Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
Dear Community Members, The Affiliations Committee has put together a public response to the Board's decision to express the dissatisfaction with the process and outcome of the decision, and thereby the opportunity lost to actually discuss and address the Board's underlying concerns. This opportunity can be restored with an open, sustained dialogue - we will be available online as well as in person at the Berlin Wikimedia Conference, among other venues - we hope the Board and other community members will commit to participating. You can find our statement at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMF_Board_meetings/2013-11-24/FAQ#AffCom_response(translations can be provided at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/February_2014_Statement). The English version is copied below for your convenience. Best regards, Bence Damokos Chair, Affiliations Committee Dear Community Members, The Affiliations Committee shares the surprise and disappointment felt by many in the community with the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees’ recent decision to require all new chapters and thematic organizations to exist as affiliated user groups for two years prior to being allowed to formally organize, and the restrictions placed on the Funds Dissemination Committee. We remain committed to serving the Wikimedia mission by advising the Board and the movement at large and fulfilling the mandate given to us, but we feel the way this decision was taken and its potential negative effects warrant public comment. We are deeply saddened by the demotivating effect this decision will likely have on the volunteers building future affiliates, especially those who have already begun their organising work only to find out that the rules have suddenly changed. As a committee, we will continue to provide maximum support to current and future user groups, but that might not be enough to mitigate the immediate and long-term repercussions of this decision. We are concerned that the decision sets a negative example for good governance and transparency in the movement. This decision was not made in a process consistent with Wikimedia movement values, and the Affiliations Committee has seen no evidence that this decision will achieve the Board’s stated goals. This approach taken by the board and the contradictory messages sent by this decision and subsequent communications will only demotivate the very volunteers the Foundation proclaims it is working with to engage and empower. We share the Board’s desire to take a strategic view on how Wikimedia organisations can best achieve the goals of the movement and how we can support them in building up the necessary capacity for long-term effectiveness. Unfortunately, making a decision without any prior consultation or research does not further that discussion -- it merely introduces an arbitrary change with unclear goals, impacts, and consequences. While we appreciate the logic presented by the board, we feel ultimately that this decision was a lost opportunity to address the board’s underlying concerns. The limitations this places on future organizations creates an unfair disadvantage for developing countries and sends conflicting messages about fostering dependency on the Wikimedia Foundation for local programmatic work. By announcing the decision without proper consultation, the board has sent several mixed messages about process, alarmed groups impacted most, and discouraged affiliates from commenting by bundling and framing the two decisions in a way they fear will label them as being financially motivated to comment on. It is our hope that the Board sees the publication of its decision as the start of a conversation and that it will commit to engage the wider community, the movement stakeholders, and experts in evaluating it. We hope the conversation will be constructive, focusing on how volunteers can best be empowered to fulfill our joint mission. We are ready to participate in, facilitate, or aid that discussion in the interests of the movement. We encourage candidate affiliates, existing affiliates, and community members to leave questions, comments, viewpoints, factual briefings, and feedback on the Board noticeboardhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_noticeboard or the talk page of this decisionhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMF_Board_meetings/2013-11-24/FAQ on Meta. We are also happy to hear community members’ perspectives and hope to engage the Board in an open dialogue. Best regards, the Affiliations Committee On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:33 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.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
Phoebe, I appreciate you sharing this information - it fills in a few gaps. I am still concerned that there was not more opportunity for input prior to the decision - and that everyone was clearly not on the same page about what was going to be discussed exactly. Regarding your earlier comments on the funding. I recognize that there are options beyond FDC - however it seems to send mixed messages. Also, did the board discuss capping the other WMF funding options? I still think there is confusion over the incorporated user group concerns - but I will keep that conversation on Meta. Finally, can you speak to any changes the board may be making in future processes and if the community or at least committees will have more input on these types of decisions? -greg aka varnent PS. Nothing said from any official AffCom or WM related roles. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:16 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
Mark, 13/02/2014 00:58: In other projects this doesn't seem to be as big of a deal. I'm a heavy participant in OpenStreetMap, which is an organization legally based in the UK. That's a country I have no connection to at all. But it doesn't really matter, because the OSM Foundation does things I benefit from, since they aren't really UK-specific: they maintain the servers, maintain and develop the software, look after the legal situation of the project, etc. As a map editor, I have no complaints with their stewardship of the core project. Of course, actual mapping activities happen on a distributed basis (it is difficult to map Denmark well, if you don't live here), but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with letting the UK organization continue to manage maintenance of the servers and software. OSM has chapters too. 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
