, he was just doing
> his job here -- as requested *by the board*, and specifically by me  -- so
> please lay off the criticism of him. I have nothing but respect for our
> ultra-hard-working LCA team.
>
> -- phoebe
>
> Also, I just have to point out, having lots of edits is obviously no
guarantee of wisdom anyway -- I have 20K edits under my belt, and you still
think I make terrible decisions :)

-- phoebe



-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are two areas where the Wikimedia Foundation is active; the USA where
it is active through both chapters and the office in San Francisco. The
rest of the world where it is active through chapters and whatever.

Does the funding gap limit the office in the same way it does the rest of
the world or, does it only limit the USA chapters?

When you consider countries like China, India and Indonesia you have
countries where the WMF has hardly invested and where the effect of
investment has the likelihood of a much bigger return on investment.

What I would like to know is how this will effect the growth of our
movement where there is a huge potential in additional people interested in
our content.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 11 February 2014 06:33, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees decisions
> that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual
> plan grant process and Board approval of chapter/thematic organization
> status. In a nutshell, the Board decided to allocate approximately the same
> amount of funding to the FDC for the next two years. The Board also decided
> that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two years
> of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally incorporated
> entity (either a chapter or thematic organization).
>
> The decisions are published in the meeting minutes here:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
>
> There is also a FAQ on Meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_FAQ
>
> You will notice these decisions are published in the minutes for the
> November meeting. We originally took these decisions at that meeting;
> however as the FAQ explains it took us some time to talk to community
> groups, clarify our wording and write the FAQ.
>
> Hopefully the FAQ will answer many of your questions about these decisions;
> however, if there are other questions please do ask them, here or on the
> meta talk page. Thank you!
>
> for the Board,
> Phoebe
> ___
> 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] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Itzik Edri]

What I can say about this new-old not surprising decision?
When WMDE posted their feedback about the FDC, the responses from the
board/fdc was "wait, we want to finish 2 years cycle and then talk about
the it". Of course it didn't stopped the WMF, before having such a
discussion, to decide and limit already from now the future of this
process. the process itself without a budget or ability to grove, makes the
FDC kind of powerless, having to face him over the next 2 year with a
really hard decisions about really limiting the allocation for the
chapters, without of course, having enough time, knowledge or resources for
them to prepare for self fundraising.

I have a lot what to say about it, but from a past experience from the
"board's letters" i believe it will end with 1000 emails on this list, but
nothing will be change, so I'll save my time. I'll just again doubt why we
reached for such a decision, without open call for comment before.



On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees decisions
> that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual
> plan grant process and Board approval of chapter/thematic organization
> status. In a nutshell, the Board decided to allocate approximately the same
> amount of funding to the FDC for the next two years. The Board also decided
> that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two years
> of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally incorporated
> entity (either a chapter or thematic organization).
>
> The decisions are published in the meeting minutes here:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
>
> There is also a FAQ on Meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_FAQ
>
> You will notice these decisions are published in the minutes for the
> November meeting. We originally took these decisions at that meeting;
> however as the FAQ explains it took us some time to talk to community
> groups, clarify our wording and write the FAQ.
>
> Hopefully the FAQ will answer many of your questions about these decisions;
> however, if there are other questions please do ask them, here or on the
> meta talk page. Thank you!
>
> for the Board,
> Phoebe
> ___
> 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] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

phoebe ayers, 11/02/2014 06:33:

The Board also decided
that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two years
of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally incorporated
entity (either a chapter or thematic organization).


A very unfortunate slowdown. What a pity that the new movement roles 
mechanism only results in additional burdens for new chapters.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Anders Wennersten]

Itzik Edri skrev 2014-02-11 09:26:

  makes the FDC kind of powerless, having to face him over the next 2 year with 
a
really hard decisions about really limiting the allocation for the
chapters, without of course, having enough time, knowledge or resources for
them to prepare for self fundraising.
FDC is a subcommittee to the Board and our prime input is the directives 
and guidelines from the Board and the FDC framework. This decision does 
not change this or the role or work of FDC. And limiting allocation we 
have already done in three Rounds ;)


I personally am not happy with this decision, mainly because it, as it 
is written,  seems to limit the possibilities of growth in new and 
emerging entities that can give results with good impact for the 
movement locally. But it is nine months until it will come into actual 
effect and with some clever thinking and discussion among all of us, I 
think it would be possible to come to allocations that will mean a "cap" 
on growth at the same time as we can give proper support to the newer 
entities


Anders







On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, phoebe ayers  wrote:


Hi all,

I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees decisions
that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual
plan grant process and Board approval of chapter/thematic organization
status. In a nutshell, the Board decided to allocate approximately the same
amount of funding to the FDC for the next two years. The Board also decided
that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two years
of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally incorporated
entity (either a chapter or thematic organization).

The decisions are published in the meeting minutes here:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles

There is also a FAQ on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_FAQ

You will notice these decisions are published in the minutes for the
November meeting. We originally took these decisions at that meeting;
however as the FAQ explains it took us some time to talk to community
groups, clarify our wording and write the FAQ.

Hopefully the FAQ will answer many of your questions about these decisions;
however, if there are other questions please do ask them, here or on the
meta talk page. Thank you!

for the Board,
Phoebe
___
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, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Frédéric Schütz]

On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:

Hi Phoebe,

thanks for your answer !

>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization.
>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group
>> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
>>
> 
> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to do
> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they will
> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove that
> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the
> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm concerned).

What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the
actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track
record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".

What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic track
record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated
two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external
funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind
of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic
organization".

How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?

>> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not endorsed
>> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the
>> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?

I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I
don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the
discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever
amount of discussion we have) and not before.

> "What if a user group doesn't make sense for us? We want to do a specific
> project, and really feel we need chapter or thematic organization status
> for our situation.
> 
> Please tell us what part of user group status is problematic, and for what
> reasons. We do not want to hinder planned or ambitious projects; we also do
> not know of any current cases where this would be a problem."
> 
> Really, if you or anyone is forming a group, has some projects planned, and

I am not; I am lucky enough to be a founding member of a (successful, I
hope) Wikimedia chapter that managed to exist *thanks to the absence of
such a policy*, and would likely not be where it is if it had had to be
created under such arbitrary constraints. Creating the formal structure
is what got people together; Switzerland is a land of associations (most
Swiss people are members of several of them) and that's how we work.

However, I am not a fan of saying "I am happy because I managed to form
a group when it was easy to do so, so now I don't care about what
happens next for other people".

> thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us know.
> We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us all
> on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.

The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this
proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the
community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get
exceptions.

I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision
beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing
("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize
yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it is
bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of the
movement ?")

As a side note, this is the only point that I will keep from Rupert's
email: this decision completely ignores international cultural
differences in terms of funding, fundraising and organization in
general. Indeed, in a quote above, you talk about "good lawyer in the
group who can draw up bylaws"; this reinforces the incorrect premise
your decision is based on: that incorporation is a complicated and
bureaucratic process that should be avoided. And this is something that
can not be decided globally.

