Dear All Concerned and Potentially Concerned with a future of WCA, as a WMPL representative in WCA and a concerned Wikimedian myself I would like to add my two cents. Firstly, as the WCA meeting is starting today, I would like to join the voices encouraging to participate, even virtually, in the (re)shaping of this organization and its future. In the last two weeks a lot of thoughts have been exchanged and I believe there is a strong call: from WMF, from wider community as on a talk page on Meta, even from a number of Chapters and their representatives - to rethink WCA heavily, even to the level of closing it altogether. I think we all agree that major changes are needed, nevertheless we vary in details and a proposed scale of (r)evolution. I expect long talks and more ideas to come, so please stay tuned and share your thoughts - not only about an organizational layer but a functional one and expected output as well. How would you use the opportunity of international Wikimedia co-operation and what problems could you solve using it? Would it be some workshop with selected guests from other chapters sharing their experiences with legal matters / regulatory bodies / GLAM / academia / fundraising / ... ? A cross-border meeting of neighbouring communities? Coordination allowing to leverage voices of particular chapters and allowing wide lobbying regarding matters like intelectual property rights on e.g. European level? Assistance in better reporting and management, e.g. with proposed frameworks? Or maybe something purely Wikimedian - e.g. helping your conmunity to express their opinions regarding Wikimedia internal policies, like - what is the role of Wikimedia Commons and what can we do with all the differences of U.S law with other laws (ideas like "European Commons", other local solutions or customization of single Wikimedia Commons). And probably the most important thing: do you want WCA to be in the future a supervisory body, a "certificating body", a supplementary body or maybe a dispersed body - a more of a coalllition of particular chapters and a platform to co-operate and help others / seek for help. I believe that a mass answer on these questions is vital to know which organization we would like to build. So far a group of respectable Wikimedians put quite an effort to build WCA and they have my kudos for that. Unfottunately, the wide support is very lacking and one can feel maby concerns (some voiced, some presumably not). I agree that the concept of WCA has been a too much of internal thing played among already very busy boards of particular chapters - and I must admit I haven't been better here - I will try better! My personal guess based on observation is, the chapters - often basing on a volunteer work, sometimes helped with paid positions but still having many local issues - don't have recources and heart to invest heavily in a new organization, potentially limiting freedoms and complicating life of their home org. It was not helped with the fact that so far we have been discussing "what needs to be done" and not "what can be gained" or "what could we do together?". Unfortunately, creating a full global org requires a lot of faith, trust and mundane work - and I guess there is/was just too little support for it, too many worries against. What can we do now? I do not join the voices to bury WCA yet but I am a fan of huge remodelling. Personally I like to think of WCA as a lightweight, subsidiary organization, possibly a coallition or federation of chapters formed to freely co-operate in a more efficient manner and on a larger scale, and to facilitate a communication between chapters and some bigger bodies like European Parliament or WMF. If there remains a strong opinion about the very existance of WCA as a real org we can try to work at least as a loose network of partnering chapters. This is a model under which my home chapter - Wikimedia Poland - works with its partners in semi-formal Coallition for Open Education (Polish KOED - Koalicja Otwartej Edukacji). Here everything is based on a partnership coined with multilateral declarations and coherent acts like members' work and directed spending. Maybe this is a model we can work with if a formal body is a no go. Certailny it is far from more-or-less expressed concerns with.the "overhead", bysantine structure, lack of contact with its roots etc. However, if WCA as a full org is doable, I would still keep it to its subsidiary role. Third thing is openness - we need more visibility, more ideas, more input and more people. Personally I think I need to improve here, attract interested users from my home wikis and deliver more. It is not easy when you have responsibilities already in your chapter/day job/family/studies/... and I understand all the busy people like chapters' representatives - but this is a good reason to have more people onboard. Thus, in London I would like to bring to the table: * thanks for the work done so far and care forthe next administrative tasks * focus on ideas behind WCA and tangible things we can do together * support for the concept of lightweight WCA * support for the Open WCA And I still believe we should succeed: the wish of partnership is strong and too many good Wikimedians got involved. :) Now the lashing may commence, espetially from my fellow chapter members. :) I hope you have managed to read it all, take care :) Michał "Aegis Maelstrom" Buczyński Wikimedia Poland WCA representative
p.s. I do apology for the late mail - my first one did not manage to go through the list. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