Hi Greg! A few fast notes before I go to bed :) On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.comwrote: Phoebe, I appreciate you sharing this information - it fills in a few gaps. I am still concerned that there was not more opportunity for input prior to the decision - and that everyone was clearly not on the same page about what was going to be discussed exactly. I take your point about wanting more formal committee consultation, for sure, and in hindsight I agree we should have done things differently. (I think writing comments would probably work better logistically than skyping folks in, just for logistical and stylistic reasons, but it's an interesting thought -- perhaps worth a try). Regarding your earlier comments on the funding. I recognize that there are options beyond FDC - however it seems to send mixed messages. Also, did the board discuss capping the other WMF funding options? Nope. I still think there is confusion over the incorporated user group concerns - but I will keep that conversation on Meta. I just posted a reply on meta about this, that hopefully will clear up some concerns. Short answer: if you need to incorporate in your country for whatever reason, go ahead and incorporate. You just don't *have* to for wikimedia recognition. Finally, can you speak to any changes the board may be making in future processes and if the community or at least committees will have more input on these types of decisions? Hmm. I know there is a desire to talk about movement roles strategy in general among several trustees, so we may well talk about related issues, but I don't know if that will be on a meeting agenda in the near future, and we don't have any decisions planned that I know of (though of course issues may be raised that aren't on the agenda now). The April meeting will hopefully mostly be adjusting/approving the annual plan and working on the shift to a new executive director, especially if they are hired and available by then. -- 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
Quick follow-up question and comment - Is there any reason for affiliates to feel they should now at least plan for possible caps on other areas? Does that absolutely seem unlikely (granted anything is possible) or not really something the board can comment on more firmly - which I suspect will just keep people concerned about this cap indicating a new trend while new strategic planning under the new ED begins (er..continues..). I am happy to hear that there is agreement that things should be done better next time. My one comment on the notes is that I hope they are more immediately two-way in nature. While the liaisons and committees are very helpful in many circumstances - the nature of things sometimes causes multiple week gaps between individual notes. That is just my personal reaction. Also - and sorry if I just overlooked this elsewhere - will the board be discussing or presenting more on this topic at the April conference in Berlin? -greg On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:19 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Greg! A few fast notes before I go to bed :) On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.comwrote: Phoebe, I appreciate you sharing this information - it fills in a few gaps. I am still concerned that there was not more opportunity for input prior to the decision - and that everyone was clearly not on the same page about what was going to be discussed exactly. I take your point about wanting more formal committee consultation, for sure, and in hindsight I agree we should have done things differently. (I think writing comments would probably work better logistically than skyping folks in, just for logistical and stylistic reasons, but it's an interesting thought -- perhaps worth a try). Regarding your earlier comments on the funding. I recognize that there are options beyond FDC - however it seems to send mixed messages. Also, did the board discuss capping the other WMF funding options? Nope. I still think there is confusion over the incorporated user group concerns - but I will keep that conversation on Meta. I just posted a reply on meta about this, that hopefully will clear up some concerns. Short answer: if you need to incorporate in your country for whatever reason, go ahead and incorporate. You just don't *have* to for wikimedia recognition. Finally, can you speak to any changes the board may be making in future processes and if the community or at least committees will have more input on these types of decisions? Hmm. I know there is a desire to talk about movement roles strategy in general among several trustees, so we may well talk about related issues, but I don't know if that will be on a meeting agenda in the near future, and we don't have any decisions planned that I know of (though of course issues may be raised that aren't on the agenda now). The April meeting will hopefully mostly be adjusting/approving the annual plan and working on the shift to a new executive director, especially if they are hired and available by then. -- 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
On 11 Feb 2014, at 20:18, 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. The board meeting minutes specifically say unincorporated Wikimedia user group”, though, which makes it sound like you don’t want groups to, well, incorporate. Which means people involved in those user groups take on personal liability for their activities rather than having the protection of a formal organisation, which is really bad for the volunteers should anything go badly... Thanks, Mike ___ 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
I think perhaps this financial benefit discussion has taken us a bit off track. This thread has a wealth of well-informed commentary, the majority of it coming from volunteers; for most, any financial benefit is the result of expenses being (partially) covered to carry out these volunteer activities. Perhaps the point that Nathan might be trying to make is that it is useful for everyone involved in these wide-ranging discussions to understand each other's relative experience. For example, it would be helpful to interpret Cynthia's and Lodewijk's comments knowing that they are members of the Affiliations Committee. That is not to suggest that their opinions should be discounted; in fact, quite the opposite. They are opinions that have been informed by the fact of their committee membership, although of course they are speaking for themselves and not the committee as a whole. I will note as an aside that I was aware they were both on some relevant committee, but it took some digging to figure out which one. Similarly, those who hold executive roles with chapters, or are members of the FDC or other global or local groups that would be affected by these decisions, are able to share their knowledge from those experiences. Risker/Anne ___ 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 12/02/2014 03:14, Mark a écrit : 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.). Yes, that's exactly what I want to keep and see developing in my country, to achieve reliability, acknowledgment by third people, 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. I like them too, saved I want it to be supervised by my chapter rather than the WMF ! Mark, may you disclose which country you are from/live in ? I am from France, living in France. -- Mathias Damour https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays http://fr.vikidia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Astirmays http://en.vikidia.