Frédéric

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Reminder: Wikimania 2014 scholarship deadline 17 February

[Katie Chan]

If you were thinking of applying for a scholarship from either the 
Wikimania Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland, or Wikimedia Österreich, 
the deadline is end of the day UTC this coming Monday. Don't miss it!


Katie

On 08/01/2014 17:37, Katie Chan wrote:

Hi all,

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2014 in London are now being 
accepted. Applications are open until the end of the day UTC on 17 
February.


Wikimania 2014 scholarships is an award given to an individual to 
enable them to attend Wikimania in London from 6-10 August, 2014.


Only a single type of scholarship will be available from the Wikimedia 
Foundation for Wikimania 2014. A Wikimedia Foundation scholarship will 
cover the cost of an individual's round-trip travel costs as arranged 
by the Wikimedia Foundation travel agency, shared accommodation as 
arranged by the Wikimedia Foundation, and registration for Wikimania.


Applicants will be rated using a pre-determined selection process and 
selection criteria by the Scholarship Committee, who will determine 
which are successful. To learn more about Wikimania 2014 scholarships, 
please visit .


To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on 
. It is highly recommended 
that applicants review all of the material on the Scholarships page 
and the associated FAQ before submitting an application.


If you have any question, please contact 
 or leave a message on 
.


Katie Chan
Chair, Scholarship Committee




--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is 
associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
 - Heinrich Heine


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] Reminder: Wikimania 2014 scholarship deadline 17 February

[Katie Chan]

If you were thinking of applying for a scholarship from either the
Wikimania Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland, or Wikimedia Österreich,
the deadline is end of the day UTC this coming Monday. Don't miss it!

Katie

On 08/01/2014 17:37, Katie Chan wrote:

Hi all,

Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2014 in London are now being
accepted. Applications are open until the end of the day UTC on 17
February.

Wikimania 2014 scholarships is an award given to an individual to
enable them to attend Wikimania in London from 6-10 August, 2014.

Only a single type of scholarship will be available from the Wikimedia
Foundation for Wikimania 2014. A Wikimedia Foundation scholarship will
cover the cost of an individual's round-trip travel costs as arranged
by the Wikimedia Foundation travel agency, shared accommodation as
arranged by the Wikimedia Foundation, and registration for Wikimania.

Applicants will be rated using a pre-determined selection process and
selection criteria by the Scholarship Committee, who will determine
which are successful. To learn more about Wikimania 2014 scholarships,
please visit .

To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on
. It is highly recommended
that applicants review all of the material on the Scholarships page
and the associated FAQ before submitting an application.

If you have any question, please contact
 or leave a message on
.

Katie Chan
Chair, Scholarship Committee




--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is 
associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine


___
Wikimania-l mailing list
wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l




___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Dear Frederic,


On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz  wrote:

> On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
> 
> Hi Phoebe,
> 
> thanks for your answer !
> 
>>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
>>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization.
>>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group
>>> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
>>> 
>> 
>> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to do
>> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they will
>> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove that
>> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the
>> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm concerned).
> 
> What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the
> actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".
> 
> What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic track
> record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated
> two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external
> funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind
> of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic
> organization".
> 
> How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?

I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this impression, 
because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track record is important, 
and much more important that the previous focus on having bylaws. This because 
we know that a proven track record is a very good indicator of the chances of 
succes of a chapter or thematic organisation. 

> 
>>> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not endorsed
>>> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the
>>> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?
> 
> I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I
> don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the
> discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever
> amount of discussion we have) and not before.

Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it should 
organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself (including the 
user group entity which can benefit greatly from the recently improved 
trademark policy). The board has indicated that there is now an additional 
requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic organisation, which is just ONE way 
of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice brings with it a lot of 
responsibility and we feel that our measure will help us fulfil our 
responsibility of being able to approve both chapters and thematic 
organisations while adhering to our governance responsibility.

For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC into 
account and then made its decision, based on factors that were really the 
responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both committees 
tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which was taken while 
taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which were provided by the 
Affcom and FDC). 



>> 
>> thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us know.
>> We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us all
>> on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.
> 
> The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this
> proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the
> community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get
> exceptions.

Hmmm…. I would say that 
1) We made a decision in which we took several factors into account 
2) We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have taken 
into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this is the case.

would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback about the 
decision’s impact in specific cases.


> 
> I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision
> beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing
> ("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize
> yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it is
> bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of the
> movement ?”)

I really think that the FAQ gives a pretty good indication. What concerns me 
(and other board members) is the fact that there is a natural tendency to 
incorporate a group of volunteers into a chapter or thematic organisation even 
if there is no real track record or a good reason to want to do so (especially 
since the revised trademark policy gives user

[Wikimedia-l] Consultation & decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)

[Lodewijk]

Hi,

I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them
on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and
because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the
board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the
stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a
more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after
this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation
Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the
suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but
related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from
those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is
painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place.

I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with
the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate
affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing
decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course
not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without
proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive
towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the
board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes
without allowing stakeholders to influence those.

I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after
a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will
not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw
changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here.

Lodewijk Gelauff
(While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email entirely
in a personal capacity)


2014-02-11 14:36 GMT+01:00 Jan-Bart de Vreede :

> Dear Frederic,
>
>
> On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz  wrote:
>
> > On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
> >
> > Hi Phoebe,
> >
> > thanks for your answer !
> >
> >>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
> >>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization.
> >>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group
> >>> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to
> do
> >> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they
> will
> >> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove
> that
> >> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the
> >> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm
> concerned).
> >
> > What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the
> > actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> > record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".
> >
> > What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic track
> > record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated
> > two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external
> > funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind
> > of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic
> > organization".
> >
> > How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?
>
> I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this
> impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track record
> is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having
> bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good
> indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation.
>
> >
> >>> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not
> endorsed
> >>> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the
> >>> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?
> >
> > I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I
> > don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the
> > discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever
> > amount of discussion we have) and not before.
>
> Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it
> should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself
> (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the
> recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there is
> now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic organisation,
> which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice
> brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will
> help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Cynthia Ashley-Nelson]

Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of
these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In
the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented?
If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were
disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about
progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?

