Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:46 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com 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. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l 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 at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 phoebe.w...@gmail.com 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 phoebe.w...@gmail.com 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Reminder: Wikimania 2014 scholarship deadline 17 February
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 https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships. To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on http://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply. 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 wikimania-scholarsh...@wikimedia.org or leave a message on https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scholarships. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] Reminder: Wikimania 2014 scholarship deadline 17 February
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 https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships. To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on http://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply. 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 wikimania-scholarsh...@wikimedia.org or leave a message on https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scholarships. 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
Dear Frederic, On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch 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). SNIP 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 groups much more freedom to make use of the trademarks). Chapters
[Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
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 jdevre...@wikimedia.org: Dear Frederic, On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 sch...@mathgen.ch 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). SNIP 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 cindam...@gmail.comwrote: 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 sch...@mathgen.ch 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). SNIP 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
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 lodew...@effeietsanders.org 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
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 fae...@gmail.com 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 lodew...@effeietsanders.org 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 risker...@gmail.com 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 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 sch...@mathgen.ch 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).
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
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 phoebe.w...@gmail.com: 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 fae...@gmail.com 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 lodew...@effeietsanders.org 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 sch...@mathgen.ch 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
[Wikimedia-l] Programmatic experience in past 2 years (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
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 phoebe.w...@gmail.com 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
Hello Frédéric, a quick comment: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 meta...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Frédéric, a quick comment: On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] IEG Round 1 Conculsion
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 https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.comwrote: 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com: 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 kikkocrist...@gmail.comwrote: 2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com: 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com: 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.comwrote: 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com: 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 risker...@gmail.com: 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 bdamo...@gmail.com: 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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 improved clarity. It sounds like the AffCom and FDC interpreted the consultation a little bit
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] This Month in GLAM: January 2014
*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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.comwrote: Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
Le 12 févr. 2014 04:20, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit : On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com wrote: Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