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 2/12/14, 10:55 PM, Mathias Damour wrote: 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. I like them too, saved I want it to be supervised by my chapter rather than the WMF ! Mark, may you disclose which country you are from/live in ? I am from France, living in France. Since you asked: I am Greek by ethnicity, I live in Denmark, and I mostly grew up in the USA. So I guess, no one country? That is part of what causes my discomfort with nation-state-based organizations, because I fit in none of them particularly well. Should I orient my activities under Wikimedia Denmark, where I live? But I am not Danish, and I speak the language poorly. Maybe Wikimedia Greece? I don't live there, and haven't really in a long time, though I do speak Greek and have the right genetics. Maybe some kind of Wikimedia USA? I don't live there either, though I used to, and I do speak English well. What I feel most comfortable in is a global movement that does not require me to prove allegiance/membership in any particular country; deciding which country my Wikimedia participation belongs to seems decidedly unhelpful, for me personally. In other projects this doesn't seem to be as big of a deal. I'm a heavy participant in OpenStreetMap, which is an organization legally based in the UK. That's a country I have no connection to at all. But it doesn't really matter, because the OSM Foundation does things I benefit from, since they aren't really UK-specific: they maintain the servers, maintain and develop the software, look after the legal situation of the project, etc. As a map editor, I have no complaints with their stewardship of the core project. Of course, actual mapping activities happen on a distributed basis (it is difficult to map Denmark well, if you don't live here), but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with letting the UK organization continue to manage maintenance of the servers and software. -Mark ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
Hoi, Yes, people employed by the WMF working from outside the USA exis. They are very much part of what WMF does and, there is no trickle back to the local countries really. They are part of the WMF structure and their priorities are the WMF priorities. There is a huge potential outside the USA and I am sorry but this is not reflected in the way priorities are set, programmes are developed, technology is assessed and implemented. While I do agree that many of the arguments made for programmes are sound, there is this lack of focus for what the relevance is outside of the USA/ English speaking world and it effectively prevents many things from happening on our shared globe. Thanks, GerardM On 12 February 2014 18:01, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote: On 2/11/14, 9:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: There are two areas where the Wikimedia Foundation is active; the USA where it is active through both chapters and the office in San Francisco. The rest of the world where it is active through chapters and whatever. Well, you did leave out a few of the countries in the WMF is active, mainly by paying staff located there to work on things ranging from the Visual Editor to core MediaWiki development to internationalization to analytics: Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Austria, Australia, UK, Czech Republic, Croatia, Israel, India, Finland... -Mark ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] 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
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
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] 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] 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
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] 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
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
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
[Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
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. 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. and for sure, the decision making process is also impressive nowadays: first somebody decides, then it is consulted with a couple of people (affcom, FDC), and the feedback is used only use it to phrase the FAQ about the decision. sometimes i think you people are from outer space ;) rupert. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:33 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 wrote: 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 Thanks for putting this together. I made a few tweaks to the FAQ; it could still use more love (additional links, formatting cleanup, killing abbreviations, etc.). After reading through the FAQ, this part remains unclear to me: --- We expect to be capping the allocation for FDC Annual Plan funding at approximately its current amount, for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16. --- What is the current amount? (Is that a known figure?) And to be clear, does this Board decision include a cap on the Wikimedia Foundation's operating budget or is that considered a separate pool of money? I believe the total budget right now is somewhere around $45 million, but the Funds Dissemination Committee is only one piece of that pie, right? Or does all money flow through the FDC now? I think clarifying these two points in the FAQ might be helpful. MZMcBride ___ 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 Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: 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 totally flummoxed by why you're disappointed given that I can't actually find the quote you're attributing to Phoebe in either the minutes or the FAQ, but you might want to try being less hyperbolic. 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. and for sure, the decision making process is also impressive nowadays: first somebody decides, then it is consulted with a couple of people (affcom, FDC), and the feedback is used only use it to phrase the FAQ about the decision. sometimes i think you people are from outer space ;) Have you seen the detailed, word-for-word minutes from the meeting? If not, exactly how do you come to this evaluation of how the board reached this particular decision? I note that Phoebe came to the board at one point *as*a representative of the chapters - entities in the wider movement who are directly affected by this change. If you're suggesting that the POV of the wider movement didn't come into the decision, I'm disappointed in /you/ as an applier of Occam's razor; I consider it exceedingly improbable that Phoebe, of all people, would've relied on feedback only...to phrase the FAQ. Calm down and discuss it like a reasonable person...and, perhaps, try to avoid personal attacks, even with a wink at the end. People who base their pronoun display on the conventions in a made-up language probably shouldn't throw 'you people are from outer space' stones ;p. ___ 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