Best regards,

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede  wrote:

> Dear Frederic,
>
>
> On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz  wrote:
>
> > On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
> >
> > Hi Phoebe,
> >
> > thanks for your answer !
> >
> >>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
> >>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization.
> >>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group
> >>> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to
> do
> >> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they
> will
> >> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove
> that
> >> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the
> >> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm
> concerned).
> >
> > What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the
> > actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> > record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".
> >
> > What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic track
> > record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated
> > two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external
> > funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind
> > of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic
> > organization".
> >
> > How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?
>
> I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this
> impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track record
> is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having
> bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good
> indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation.
>
> >
> >>> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not
> endorsed
> >>> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the
> >>> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?
> >
> > I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I
> > don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the
> > discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever
> > amount of discussion we have) and not before.
>
> Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it
> should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself
> (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the
> recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there is
> now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic organisation,
> which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice
> brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will
> help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters
> and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance responsibility.
>
> For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC
> into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were really
> the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both
> committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which
> was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which
> were provided by the Affcom and FDC).
>
> 
>
> >>
> >> thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us
> know.
> >> We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us
> all
> >> on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.
> >
> > The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this
> > proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the
> > community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get
> > exceptions.
>
> Hmmm I would say that
> 1) We made a decision in which we took several factors into account
> 2) We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have
> taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this is
> the case.
>
> would be better than the alternative of not bei

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Risker]

Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that be, Cynthia?  The
board's consensus is reflected in the decision. There's almost no public
discussion of this outside of this specific thread on a mailing list (a
grand total of two comments on the talk page of the FAQ, as I write), so
I'm not sure which consensus you're speaking of.

Risker/Anne


On 11 February 2014 12:59, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:

> Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
> hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
> statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of
> these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In
> the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented?
> If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were
> disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about
> progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede <
> jdevre...@wikimedia.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Dear Frederic,
> >
> >
> > On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz  wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Phoebe,
> > >
> > > thanks for your answer !
> > >
> > >>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
> > >>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic
> organization.
> > >>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the
> group
> > >>> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to
> > do
> > >> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they
> > will
> > >> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove
> > that
> > >> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's
> the
> > >> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm
> > concerned).
> > >
> > > What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the
> > > actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> > > record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have
> bylaws".
> > >
> > > What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic
> track
> > > record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated
> > > two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external
> > > funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind
> > > of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic
> > > organization".
> > >
> > > How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?
> >
> > I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this
> > impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track
> record
> > is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having
> > bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good
> > indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation.
> >
> > >
> > >>> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not
> > endorsed
> > >>> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the
> > >>> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?
> > >
> > > I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I
> > > don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the
> > > discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever
> > > amount of discussion we have) and not before.
> >
> > Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it
> > should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself
> > (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the
> > recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there
> is
> > now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic
> organisation,
> > which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice
> > brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will
> > help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters
> > and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance
> responsibility.
> >
> > For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC
> > into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were
> really
> > the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both
> > committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which
> > was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which
> > were provided by the Affcom and FDC).
> >
> > 
> >
> > >>
> > >> thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us
> > know.
> > >> We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation & decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)

[Fæ]

Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to
have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established
members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff
seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton
wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect.

It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email
identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not
mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents.

Fae

On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them
> on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and
> because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the
> board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the
> stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a
> more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after
> this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation
> Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the
> suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but
> related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from
> those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is
> painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place.
>
> I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with
> the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate
> affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing
> decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course
> not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without
> proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive
> towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the
> board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes
> without allowing stakeholders to influence those.
>
> I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after
> a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will
> not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw
> changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here.
>
> Lodewijk Gelauff
> (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email entirely
> in a personal capacity)

-- 
fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation & decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)

[phoebe ayers]

Per Fae, a short response in bullet points:

* I'm sorry. I take your criticisms seriously.
* How we got to this point, as I see it*: I think the Board felt we had
gotten input from AffCom because we saw their responses to the proposal to
change to a usergroup-first approval model, which was presented by a staff
member. However, it seems AffCom didn't realize that the Board might take
up this proposal. This unclarity is the fault of the board.

-- phoebe

* speaking for myself, not all trustees may agree.



On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to
> have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established
> members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff
> seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton
> wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect.
>
> It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email
> identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not
> mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents.
>
> Fae
>
> On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with
> them
> > on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with)
> and
> > because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the
> > board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the
> > stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come
> with a
> > more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but
> after
> > this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the
> Affiliation
> > Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the
> > suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but
> > related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from
> > those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is
> > painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took
> place.
> >
> > I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with
> > the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate
> > affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy
> changing
> > decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course
> > not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without
> > proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive
> > towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and
> the
> > board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes
> > without allowing stakeholders to influence those.
> >
> > I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again
> after
> > a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will
> > not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw
> > changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here.
> >
> > Lodewijk Gelauff
> > (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email
> entirely
> > in a personal capacity)
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers 
gmail.com *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Cynthia Ashley-Nelson]

Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear. I'm referring to the
current consensus of the community, i.e., the feedback being received about
this decision.

Cynthia


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that be, Cynthia?  The
> board's consensus is reflected in the decision. There's almost no public
> discussion of this outside of this specific thread on a mailing list (a
> grand total of two comments on the talk page of the FAQ, as I write), so
> I'm not sure which consensus you're speaking of.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On 11 February 2014 12:59, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson  >wrote:
>
> > Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
> > hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
> > statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of
> > these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In
> > the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented?
> > If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were
> > disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about
> > progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede <
> > jdevre...@wikimedia.org
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Frederic,
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Phoebe,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for your answer !
> > > >
> > > >>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must
> have
> > > >>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic
> > organization.
> > > >>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the
> > group
> > > >>> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group
> to
> > > do
> > > >> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they
> > > will
> > > >> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove
> > > that
> > > >> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's
> > the
> > > >> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm
> > > concerned).
> > > >
> > > > What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the
> > > > actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> > > > record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have
> > bylaws".
> > > >
> > > > What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic
> > track
> > > > record over the past two years, and you have successfully
> incorporated
> > > > two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract
> external
> > > > funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the
> kind
> > > > of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic
> > > > organization".
> > > >
> > > > How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?
> > >
> > > I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this
> > > impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track
> > record
> > > is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having
> > > bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good
> > > indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic
> organisation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >>> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not
> > > endorsed
> > > >>> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the
> > > >>> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize
> itself ?
> > > >
> > > > I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik,
> I
> > > > don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the
> > > > discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change
> whatever
> > > > amount of discussion we have) and not before.
> > >
> > > Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it
> > > should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself
> > > (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the
> > > recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there
> > is
> > > now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic
> > organisation,
> > > which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic
> choice
> > > brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure
> will
> > > help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both
> chapters
> > > and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance
> > responsibility.
> > >
> > > For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and
> FDC
> > > into account and then made its decision, ba

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation & decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)

[Lodewijk]

Hi Phoebe,

Thanks for the swift reply. Please note that the proposal sent to AffCom by
the staff was /not/ the same proposal considered by the board. The
arguments presented with it, were not even close to the ones presented now
- it is unrealistic to expect AffCom to be able to provide any helpful
input to that. Also, please note this has been communicated to the board
before, and that you still chose to paint this unfair and unjust image.
Disappointing again.

But even /if/ affcom would have been consulted properly (which it wasn't),
then still you didn't consult the other stakeholders: affiliates, candidate
affiliates and the community at large.

Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without
consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that.

