Thanks again for your responses, Denny. I think it really helps to get a clearer perspective on things "on the inside", and that informs the kind of things we need to think and talk about as a company and as a movement.
I know it's a super awkward position to be putting all of you in, especially at this juncture. I hope we'll all get through this sanely and we can talk about ways to better align our various structures to our needs with less immediate stress. -- brion On Feb 25, 2016 9:16 AM, "Denny Vrandecic" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks to all the answers to my response. I am still reading them, and I > probably will not be able to answer to all in a timely manner (I have to > work, after all), but I wanted to make a few things clearer, quickly: > > Milos, I indeed do not care about reelection. And if I have to choose > between truth and political wisdom, I hope to continue to choose the first. > > More importantly, Milos, I did a massive error in my formulation, as I know > realize, which lead to a misunderstanding. I have to apologize for that. > When I said that the Board has to make a decision in the interest of the > Foundation when there is a conflict between the Communities and the > Foundation, I was phrasing myself very badly, I now realize. I actually did > not mean a direct conflict between a single Community and the Foundation, > i.e. with these two as being directly opposed to each other and fighting > over something, but rather the more complicated case of a decision where > there is a conflict of interests between the Foundation and the > Movement-at-large, the Board is obliged to decide in the best interest of > the Foundation. > > I do not buy in the mythology of an "evil community" at all. I do not even > buy into the mythology of a great divide between the communities and the > foundation. There are plenty of people who are active and constructive in > both, and who bridge both. The cases where the Foundation and the Movement > are directly opposed to each other should be extremely rare, and, > thankfully are. I don't think there was anything even close to that brought > to the Board in my tenure so far. > > More often though is the case that there is a third-party situation, e.g. > an imminent and considerable legal threat to the Foundation. In that case, > the interests of the Movement at large has to be secondary for the Board. > > I regard the Movement-at-large as much more resilient than any and each of > its parts. And I am thankful for that, because I think our mission is much > too important to leave it with a small NGO in the Bay Area. It has to be a > mission carried by every single one of us, it has to be a mission that is > inclusive of every one who wants to join in realizing it. > > I have overstated my point in my last mail, obviously, and also > intentionally to make a point (and thanks for everyone to calling me out on > that). But as many have confirmed, there is truth in this overstatement. I > don't think that such situations will occur often. But when they occur, and > that is what I said, they will be painful and frustrating and potentially > shrouded in confidentiality / secrecy. Therefore it remains my strong > belief, that reaffirming the current Board as the movement leadership body > is a bad idea, because the overstated incompatibility that I have described > remains. > > I could imagine with a much smaller Board of Trustees, which itself is a > constituent of a body representing the whole Movement. > I could imagine a wholly new body to represent the whole movement. > I could imagine many, many small new bodies who somehow make local > decisions on the one side and bubble up to an ineffective, but extremely > resilient and representative voice. > I could imagine many other models. > But I have a hard time to imagine the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia > Foundation sincerely filling out the role of the movement leadership, due > to the inherent constraints and incompatibilities between these roles. As > rare as they appear, they do appear. > > Dariusz, you say that a disengagement from the Foundation by the community > would increase a specific Foundation versus the rest of the movement > situation. I don't think that the formal composition of the Board matters > as much as its role, duties, and obligations. > > The German Wikimedia chapter, the one chapter I have a bit experience with, > is a membership organization. The Board is elected by the members in its > entirety. I don't see any claim of that Board to lead the German Wikimedia > communities. I don't see that the German chapter is significantly closer to > the German Wikimedia communities, or that their relation to the communities > is considerably less strained, than the Foundation is to the overall > communities (besides the obvious locality of their relation). > > Dan, Brion, James, in particular thanks to you for arguing why my > overstatement was, well, an overstatement. But I still remain convinced > that the view of the Board as having the role of leading the movement is > merely an accident of the fact that we have no other obvious leadership, > and that the Board is being sucked into that vacuum. It is not designed to > be so, and, I argue, due to the legal and formal obligations, it shouldn't. > > MZMcBride, I currently lack the time to answer to your specific and > excellent points in particular. Sorry. I hope to come back to it. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Thus, not the senate, but assembly is the right form of our > > > organization: assembly which would select *paid* Board members. > > > Besides the load, I want Board members to be accountable to > > > Wikimedians, not to the for-profit or non-profit entities which give > > > them money. > > > > > > > I am not, and have not been employed by any Wikimedia organization. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's scary to be accountable to people you lead. I completely > > > understand that. > > > > > > > I have no idea where you get this idea from in my letter. I am not scared > > to be accountable to people I lead, and I hope I have stated my readiness > > in this department clearly. > > > > > > > > > > The costs of having 100 people assembly won't be significant at all. > > > First of all, the most of the people in such large body would be > > > anyways mostly consisted of those going to Wikimedia Conference and > > > Wikimania. If you really care about money, scale the initial body to > > > 40-50 and ask all chapters that sending three or more people to those > > > conferences to contribute expenses for one to such body. If you put > > > that way, the costs could rise up to ~5%, if they raise at all. > > > > > > > If you envisage a large, 100 people assembly during Wikimania or > Wikimedia > > Conference, then indeed it is possible to arrange without significant > > additional cost. However, I believe this is basically an entirely > different > > idea than the one Denny described (or at least the one I understood we're > > discussing). An assembly would be a body who would voice their opinion > only > > once a year in practice, most likely. I'm not sure what exactly would it > > do, but surely it would be difficult for it to agree/vote on situations > > happening within a span of weeks, rather than months. > > > > > > > > > > So, please, reconsider your ideas on the line: from speaking about bad > > > bureaucracy, while in fact increasing inefficient one -- to thinking > > > about efficient, democratically accountable bureaucracy, with > > > everybody content by its construction. > > > > > > > I am not convinced if a body of 100 people meeting once a year is an > > efficient way to reduce bureaucracy. Of course views may differ. > > > > > > > > > > Said everything above, I have to express that I am pissed off by the > > > fact that the Board members are constructive as long as they are under > > > high level of pressure. Whenever you feel a bit more empowered, I hear > > > just the excuses I've been listening for a decade. > > > > > > > I am saddened you have this perception. > > https://xkcd.com/552/ > > > > > > > > > > Please, let us know how do you want to talk with us in the way that we > > > see that the communication is constructive. > > > > > > That is a good topic for a separate thread! Currently, the list we use is > > limited to 1500 English speakers. > > > > An idea that I have been trying to champion for a while was also > > community-liaisons: community elected people whose responsibility is > > day-to-day communication with the WMF and back. This would not be a > > decisive role, and it is independent from whether we have a senate or > > assembly or not, but could at least increase the reach of communication > and > > decision making in some areas. > > > > Also, discourse is a platform that perhaps will take off at some point. > > > > dj > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
