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 opportun
On 11 Feb 2014, at 20:18, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Hello Frédéric, a quick comment:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz wrote:
>> Your decision is not "you should have a good track
>> record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".
>
> Bylaws are fine,
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 ju
Hi Greg!
A few fast notes before I go to bed :)
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Gregory Varnum
wrote:
> 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 every
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 b
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
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
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
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 year
So as the discussion gotten off-track, as 100% volunteer for the past 7
years, I'll echo and support every line which Nicole, as a WMDE employee
wrote. Thank you for summarize what many of us feel and think in a clear
and detailed response.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Nicole Ebber 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
I agree this has gotten us off-track. I generally try to at least
acknowledge my roles and conflicts in at least a PS - although I sometimes
forget.
All of that said, it seems this sidetrack happened because there was a
sense some people were concerned about the cap because they want more money
or
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 acti
>
>
>
> 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'
Le 12 févr. 2014 04:20, "Nathan" a écrit :
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
>
> > Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, "Nathan" a écrit :
> >
> >
> > Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of
> > Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my
> fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without at
> all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are anything
> but sincere,
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
> Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, "Nathan" a écrit :
>
>
> Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of
> Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All of
> us are volunteers. We do not get any sa
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
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, "Nathan" a écrit :
>
> For me in these debates about funding, which often present the staff on
one
> side pushing to reduce the relative power and centrality of chapters on
one
> side and chapter representatives pushing the opposite way on the other
> side, there is always
>
>
>
> 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 ro
2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Risker :
> Consensus is not the same as unanimity, and anyone who's crossed a few
> different Wikimedia projects will know that what is defined as consensus
> varies pretty widely, from majority +1 to 80% or higher support. For the
> purposes of board votes, it's majorit
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Gregory Varnum
wrote:
> While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
> a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that
> AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined
> occurring.
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 paus
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 b
2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson :
> Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.
IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with 7-3 and 6-4[1],
when you can see that most of the times[2] the vote was unanimous.
Cristian
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gregory Varnum
wrote:
> One of the (many) problems that I have with this is that it both makes
> these user groups more dependent on movement funds for a longer period of
> time, but then caps those funds in the same decision.
>
One quick correction: we're not ca
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) -
excep
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
Hello Frédéric, a quick comment:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz wrote:
> Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".
Bylaws are fine, whatever makes sense for each group; just not mandatory.
The
that is correct (about the FDC involvement; we have not participated in
consulting or idea exchange in any systematic way).
dj "pundit"
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
> a hard time not chiming
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
ta
Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear. I'm referring to the
current consensus of the community, i.e., the feedback being received about
this decision.
Cynthia
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Risker wrote:
> Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that be, Cynthia? The
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
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 B
Dear Frederic,
On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz wrote:
> On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> Hi Phoebe,
>
> thanks for your answer !
>
>>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
>>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organ
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
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 fundraisin
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 p
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 limi
Hoi,
There are two areas where the Wikimedia Foundation is active; the USA where
it is active through both chapters and the office in San Francisco. The
rest of the world where it is active through chapters and whatever.
Does the funding gap limit the office in the same way it does the rest of
the
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:46 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER > wrote:
>
>> pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying:
>>"wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow"
>>"the affiliated organisations are recommended
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Frédéric Schütz wrote:
> On 11/02/14 06:33, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> > I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees
> decisions
> > that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual
> > plan grant process and Board appro
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER
wrote:
> pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying:
>"wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow"
>"the affiliated organisations are recommended to seek other funding
> (which the foundation did try and did not
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 Boar
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 wrote:
> rupert THURNER wrote:
> >i am disappointed personally by you. you as a person, you as an american,
>
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 Wikimedi
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER
wrote:
> pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying:
>"wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow"
>"the affiliated organisations are recommended to seek other funding
> (which the foundation did try and did not
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
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
49 matches
Mail list logo