However, dwindling in the past processes is only of limited use. What I
hope for is that the board members will finally commit to actually ask
input to all stakeholders before taking major decisions like this, and not
just the staff (and the committee if you really had that illusion).

Best,
Lodewijk
(I write this email entirely in a personal capacity)


2014-02-11 19:27 GMT+01:00 phoebe ayers :

> Per Fae, a short response in bullet points:
>
> * I'm sorry. I take your criticisms seriously.
> * How we got to this point, as I see it*: I think the Board felt we had
> gotten input from AffCom because we saw their responses to the proposal to
> change to a usergroup-first approval model, which was presented by a staff
> member. However, it seems AffCom didn't realize that the Board might take
> up this proposal. This unclarity is the fault of the board.
>
> -- phoebe
>
> * speaking for myself, not all trustees may agree.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to
> > have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established
> > members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff
> > seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton
> > wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect.
> >
> > It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email
> > identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not
> > mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with
> > them
> > > on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with)
> > and
> > > because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because
> the
> > > board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving
> the
> > > stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come
> > with a
> > > more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but
> > after
> > > this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the
> > Affiliation
> > > Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the
> > > suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but
> > > related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from
> > > those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board
> is
> > > painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took
> > place.
> > >
> > > I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting
> with
> > > the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate
> > > affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy
> > changing
> > > decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of
> course
> > > not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all
> without
> > > proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive
> > > towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and
> > the
> > > board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes
> > > without allowing stakeholders to influence those.
> > >
> > > I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again
> > after
> > > a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation
> will
> > > not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw
> > > changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here.
> > >
> > > Lodewijk Gelauff
> > > (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email
> > entirely
> > > in a personal capacity)
> >
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
> > Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> * I use this address f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Gregory Varnum]

While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that
AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined
occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was
taken into consideration, but that may give the wrong idea of what happened.

While it is true we provided feedback before the decision was made, I would
not consider it consulting with us or even communicating with AffCom in a
way that allowed us to provide the level of feedback I think the community
has come to expect. Frankly we got a lot of our information second-hand,
and am still not sure personally we know the full story. My personal
expectation would have involved a lot more communication before the
decision was made, and most importantly, some two-way dialogue. At the very
least I think the chairs of FDC and AffCom should have been looped into
parts of the conversation during the meeting.

I think it is fair to say that AffCom got notice before the broader
community, and we had opportunities to express our concerns and objections
- however I would not characterize it as a conversation or true feedback
gathering. I am not personally convinced it was taken into much
consideration as the people proposing this bad idea were physically there
to speak to their idea, but no one opposed to it was invited. My
understanding is the same was true for FDC - but I obviously cannot speak
to that.

Aside from my disappointment in the decision, I am perhaps even more
disappointed with the process. Without going into lengthy details, I was
not impressed with how AffCom was consulted on this (or not consulted
depending on your take) and frankly the board's attitude I think calls into
question their true interest in utilizing FDC and AffCom as actual advisors
to the board. In a world and movement so woven into technology, the notion
that we could not bring some "advisors" in for parts of these meetings just
doesn't make sense to me. I recognize that has not generally been done, but
that seems like something to change and not a pattern to stay within.

I also want to be clear that I have a lot of empathy for the board, these
are difficult roles, and I think the people in them are genuinely trying
their best. I like them all on a personal level, and am confident these
disagrees won't harm that. I also know that while the board stands united,
these decisions are not privately made without debate. However, they are
our board and I think sharing concerns like this is a healthy part of the
process. Some of the tone people have taken on this thread is less helpful,
and I hope we can get it back on a more civil track.

-greg

PS. I send this a volunteer and not wearing any official AffCom or WM
anything hat (although that hat obviously formed my opinion).


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson  wrote:

> Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
> hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
> statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of
> these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In
> the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented?
> If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were
> disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about
> progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede <
> jdevre...@wikimedia.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Dear Frederic,
> >
> >
> > On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz  wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Phoebe,
> > >
> > > thanks for your answer !
> > >
> > >>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
> > >>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic
> organization.
> > >>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the
> group
> > >>> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to
> > do
> > >> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they
> > will
> > >> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove
> > that
> > >> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's
> the
> > >> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm
> > concerned).
> > >
> > > What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the
> > > actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> > > record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have
> bylaws".
> > >
> > > What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic
> track
> > > record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

that is correct (about the FDC involvement; we have not participated in
consulting or idea exchange in any systematic way).

dj "pundit"


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Gregory Varnum wrote:

> While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
> a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that
> AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined
> occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was
> taken into consideration, but that may give the wrong idea of what
> happened.
>
> While it is true we provided feedback before the decision was made, I would
> not consider it consulting with us or even communicating with AffCom in a
> way that allowed us to provide the level of feedback I think the community
> has come to expect. Frankly we got a lot of our information second-hand,
> and am still not sure personally we know the full story. My personal
> expectation would have involved a lot more communication before the
> decision was made, and most importantly, some two-way dialogue. At the very
> least I think the chairs of FDC and AffCom should have been looped into
> parts of the conversation during the meeting.
>
> I think it is fair to say that AffCom got notice before the broader
> community, and we had opportunities to express our concerns and objections
> - however I would not characterize it as a conversation or true feedback
> gathering. I am not personally convinced it was taken into much
> consideration as the people proposing this bad idea were physically there
> to speak to their idea, but no one opposed to it was invited. My
> understanding is the same was true for FDC - but I obviously cannot speak
> to that.
>
> Aside from my disappointment in the decision, I am perhaps even more
> disappointed with the process. Without going into lengthy details, I was
> not impressed with how AffCom was consulted on this (or not consulted
> depending on your take) and frankly the board's attitude I think calls into
> question their true interest in utilizing FDC and AffCom as actual advisors
> to the board. In a world and movement so woven into technology, the notion
> that we could not bring some "advisors" in for parts of these meetings just
> doesn't make sense to me. I recognize that has not generally been done, but
> that seems like something to change and not a pattern to stay within.
>
> I also want to be clear that I have a lot of empathy for the board, these
> are difficult roles, and I think the people in them are genuinely trying
> their best. I like them all on a personal level, and am confident these
> disagrees won't harm that. I also know that while the board stands united,
> these decisions are not privately made without debate. However, they are
> our board and I think sharing concerns like this is a healthy part of the
> process. Some of the tone people have taken on this thread is less helpful,
> and I hope we can get it back on a more civil track.
>
> -greg
>
> PS. I send this a volunteer and not wearing any official AffCom or WM
> anything hat (although that hat obviously formed my opinion).
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson <
> cindam...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
> > hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
> > statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of
> > these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In
> > the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented?
> > If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were
> > disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about
> > progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede <
> > jdevre...@wikimedia.org
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Frederic,
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Phoebe,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for your answer !
> > > >
> > > >>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must
> have
> > > >>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic
> > organization.
> > > >>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the
> > group
> > > >>> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group
> to
> > > do
> > > >> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they
> > > will
> > > >> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove
> > > that
> > > >> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's
> > the
> > > >> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'

[Wikimedia-l] Programmatic experience in past 2 years (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)

[Pharos]

Certainly, in the last 2 years and before, a handful of Wikimedia
volunteer groups have been quite as active and organized as those
currently being classified as User Groups - only the option of being
recognized as User Groups did not exist for them at the time of their
founding.