rupert THURNER wrote: i am disappointed personally by you. you as a person, you as an american, and you as a board member of the foundation. What about Phoebe as a woman? Or Phoebe as a librarian? Or as a brassratgirl? Horrors. Your unnecessary hyperbole aside, I see Phoebe's role as a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees member as being a guardian and protector of the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation. Those interests may or may not align with those of Wikimedia or its chapters. It would help if you could extract portions of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_FAQ and make specific and substantive criticisms of pieces you disagree with. Broadly, if you or anyone else is having difficulty doing Wikimedia-related work (specifically securing funding), please feel free to bring it up on this mailing list. There are a number of ways to receive money from the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia, or other non-profits, depending on the type of project you're working on and your needs. 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. Sorry, but this seems to be nothing more than scurrilous stupidity. Say what you will about lawyers, but this particular lawyer has over 600 edits to the English Wikipedia and has (in conjunction with his bot) over 175,000 edits to the English Wikisource. Play nice, Rupert. MZMcBride ___ 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
I think there needs to a basic rule of if you can get Max and I to disagree with you for the same reasons, you're probably in the wrong ;p On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:20 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: rupert THURNER wrote: i am disappointed personally by you. you as a person, you as an american, and you as a board member of the foundation. What about Phoebe as a woman? Or Phoebe as a librarian? Or as a brassratgirl? Horrors. Your unnecessary hyperbole aside, I see Phoebe's role as a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees member as being a guardian and protector of the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation. Those interests may or may not align with those of Wikimedia or its chapters. It would help if you could extract portions of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_FAQ and make specific and substantive criticisms of pieces you disagree with. Broadly, if you or anyone else is having difficulty doing Wikimedia-related work (specifically securing funding), please feel free to bring it up on this mailing list. There are a number of ways to receive money from the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia, or other non-profits, depending on the type of project you're working on and your needs. 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. Sorry, but this seems to be nothing more than scurrilous stupidity. Say what you will about lawyers, but this particular lawyer has over 600 edits to the English Wikipedia and has (in conjunction with his bot) over 175,000 edits to the English Wikisource. Play nice, Rupert. MZMcBride ___ 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 06:33, phoebe ayers wrote: I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees decisions that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual plan grant process and Board approval of chapter/thematic organization status. In a nutshell, the Board decided to allocate approximately the same amount of funding to the FDC for the next two years. Some chapters have asked to consider the possibility for multi-year funding, in order to make planning easier. The WMF indicated that it was something difficult to do since the funding of the whole movement is planned on an annual basis. Does it mean that this argument is now moot ? The Board also decided that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two years of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally incorporated entity (either a chapter or thematic organization). My first reaction to this: why is the WMF board pretending to be more and more a board overseeing the whole community ? I can understand concerns about new groups legally incorporating before they need to or are ready to, but this remains up to the groups to decide -- and one thing about which there is no doubt is that they will know better than the WMF board if they need to be incorporated and when (if only because they know they local legal landscape much better than the WMF does). 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. I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not endorsed by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ? So if you had asked the Swiss chapter, for example, we would have mentioned that a user group would be close to useless in our country. That would basically be a group of people having meetings in a restaurant once in a while, but it just does not exist as a group: it can not get access to grants (it can not even have a bank account, so any money received would be received by a single member in his own name -- making the user group useless), can not be granted trademark usage. This is why creating an association in Switzerland is an extremely light process: take 2 people, get them to write one page of bylaws and voilà, the association is incorporated and it can open a bank account. So long for becoming a chapter or thematic organization involves much more corporate overhead. Maybe the board's reasoning makes sense in the US, I don't know (I will not pretend that I know how people in other country should operate). It does not makes sense in Switzerland, and likely nor in other countries. But alas, this does not seem to be taken into account by the board when it takes decision. 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: 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 -- 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
