Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
מאור מלולmao...@outlook.com Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:22:52 +0100 From: nemow...@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues) Lodewijk, 11/02/2014 19:36: Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that. To me it seems rather obvious. The board (together with the WMF executives?) is worried about more organisations asking money through the processes the board itself set up, adding to complications on how to limit spending growth etc. Instead of fixing the process, they chose to take a shortcut and limit the pool of eligible requestors. It's a clear pattern, because we have two precedents: the initial FDC resolution which identified 4 special chapters; the out of process letter in which they refused recognition to a prospective Wikimedia entity in order to prevent AffCom and the grants programs to even start considering its requests. And all of this on a rush before a new ED is hired -or rather before the current ED leaves... M. 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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
Hi all, On 11 Feb 2014, at 17:58, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place. I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those. I want to +1 on everything that Lodewijk says here. The WMF board has done a really bad job here with involving its stakeholders. Both of these decisions should really have been prefaced with online discussion with the community, and also in-person discussion at the Wikimedia Conference in a couple of months time. Additionally, these two decisions relate specifically to topics that the WMF board has committees for - as such, ideally it should have asked the committees for clear recommendations about what could be done in both of these issues. That none of these took place is very disappointing. I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here. I share that hope. Thanks, Mike (As per Lodewijk, this is sent in my personal capacity, although I am a member of the FDC.) ___ 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] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
Hi, I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place. I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those. I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here. Lodewijk Gelauff (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email entirely in a personal capacity) 2014-02-11 14:36 GMT+01:00 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org: Dear Frederic, On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote: On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote: Hi Phoebe, thanks for your answer ! It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization. However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group actually got there should have no influence on the result. Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to do stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they will stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove that they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the crux of the matter, not the user group label, as far as I'm concerned). What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the actual decision. Your decision is not you should have a good track record, it is you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws. What I understand the board is saying is: if you have a fantastic track record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic organization. How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ? I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track record is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation. I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not endorsed by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ? I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever amount of discussion we have) and not before. Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there is now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic organisation, which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect. It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents. Fae On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi, I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place. I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those. I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here. Lodewijk Gelauff (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email entirely in a personal capacity) -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
Per Fae, a short response in bullet points: * I'm sorry. I take your criticisms seriously. * How we got to this point, as I see it*: I think the Board felt we had gotten input from AffCom because we saw their responses to the proposal to change to a usergroup-first approval model, which was presented by a staff member. However, it seems AffCom didn't realize that the Board might take up this proposal. This unclarity is the fault of the board. -- phoebe * speaking for myself, not all trustees may agree. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect. It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents. Fae On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi, I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place. I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those. I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here. Lodewijk Gelauff (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email entirely in a personal capacity) -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
Hi Phoebe, Thanks for the swift reply. Please note that the proposal sent to AffCom by the staff was /not/ the same proposal considered by the board. The arguments presented with it, were not even close to the ones presented now - it is unrealistic to expect AffCom to be able to provide any helpful input to that. Also, please note this has been communicated to the board before, and that you still chose to paint this unfair and unjust image. Disappointing again. But even /if/ affcom would have been consulted properly (which it wasn't), then still you didn't consult the other stakeholders: affiliates, candidate affiliates and the community at large. Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that. However, dwindling in the past processes is only of limited use. What I hope for is that the board members will finally commit to actually ask input to all stakeholders before taking major decisions like this, and not just the staff (and the committee if you really had that illusion). Best, Lodewijk (I write this email entirely in a personal capacity) 2014-02-11 19:27 GMT+01:00 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com: Per Fae, a short response in bullet points: * I'm sorry. I take your criticisms seriously. * How we got to this point, as I see it*: I think the Board felt we had gotten input from AffCom because we saw their responses to the proposal to change to a usergroup-first approval model, which was presented by a staff member. However, it seems AffCom didn't realize that the Board might take up this proposal. This unclarity is the fault of the board. -- phoebe * speaking for myself, not all trustees may agree. On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect. It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents. Fae On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: Hi, I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place. I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those. I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here. Lodewijk Gelauff (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email entirely in a personal capacity) -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
Lodewijk, 11/02/2014 19:36: Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that. To me it seems rather obvious. The board (together with the WMF executives?) is worried about more organisations asking money through the processes the board itself set up, adding to complications on how to limit spending growth etc. Instead of fixing the process, they chose to take a shortcut and limit the pool of eligible requestors. It's a clear pattern, because we have two precedents: the initial FDC resolution which identified 4 special chapters; the out of process letter in which they refused recognition to a prospective Wikimedia entity in order to prevent AffCom and the grants programs to even start considering its requests. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