And it is a good thing that this category exists now, but is seems
wrong to penalize Wikimedia volunteer groups that *do* have a track
record of effective programmatic experience, just because they were
started before the User Group category was in existence.

Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:33 AM, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees decisions
> that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual
> plan grant process and Board approval of chapter/thematic organization
> status. In a nutshell, the Board decided to allocate approximately the same
> amount of funding to the FDC for the next two years. The Board also decided
> that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two years
> of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally incorporated
> entity (either a chapter or thematic organization).
>
> The decisions are published in the meeting minutes here:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
>
> There is also a FAQ on Meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_FAQ
>
> You will notice these decisions are published in the minutes for the
> November meeting. We originally took these decisions at that meeting;
> however as the FAQ explains it took us some time to talk to community
> groups, clarify our wording and write the FAQ.
>
> Hopefully the FAQ will answer many of your questions about these decisions;
> however, if there are other questions please do ask them, here or on the
> meta talk page. Thank you!
>
> for the Board,
> Phoebe
> ___
> 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] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Samuel Klein]

Hello Frédéric, a quick comment:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz  wrote:
> Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".

Bylaws are fine, whatever makes sense for each group; just not mandatory.
The Board is looking for two years of active work when recognizing entities.

The WMF also wants to let all groups have easier access to trademarks
and funds.  This is what user groups were designed to allow, with
minimal overhead.  These two ideas were combined into "be a user group
for two years".

Sam.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation & decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Lodewijk, 11/02/2014 19:36:

Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without
consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that.


To me it seems rather obvious. The board (together with the WMF 
executives?) is worried about more organisations asking money through 
the processes the board itself set up, adding to complications on how to 
limit spending growth etc. Instead of fixing the process, they chose to 
take a shortcut and limit the pool of eligible requestors. It's a clear 
pattern, because we have two precedents: the initial FDC resolution 
which identified 4 special chapters; the out of process letter in which 
they refused recognition to a prospective Wikimedia entity in order to 
prevent AffCom and the grants programs to even start considering its 
requests.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Nicole Ebber]

Dear members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, dear Wikimedians,

I would like to share a few thoughts and questions with you. Thoughts
and questions that I would love to see being addressed when talking
about these movement issues. I have the feeling that this substantial
decision is coming somewhat out of the blue, without a prior
discussion among the broader movement – at least none that I am aware
of. It would be helpful if you can provide some insights into the
bigger picture or broader evaluation these decisions are based upon.

== User Groups ==
Not only two years ago, two new movement affiliate models were
introduced, resulting from an extensive, transparent and collaborative
process that involved all movement stakeholders. The current decision
kind of neglects this process, the people involved, and its outcome.

At first sight, I can understand your approach of giving UGs time to
develop governance as well as structures and experiment with their
capacities. But since there is hardly any structured support for these
young and aspiring volunteer groups to grow, to develop and to become
trusted partners, I fear that time alone won’t do the trick.

Defining affiliates’ goals and providing guidance for development
paths are inevitable tasks for a healthy movement, but it remains
completely unclear who has (or should have) a mandate for this
support. Without securing this support and empowerment, our movement
might miss the unique chance to uncover the treasures of Free
Knowledge around the world.

The most pressing question here remains: In an ideal world, how would
an organization model for Wikimedia look like? And does the
restriction of choices for affiliations' models help us to reach this
goal? I’ve got the impression that this step is more a patch for the
symptoms, while we as a movement should strive for a fix for a – yet
unspecified – “problem”.

== FDC funding ==
Similar questions arise regarding the FDC freeze. Why now? Wouldn’t it
make sense to wait for the FDC Advisory Group, who is charged with
reviewing and evaluating the funds dissemination process as a whole?
Do we have to understand this decision as a declaration of bankruptcy
of the FDC process already? Which data is this freeze based upon?

For a young movement like ours, with a cause that is so new and
unique, how can we even dare not to invest into exploring new
territory, into finding the right things to do? Why do we not embrace
all the exciting projects that the affiliate volunteers and staff are
offering to our movement, and which fulfill our common mission?
Together, we have to figure out the best balance between
effectiveness-driven and money-driven decisions. We need to define
what is meant by “healthy growth”, taking different circumstances and
stages of development into account. The Wikimedia movement is in the
luxury position that our donors generously support our endeavors, they
trust us with our efforts to advance our mission, and I wonder if it
is reasonable if we artificially limit the support that is available
to our global movement.

Our whole grantmaking process is unique, we are pioneers within the
non-profit world. And the same goes for the evaluation of our work. Of
course, we are all – big and small – facing growing pains and need to
scrutinize our processes over and over again. Does retracting from
this experiment at such an early stage, without proper assessment and
evaluation, reflect our movement’s culture of being bold and
innovative?

What also puzzles me is the fact that on the one hand your decision
encourages affiliates to seek funding from outside sources, but on the
other hand speaks against building structures. One of the reasons for
centralizing the fundraising in 2012 was the argument that chapters
should focus on their work and leave the collection of funds to the
WMF. Now that they have lost their capability and skills for raising
funds, you not only ask affiliates and volunteer groups to start
building up these capacities again, you also put them in jeopardy of
becoming dependent from corporations, governments and other sponsors
that we as a movement hardly have any control over. Would it not be a
good idea to at least support the process and make WMF funds available
to build up structures for a sustainable external fundraising, full of
integrity?

== Outlook ==
My hope is that these decisions can serve as an initial spark to bring
all involved parties together and frankly (I mean it!) discuss
questions relevant for the future of our movement and the
organizational structures that benefit our mission in the most
effective way. I see several occasions in the not too distant future,
for example:

In the FAQ, you are referring to the strategy process as the place to
discuss and solve all these issues. It would be really helpful to know
more about this process and the involvement of the different movement
stakeholders.

Some of the topics covered in the decisions and FAQs are already o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Gregory Varnum]

One of the (many) problems that I have with this is that it both makes
these user groups more dependent on movement funds for a longer period of
time, but then caps those funds in the same decision. It is easy to tell
the org to just find some outside funding (which is mentioned in the FAQ) -
except that the user groups do not have the same legal status and that will
make it essentially impossible to get outside funding. So we will either
have incorporated user groups, which we seem to want to avoid, underfunded
projects, or greater competition for a pool of funds that has increasing
demand but no increase in supply. As a professional nonprofit fundraiser,
the combination of these two decisions seems so contradictory it makes my
head hurt.  Asking these groups to become dependent on WMF funds in their
first years seems contrary to serving the donors long-term. Shouldn't we be
helping these groups diversify their income and become less dependent on
movement funds? If that is the cause, then new projects that have a large
scope and potential for outside revenue are harmed greatly by this decision.

