För att sammanfatta föreningens tidigare agerande i WCA frågan.

I Berlin undertecknades del två av Chartern, det vill säga vi är
intresserade av samarbete men går inte med i detta just nu.

Strax därefter postade vi följande på meta:

The board of Wikimedia Sverige resolves:

1. Wikimedia Sverige recognizes the need for chapters to:
   1. Promote the exchange of experiences among the chapters
   2. Support and promote the development of chapters as
      self-sustaining, capable organizations

2. Wikimedia Sverige prefers a robust, capable, and self-reliant
   organization with clear and unambigous rules.

3. Wikimedia Sverige's joining of such organization is dependent on that
   the rules clearly preserve each chapter's sovereignty.

Detta var tänkt att vara ett klargörande för att vi inte ansåg att
stadgarna uppfyllde detta.

I Chapters report i juli rapporterade vi:

Wikimedia Sverige has not joined the WCA, for several reasons. It seems
very unclear what the real purpose of it is and the costs associated are
uncertain. The chapter will therefore wait and see what development the
association takes.

Jag välkomnar ytterligare diskussion på årsmötet, vilket mycket väl kan
ge den kommande styrelsen en inriktning på fortsatt handlande. Anser du
att frågan är så akut att vi behöver starkare skrivningar än så redan

Jan Ainali

Bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige: 100 kr till bankgiro 5822-9915 (skriv
"Medlemsavgift, namn, adress och epost")

On 7 feb 2013 10:06 "Anders Wennersten"<m...@anderswennersten.se>wrote:

> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#W
> MF_Board_letter_regarding_the_Chapters_Association>
> WCA är en tänkt stödorganisation för Chapters.
> Etableringen av organisationen har nu fått en form som lett till att
> Board tar avstånd från organisationen i den form som nu planeras, och
> själv är jag en av många som är myckett störd på hur detta bedrivs.
> Etableringsarbete kännetecknas av hemlighetsmakeri och ointresse hitta
> den mest kostnadseffektiva lösningen. Dessutom har man börjat med att
> rekrytera personal innan som är praxis man provat ut med frivillig
> personal, eller existerande anställd personal från något chapter. Det
> finns inte ens en lätttilllgänglig plan vad organisationer rent
> konkret
> är tänkt göra. Förutom till synes mismangement ser jag också detta som
> en stor risk för vår image. Tidningen som The Register vill gärna för
> fram tendenser att de gåvor som ges missbrukas, och här kan de
> verkligen
> få vatten på sin kvarn, som på sikt kan rikera de frivilliga
> donationerna och då hela vår rörelse.
> WCA byggs upp på ett mandat från Chapters och jag vill då i första
> hand
> veta ståndpuntken i dn uppkomna frågan från styrelsen för WM:SE. I
> andra
> hand vill jag yrka på att WM:SE tar officiellt avstånd från hur detta
> just nu bedrivs, då både i meddelande till the WCA council men också
> med
> ett meddelande på Wimimedia-l
> Motionstiden till årsmötet är sex veckor före och det är nu fyra
> veckor
> och två dagar, så det är formellt för sent med en motion i denna fråga
> till årsmötet, jag hoppas dock att jag ändå, om frågan itne är löst
> före
> årsmötet, kan föra upp ett yrkande på avståndstagande i enlighet med
> vad
> jag skriver ovan. Och att om det då inte blir en motion att det blir
> en
> officiell fråga under punkten övrigt
> Anders Wennersten
> Diskussionen bedrivs både på metasidan och Wikimedia-l listan jag
> kopierar nedan det jag ser som ett mycket bra sammanfattning från
> dariusz, ordförande för FDC
> hi Theo,
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Theo10011<de10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why don't you start by asking those questions to WMF, then WMDE then
> > WMUK
> > and any other chapter filing a budget with FDC. This organization
> > just had
> > the bare minimum personnel spending it needed to accomplish the
> > goals at
> > the time, but as the Dylan song went, things have changed....
> > 
> my personal view is that at some stage of development staff indeed
> does add
> value and is necessary for more complex operations. From this point of
> view, it is clear that international collaboration, best practices
> sharing,
> cross-border initiatives, etc. (all primarily within the scope of
> interest
> of WCA or any other organization addressing it) do or soon will need
> some
> structure and probably staff support.
> So, all in all, the question is not whether in our movement as a whole
> we
> can rely only and exclusively on volunteers - we know in some things
> we
> can't, and in some it creates more challenges than savings. The
> question is
> whether the problems WCA is going to address can be addressed by
> already
> existing structures (e.g. by relying on one of the already existing
> chapters - after all, WCA could be a subproject in an existing budget,
> and
> still be managed by the council for all practical purposes, the issue
> of
> incorporation is a matter of bureaucracy rather than of actual
> initiatives fulfillment). If the new structures need to be created
> (and I
> understand there has been quite a bit of thought given to the issue
> and
> legal, accounting and incorporating costs are considered inevitable),
> the
> community at large should probably be given a strong, plausible and
> persuasive rationale for this, and also consulted in a typically
> wikimedic
> manner. Instead, the serious wide discussion on WCA starts only now,
> after
> the Board's statement.
> The way I understood WCA idea the first time I heard about it was,
> among
> others, reducing bureaucracy, and increasing openness and transparency
> of
> actions. So far, at least on the surface level, the structures
> dominate
> over the actual serving the community (there is a council, there's
> been a
> long process of choosing a place to incorporate supported by
> professional
> consultant(s), there is a secretary general being hired; but there is
> no
> roadmap of what is going to be actually done yet). It may be just a
> passing
> stage, but this is how it looks for now and possibly casts a shadow
> over
> the whole project. Also, the openness and transparency are probably
> not the
> strongest points of the initiative. There is a closed mailing list for
> discussions, decision-making is not fully conducted with the input of
> the
> community at large. I understand there may be good reasons for keeping
> your
> strategy closed. I also understand that WCA council/managing board
> feels
> empowered to represent the participating chapter representatives, the
> chapter representatives do feel empowered to represent the chapters,
> and
> the chapters feel empowered to represent the local communities they
> serve.
> But all this, while typical for regular organizations, is not so usual
> in
> Wikimedia movement. Three layers of representation distance the
> initiative
> from regular editors - even more it is needed to consult and discuss
> the
> actions and decisions with the community. I know that WMF was often
> criticized in the past for being too distant from the community in its
> planning, too hierarchical, or too bureaucratic - perhaps this could
> be a
> lesson that all stakeholders in Wikimedia movement could learn from,
> and
> actively oppose the detachment in their own business. Openness,
> minimal
> hierarchy, flexibility, goals before structures - these are the values
> I'd
> typically associate with Wikimedia.
> > Well, 25000 (USD or CAN) might actually be close to minimum wage for
> > Belgium or Switzerland but ok. But it's not for you to decide what
> > is
> > appropriate. There can be 100 different opinions about this matter
> > and
> > all
> > be right at the same time.
> > 
> Here's the thing: it is difficult to relate to this argumentation when
> the
> community at large has not been offered a possibility to discuss the
> place
> of incorporation, right? Even in Europe there is plenty of countries
> where
> the minimum wage from Switzerland (not existing, AFAIK, but nevermind)
> may
> be way more than enough to cover the exact same expenses and leave
> quite a
> lot for the others. Why Belgium or Switzerland and not Hungary, Czech
> Republic, or Bulgaria? You don't even have to have a strong Wikimedia
> chapter in a given country to start operating, what you may need
> though is
> reducing costs whenever possible without a loss to quality, and also
> to a
> lesser extent sending the right message (reaching out across borders,
> etc.). Again, I totally understand that Belgium or Switzerland have
> been
> chosen after careful consideration, but the process has not been
> transparent and you cannot expect the outcome to be widely accepted
> and
> unquestioned just on the face value. Just saying that "it's not for
> you to
> decide what is appropriate" will not win WCA any community support,
> while
> sharing the reasons for the choices may help build credibility for the
> idea.
> A similar issue: we've been discussing a number of times two rejected
> drafts of WCA budgets. What we have not seen is the actual approved
> budget
> that WCA wants to operate on. In the same time a secretary general is
> being
> hired. It may be my professional bias, or the fact that I don't know
> strategy, but I find it at least unusual to start staffing prior to
> making
> plans, strategies, and final budgeting, simply because staff is
> usually
> meant to support concrete initiatives (and it would seem that you
> believe
> this is the purpose for staffing, too). What are those initiatives and
> why
> is there no budget, nor a strategic plan ready? If they are ready, why
> have
> they not been discussed with the community? Asking about this is not
> meant
> to be overly inquisitive, I'm honestly trying to figure out how it is
> meant
> to work in your view and why it makes financial sense.
> I really, really, really would like to see WCA, or a similar
> initiative,
> work - simply because I think our movement needs it direly. But I
> think I'm
> not the only one out here who is surprised by the turn of events, the
> lack
> of discussion or at least detailed reasoning, etc. If you believe that
> there is some value in community support at all, now it would be a
> good
> time to work on it. I'm pretty sure WCA has all that is needed, it has
> just
> failed to disclose it to the public.
> best,
> Dariusz (a.k.a. "pundit")
> _______________________________________________
> WikimediaSE-L mailing list
> <WikimediaSE-L@lists.wikimedia.org>
> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediase-l>
WikimediaSE-L mailing list