While the board's support for this decision was not universal, opposition
to it from AffCom and FDC seems to be pretty universal. I wish that was
taken into greater consideration by the board. I know they said they did -
but I just don't believe that based on the timeline and what I witnessed
personally. As the volunteers who work and deal with these topics weekly,
it is very dismaying that our opinions were given second class treatment
behind those offered by the staff (or so it appears from my perspective - I
would be happy to be corrected on that). I would like for the board at some
point to address how it will better handle things like this in the future.
I recognize the staff will always have greater access to the board than FDC
and AffCom - but what is the point of calling them advisory groups if the
board treats them more like grunts and not advisors. I do not accept the
premise that this decision would have been delayed, hindered, or harmed in
any way by Skyping in the chairs of FDC and AffCom to speak to this topic
as it was being presented by the staff. There is still not clarity on how
that even happened, or what materials were presented. I am told there was
supporting evidence, but I have yet to see it. Why was the documentation
presented by the staff not shared with AffCom and FDC while our comments
were shared with the staff? Are we misunderstanding how this happened? If
so, why has that not been made clearer by now? Was FDC officially asked to
provide feedback (AffCom offered it without being asked)? If not, why not?
Did the board not think this was a big change? With so much care put into
other decisions, why was this one done so quietly and internally?

-greg


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Hello Frédéric, a quick comment:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz 
> wrote:
> > Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> > record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".
>
> Bylaws are fine, whatever makes sense for each group; just not mandatory.
> The Board is looking for two years of active work when recognizing
> entities.
>
> The WMF also wants to let all groups have easier access to trademarks
> and funds.  This is what user groups were designed to allow, with
> minimal overhead.  These two ideas were combined into "be a user group
> for two years".
>
> Sam.
>
> ___
> 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Registration Open: Wikimedia Hackathon 2014 in Zürich

[Manuel Schneider]

Dear all,

as announced earlier we will have a Hackathon in Zürich May 9th to 11th.

Now our registration is open - especially if you come from a country
where you need a visa for the Schengen area or if you need a scholarship
- register early!

Registration Form:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1nlrQ7cox36xaNK1u9iKP-thogY5TVrilOGJR79DqQ9A/viewform

Further information on the event can be found on MediaWiki.org:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich_Hackathon_2014

Regards and see you in Zürich!


/Manuel
-- 
Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] IEG Round 1 Conculsion

[Jessie Wild]

Hello All -

We (WMF Grantmaking) have reached the conclusion of the first round of
Individual Engagement Grants (IEG)! The grants program itself was an
experiment, and we are excited by the types of innovations emerging from
the project thus far.

Take a look and join the discussion on the blog post[1] and the report
page[2].

Also - you are invited to join a live discussion around the key learnings
from this first round of IEG grants. It will be held 5pm UTC Wednesday, 19
February. Please find the link and sign-up on the evaluation portal.[3]

Best,
Jessie

[1]
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/06/individual-engagement-grants-demonstrate-potential-for-impact/

[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Learning/Round_1_2013/Impact
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programs:Evaluation_portal/News#Upcoming_events

-- 

*Jessie Wild SnellerGrantmaking Learning & Evaluation *
*Wikimedia Foundation*

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
Donate to Wikimedia 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gregory Varnum
wrote:

> One of the (many) problems that I have with this is that it both makes
> these user groups more dependent on movement funds for a longer period of
> time, but then caps those funds in the same decision.
>

One quick correction: we're not capping grant funds for all grant programs,
just the FDC process, which user groups aren't part of (neither are all --
or even most -- existing chapters). User groups can definitely (and
should!) apply for grants through the other grant processes.

Thanks for the constructive emails from all, and I will try to send some
longer replies later today or tonight.

-- phoebe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Cristian Consonni]

2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson :
> Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.

IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with 7-3 and 6-4[1],
when you can see that most of the times[2] the vote was unanimous.

Cristian

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
[2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Risker]

Consensus is not the same as unanimity, and anyone who's crossed a few
different Wikimedia projects will know that what is defined as consensus
varies pretty widely, from majority +1 to 80% or higher support.  For the
purposes of board votes, it's majority +1.

I'm actually quite pleased that the board has moved away from twisting
itself in knots trying to ensure unanimous support of proposals: it led to
watered-down, poorly structured decisions that have often left the
community confused and uncertain as to their intent.  I'm also pleased to
see that they are identifying who has supported or opposed motions.

Risker/Anne


On 11 February 2014 16:49, Cristian Consonni wrote:

> 2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson :
> > Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.
>
> IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with 7-3 and 6-4[1],
> when you can see that most of the times[2] the vote was unanimous.
>
> Cristian
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
> [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
>
> ___
> 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] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Bence Damokos]

Speaking in my personal capacity, I echo the surprise that the Board has
decided to move a motion before they had full or close to full consensus on
the issue - which is in general a departure from the usual.

I can only assume that there was a better reason behind the urgency than
the need to pause and reflect 8-9 months before the next reflection period
(the strategy process) actually began and that the Board will be able to
share that reason in a transparent manner with the community.

Best regards,
Bence


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Cristian Consonni  wrote:

> 2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson :
> > Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.
>
> IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with 7-3 and 6-4[1],
> when you can see that most of the times[2] the vote was unanimous.
>
> Cristian
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles
> [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
>
> ___
> 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] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Gregory Varnum
wrote:

> While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
> a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that
> AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined
> occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was
> taken into consideration, but that may give the wrong idea of what
> happened.
>
> While it is true we provided feedback before the decision was made, I would
> not consider it consulting with us or even communicating with AffCom in a
> way that allowed us to provide the level of feedback I think the community
> has come to expect. Frankly we got a lot of our information second-hand,
> and am still not sure personally we know the full story. My personal
> expectation would have involved a lot more communication before the
> decision was made, and most importantly, some two-way dialogue. At the very
> least I think the chairs of FDC and AffCom should have been looped into
> parts of the conversation during the meeting


Hi Greg and all,

This is not a direct reply to your points, but I think it might be helpful
in removing the cloak of mystery from all this.

Here is what happened during the board meeting, from my perspective.*

Background context:

* The board has been discussing movement roles for literally years (as have
many of the folks commenting!)
* The board started discussing the topic again specifically in October;
many trustees are interested in broad movement roles questions and it was
brought to the table as a broad topic the board should take up.
* Various contexts to the discussion include: the need to review new
affiliates more thoroughly than we historically have done (as recommended
by our legal team, and as indicated by the history of some chapters not
staying active); the new trademark and user group policies which make
different models for volunteers both possible and easier; and various
trustee concerns over our increasing focus movement-wide on incorporation
and administration.

For these two specific decisions:

* The board first discussed the ideas of usergroups-first & capping the
budgets in October. This was without any specific proposals or wording.
* Later on, before the November meeting, a recommendation to take these
decisions was presented in a packet by the WMF Executive Director to the
board, along with some context. The packet included a summary
recommendation, some arguments pro and con, and emails from Affcom and the
FDC, with the proposal as presented by staff to these committees and the
committee replies.
* we (board members) discussed the recommendations first on our email list
for a week or so before our meeting, and then over two sessions in our
meeting, over the course of two+ days. On the list and in the meeting, we
discussed the arguments as presented as well as arguments that emerged over
the course of discussion from our own individual viewpoints, as well as the
overall milleux of movement roles.

* Important note that perhaps wasn't emphasized enough in the FAQ: the set
of decisions was not meant or presented as major strategy but as a
temporary set of decisions, to buy us all some time while we hire a new ED
and reconsider movement roles strategy. The new ED point is important; we
wanted to try to decide these issues before they start, since they will
have plenty of other stuff on their plate to figure out.

* In the meeting, we (the board) wrote and re-wrote the text of the
decisions to match our emerging consensus about what we wanted to do.
* When we seemed to have reached a stable version of the text, and also to
have exhausted our ability to reach further consensus, we voted on these
two decisions. I motioned for the vote because I happened to be
facilitating the discussion at the time, and it seemed to me that as a
group we were ready to vote.

* The no consensus thing: of course we discussed this as well. Like all
boards in our movement, I expect, we always have a question of whether we
should work towards unanimous consensus or whether we should accept split
votes. Personally I think it depends on the context and topic. in general,
I think, agreed to accept a split vote on this topic though it was somewhat
contentious to do so. Why was the vote split? Each trustee should speak for
themselves, but there was a range of arguments and feeling. I can tell you
that similar questions to those raised on the list so far were raised.

* After voting and recording the text, we then sent the text of the
decisions to Affcom and the FDC, via the Board liaisons.
* Then we (board members) wrote the FAQ over the course of several weeks
following, trying to answer the questions that Affcom & the FDC raised
emails back to us after we shared the published decision with them, and
also trying to answer additional questions we thought might arise.
* In the course of writing the FAQ and pondering the committee respons

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Cristian Consonni]

2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Risker :
> Consensus is not the same as unanimity, and anyone who's crossed a few
> different Wikimedia projects will know that what is defined as consensus
> varies pretty widely, from majority +1 to 80% or higher support.  For the
> purposes of board votes, it's majority +1.

I disagree with this interpretation.
The major point is "what are the reasons for the dissent?"

2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Risker :
> I'm actually quite pleased that the board has moved away from twisting
> itself in knots trying to ensure unanimous support of proposals: it led to
> watered-down, poorly structured decisions that have often left the
> community confused and uncertain as to their intent.

2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Bence Damokos :
> Speaking in my personal capacity, I echo the surprise that the Board has
> decided to move a motion before they had full or close to full consensus on
> the issue - which is in general a departure from the usual.

Well, it seems we have two very different ideas here.

C

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Nathan]

>
>
>
> Hi Greg and all,
>
> This is not a direct reply to your points, but I think it might be helpful
> in removing the cloak of mystery from all this.
>
> Here is what happened during the board meeting, from my perspective.*
>
> Background context:
>
> * The board has been discussing movement roles for literally years (as have
> many of the folks commenting!)
> * The board started discussing the topic again specifically in October;
> many trustees are interested in broad movement roles questions and it was
> brought to the table as a broad topic the board should take up.
> * Various contexts to the discussion include: the need to review new
> affiliates more thoroughly than we historically have done (as recommended
> by our legal team, and as indicated by the history of some chapters not
> staying active); the new trademark and user group policies which make
> different models for volunteers both possible and easier; and various
> trustee concerns over our increasing focus movement-wide on incorporation
> and administration.
>
> For these two specific decisions:
>
> * The board first discussed the ideas of usergroups-first & capping the
> budgets in October. This was without any specific proposals or wording.
> * Later on, before the November meeting, a recommendation to take these
> decisions was presented in a packet by the WMF Executive Director to the
> board, along with some context. The packet included a summary
> recommendation, some arguments pro and con, and emails from Affcom and the
> FDC, with the proposal as presented by staff to these committees and the
> committee replies.
> * we (board members) discussed the recommendations first on our email list
> for a week or so before our meeting, and then over two sessions in our
> meeting, over the course of two+ days. On the list and in the meeting, we
> discussed the arguments as presented as well as arguments that emerged over
> the course of discussion from our own individual viewpoints, as well as the
> overall milleux of movement roles.
>
> * Important note that perhaps wasn't emphasized enough in the FAQ: the set
> of decisions was not meant or presented as major strategy but as a
> temporary set of decisions, to buy us all some time while we hire a new ED
> and reconsider movement roles strategy. The new ED point is important; we
> wanted to try to decide these issues before they start, since they will
> have plenty of other stuff on their plate to figure out.
>
> * In the meeting, we (the board) wrote and re-wrote the text of the
> decisions to match our emerging consensus about what we wanted to do.
> * When we seemed to have reached a stable version of the text, and also to
> have exhausted our ability to reach further consensus, we voted on these
> two decisions. I motioned for the vote because I happened to be
> facilitating the discussion at the time, and it seemed to me that as a
> group we were ready to vote.
>
> * The no consensus thing: of course we discussed this as well. Like all
> boards in our movement, I expect, we always have a question of whether we
> should work towards unanimous consensus or whether we should accept split
> votes. Personally I think it depends on the context and topic. in general,
> I think, agreed to accept a split vote on this topic though it was somewhat
> contentious to do so. Why was the vote split? Each trustee should speak for
> themselves, but there was a range of arguments and feeling. I can tell you
> that similar questions to those raised on the list so far were raised.
>
> * After voting and recording the text, we then sent the text of the
> decisions to Affcom and the FDC, via the Board liaisons.
> * Then we (board members) wrote the FAQ over the course of several weeks
> following, trying to answer the questions that Affcom & the FDC raised
> emails back to us after we shared the published decision with them, and
> also trying to answer additional questions we thought might arise.
> * In the course of writing the FAQ and pondering the committee responses,
> we debated some additional questions, including whether we should
> reconsider the decisions in the light of AffCom's response. We did not get
> consensus on the latter question, but considered it serious enough to bring
> up again in our next in-person meeting, where a majority felt that the
> decisions should stand (this was not a formal vote, but in the context of a
> discussion to resolve outstanding issues).
>
> * We finished the FAQ, resolving our last issues and trying to make the
> wording as clear as possible, asked for it to be published, I sent the
> letter announcing it to wikimedia-l, and here we are.
>
> I hope this gives some insight. I may have missed something in the above
> summary and other trustees may have a different take, too.
>
> -- phoebe
>
> * again, this is just my perspective, not a board statement.
> ___
>

Thanks, Phoebe, for this background and the dramatically im

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Delphine Ménard]

Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, "Nathan"  a écrit :

>
> For me in these debates about funding, which often present the staff on
one
> side pushing to reduce the relative power and centrality of chapters on
one
> side and chapter representatives pushing the opposite way on the other
> side, there is always a little mystery about the role and interests of the
> people commenting.
>
> While some posters point out that they speak in a personal capacity, few
> offer a disclosure about their personal interests in the funding debate...
> but I would find it both enlightening and interesting if those expressing
> opinions about budgets would disclose whether they receive a salary or
> other financial benefit (including travel, conference fees, etc.) from the
> WMF.
>
> I would like to know, without further research, if someone arguing that
> chapters should get more money is dependent on a salary drawn from that
> pool of money. Since the list archives form a public record and not all
> list subscribers know everyone else, it would be very helpful if posters
> considered including this kind of a disclosure in posts where it may be
> meaningful.

Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of
Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All of
us are volunteers. We do not get any salary from Chapters or Foundation. In
short, we do the work we do here for free.

In our capacity as "members", and in order to allow us to fulfill our
duties towards the organisations/committees that we are part of and thus
towards the Wikimedia movement, we do get some or all of our travel
expenses and/or attendance fees for Wikimedia conferences reimbursed out of
"movement funds" (chapters or foundation budgets) insofar as our presence
in an official capacity is deemed useful.

Hope this clarifies the strange notion you seem to be putting forward of
anyone of those of us *speaking in a personal capacity* having any kind of
financial benefit.

Best,

Delphine
(Speaking in her capacity as Delphine, you know, the not-a-fish)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Mark]

On 2/11/14, 9:18 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:

The WMF also wants to let all groups have easier access to trademarks
and funds.  This is what user groups were designed to allow, with
minimal overhead.  These two ideas were combined into "be a user group
for two years".



This part I do think is a good idea. There are many models of how 
individuals and groups participate and organize themselves within the 
global Wikimedia movement besides the umbrella Wikimedia Foundation, and 
imo the previous organizational/funding focus overlooked those who 
didn't fit one specific model: national Chapters, i.e. organizations 
seeking to represent Wikimedia-movement activities in a general sense, 
within the territory of one nation-state, and usually in a fairly 
"official" manner (paid staff, boards of directors, political 
visibility, etc.). I like that initiatives such as the 
individual-engagement grants, user-group recognition, etc. are opening 
up more avenues for Wikimedian organizations, organized along different 
lines, to find a more recognized (and funded) role in the movement.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] This Month in GLAM: January 2014

[The 'This Month in GLAM' team]

*This Month in GLAM* is a monthly newsletter documenting recent happenings
within the GLAM project, such as content donations, residencies, events and
more. GLAM is an acronym of *G*alleries, *L*ibraries, *A*rchives and *M*useums.
You can find more information on the project at glamwiki.org.

*This Month in GLAM - Issue I, Volume IV - January 2014*
--


France report: Public Domain Day; photographs
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/France_report

Germany report: WMDE-GLAM-Highlights in 2014
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/Germany_report

Netherlands report: New Years Reception; 550 years States General; Content
donation University Museum; Wikipedians in Residence; OpenGLAM Benchmark
Survey
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/Netherlands_report

Sweden report: Digitization; list creation
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/Sweden_report

Switzerland report: The Wikipedians in Residence of the Swiss National
Library have started their work
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/Switzerland_report

UK report: Voices from the BBC Archives plus Zoos, coins and Poets
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/UK_report

USA report: GLAM-Wiki activities in the USA
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/USA_report

Open Access report: Open Access Media Importer; Open Access File of the Day
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/Open_Access_report

Calendar: February's GLAM events
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Contents/Events


--


Single page view
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2014/Single

Twitter
http://twitter.com/ThisMonthinGLAM

Work on the next edition
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/Newsroom


-- 
The *This Month in GLAM* team
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter
___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Nathan]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:

> Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, "Nathan"  a écrit :
>
>
> Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of
> Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All of
> us are volunteers. We do not get any salary from Chapters or Foundation. In
> short, we do the work we do here for free.
>
> In our capacity as "members", and in order to allow us to fulfill our
> duties towards the organisations/committees that we are part of and thus
> towards the Wikimedia movement, we do get some or all of our travel
> expenses and/or attendance fees for Wikimedia conferences reimbursed out of
> "movement funds" (chapters or foundation budgets) insofar as our presence
> in an official capacity is deemed useful.
>
> Hope this clarifies the strange notion you seem to be putting forward of
> anyone of those of us *speaking in a personal capacity* having any kind of
> financial benefit.
>
> Best,
>
> Delphine
> (Speaking in her capacity as Delphine, you know, the not-a-fish)
>
>
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my
fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without at
all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are anything
but sincere, let's take the example of Nicole Ebbers. She of course
discloses in her e-mail signature that she is an employee of WMDE, so its
clear (though not stated in the form of a disclosure) that her income
depends, in part, on WMF funding. It's typical in professional
circumstances, at least in my business, to disclose personal conflicts when
discussing virtually any topic where the audience would not naturally
assume that a conflict exists.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Nathan]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Nathan  wrote:

>
> Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my
> fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without at
> all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are anything
> but sincere, let's take the example of Nicole Ebbers. She of course
> discloses in her e-mail signature that she is an employee of WMDE, so its
> clear (though not stated in the form of a disclosure) that her income
> depends, in part, on WMF funding. It's typical in professional
> circumstances, at least in my business, to disclose personal conflicts when
> discussing virtually any topic where the audience would not naturally
> assume that a conflict exists.
>

Oops, excuse me, I meant Ebber. Sorry for the error!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues

[Delphine Ménard]

Le 12 févr. 2014 04:20, "Nathan"  a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
>
> > Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, "Nathan"  a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of
> > Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All
of
> > us are volunteers. We do not get any salary from Chapters or
Foundation. In
> > short, we do the work we do here for free.
> >
> > In our capacity as "members", and in order to allow us to fulfill our
> > duties towards the organisations/committees that we are part of and thus
> > towards the Wikimedia movement, we do get some or all of our travel
> > expenses and/or attendance fees for Wikimedia conferences reimbursed
out of
> > "movement funds" (chapters or foundation budgets) insofar as our
presence
> > in an official capacity is deemed useful.
> >
> > Hope this clarifies the strange notion you seem to be putting forward of
> > anyone of those of us *speaking in a personal capacity* having any kind
of
> > financial benefit.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Delphine
> > (Speaking in her capacity as Delphine, you know, the not-a-fish)
> >
> >
> Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my
> fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without
at
> all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are
anything
> but sincere, let's take the example of Nicole Ebbers. She of course
> discloses in her e-mail signature that she is an employee of WMDE, so its
> clear (though not stated in the form of a disclosure) that her income
> depends, in part, on WMF funding. It's typical in professional
> circumstances, at least in my business, to disclose personal conflicts
when
> discussing virtually any topic where the audience would not naturally
> assume that a conflict exists.

Ah I see. So I suppose, following your line of thought, that any and all of
the wikimedia staff (all organisations included) involved in any part of
the fundraising should attach some kind of disclaimer about how they
"benefit" from the work they're paid to do? Since, after all, they're
working to raise money that *will* pay their salary.

This might prove an interesting thing to implement.

Delphine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,