Now I'm the one that's amused.
Before anyone goes jumping to conclusions: I am not throwing my hat in the
COO ring, interim or not. Believe it or not, I hadn't thought about it.
But thanks for the vote of confidence ;)
As with any other submission made here, my suggestions are to take as you
choose. I mention my background simply to give a context to where my ideas
come from. I don't know anyone here directly, any more than any of you know
me.
The discussion is familiar from the development sector here. Ours is large,
diverse and vibrant (estimated at 8% of the economy and the largest
employer). And in a state of major confusion at present because of the way
that donors have changed and the old supply-side system of development is in
the process of being shoved aside. Many organisations here are trying to
figure out how to adapt, while keeping hosts of volunteers happy and
involved. Sometimes that sort of thing can go terribly wrong.
Non-profit organisations can be divided loosely into two major areas:
reaction and proaction. Reactionary stuff is relatively straightforward -
floods, wars, famines, medical emergencies and so on. Pro-action is more
difficult. It relies on predicting the future and what we think may be
best. It's a guess, and hopefully an educated one. I've never worked on
the reactionary side and so spend my time "guessing" at the best way to
achieve what has already been achieved in more developed nations. It isn't
easy and everyone has a different idea, not only of the future, but also of
the path to get there.
Anthony you have interpreted me well: "... that the Wikimedia board has no
clue how best to organize itself so as to accomplish that mission ..." That
is what I understand and it seems an awfully large responsibility to dump
onto the shoulders of your new COO.
Surely you should agree on some basics first and declare them unequivocally?
Then give your COO time and space to figure it out without having to answer
"are we there yet?" questions every few minutes. It would be best to agree
on these things before you even start recruiting so that anyone applying
knows what they're letting themselves in for.
Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that the Wikimedia Foundation can have no position on such an
>> issue. We are neutral, politically.
>
> Well, the more recent of the bills, H.R.5417, is a bi-partisan bill.
> So it's not 'really' that huge of a "political" issue.
What's relevant, from a nonprofit organization's point of view, is not
whether the bill is "bipartisan". Merely the fact that it's a bill
proposed in a legislature makes it political, in the sense that it would
potentially involve the Foundation in political lobbying. Any such
involvement would have to be done carefully and in a limited fashion to
preserve nonprofit status. Probably not based on generalized
philosophical sympathies, but focused on issues that are specifically
relevant to our mission.
--Michael Snow
Recently, legislation in the United States House of Representatives
has been introduced that may have an impact on Wikimedia. The bills in
question are H.R. 5252 and H.R. 5417, and can be seen in their
entirety by searching for them on http://thomas.loc.gov/ . The
aforementioned bills deal with "net neutrality", restricting phone and
cable companies' ability to control aspects of the Internet and its
distribution.
As this may have a direct impact on Wikimedia Foundation, I was
wondering if WMF had an official position on the matter. "Internet"
companies such as Yahoo, Google, eBay, and others have made their
official positions known, so I was wondering if WMF had discussed this
issue. If I am just way behind the times, would someone mind
directing me to the appropriate location? Thanks.
--LV
Accountability is created by the tension that exists between groups that
watch each other. Having a set of committees reporting to a single board is
simply a pyramid.
A director (CEO, whatever you wish to call the position) and their team is
one locus of control. A board is another. The board's task is to offer
guidance, select individuals to perform specific tasks, remove
non-performers from office and so on. But the actual running of the
organisation is left to the director and team.
Reconstituting Anthere's list of committees into a set of line functions
overseen by a director would look as follows:
* Finance and internal audit - task is to ensure bookkeeping, and audit, as
well as assist auditors appointed by board; insurance can be pasted in here
as well.
* Chapters - I'm assuming this has some oversight of the projects?
* Communications and Public Relations - press releases, events, promotions,
as well as watching media for outside coverage, etc.
* Information technology and technical development - server maintenance and
development
* Special projects - should this simply be part of an enlarged Chapters
role?
* Legal - specialist required in international law, trademarks, etc.
* Fundraising - works closely with communications and PR
* HR and admin - if you are going to have an office, you need to ensure it
gets cleaned, stocked with coffee / tea, salaries paid on time, contracts
drawn up ... that sort of thing
* Director / CEO - the boss, and reports directly to the board
These are all simply technical roles - there is no assumption that they
would be a single person, or a group, simply tasks that may need to be
performed. The board gets standardised feedback and has the right to
intervene to fire the director or any of the other role-players. The board
does not run the operation, it simply has oversight and ultimate control.
The director knows that they report to the board.
Board's normally do not require a massive time commitment and so they can be
stocked with celebrities who are able to open doors (and consequently make
the fundraising task a lot easier).
Typically, any organisation has the following core requirements:
* financial control
* marketing
* strategic planning
* operational support (includes: IT, legal, HR and so on)
You could, depending on the work-load, bundle many of these tasks together:
* finance, internal audit, admin, hr
* IT, technical development
* chapters, special projects
* communications, PR, fundraising
* legal
* director
So then you need six people in your head office. Your board could be as
large as you like (remembering that the bigger your board, the harder it is
to get everyone to get together at the same time, or agree on anything).
The overall strategy - it goes without saying - can be the responsibility of
the board. Implementation belongs to the director.
Anthere again:
"Generally, I believe the projects will not accept *anyone* as head of a
project, with absolute power. The projects organise themselves
independently of the Foundation, only respecting the general goal of
the project and a couple of core rules (licence, wikilove and neutrality
essentially)."
I don't suggest anything like absolute power (editorial control, that sort
of thing) but it is useful to have a person in charge who keeps track of
what is going on. They act as champion for the project. If you really want
to create a Chinese wall between the Foundation and its projects then you
have to have someone at any particular project that the Foundation can talk
to. Someone has to guarantee the core rules will be applied.
It's no good simply cutting a perfectly good project loose when it crosses
the line. Someone, tasked with championing the project, should have the job
of keeping the project inside those lines ... as gently as possible. Only
when they completely loose the ability to control those guidelines should a
project be cut.
Being a volunteer is a little like being a super hero. The world is always
in trouble and everyone is happy to have the superhero round to save the
day. If Superman charged US$ 1 million / hour we'd certainly use him more
appropriately than to rescue Fluffy from a tree or continually stop bank
robbers. He could invade Iraq on his own, for instance.
Volunteers are thought to be always available. Who cares what their main
skills are or what else they may be doing. Heaven forbid they should get
tired and need a vacation - hurry back soon.
WMF has gotten big. Very quickly. An organisation that could be easily
understood and navigated by a few volunteers now needs a lot more effort.
I'm sure developing the job description for the CEO was a useful exercise.
The CEO is the Chief Executive Officer. I stress this. They are there to
execute tasks. A large number of the objectives and responsibilities listed
by the board are left very vague: "as defined by the board of directors",
"consistent with board-approved policies".
It is no good starting with a CEO and then figuring out who needs to be
hired next and what they're going to be doing. It's as bad as hiring an
office with no idea of who needs to be there.
Imagine going on a road trip with no map, no idea of where you are, and then
giving the job of steering to a CEO who has to take directions from the
committee in the back seat who never declare where they want to go for fear
of hurting people who want to go somewhere else.
I reiterate: first develop the system you wish to see in its entirety;
list all the tasks, responsibilities and line functions as they relate to
each other and along with their dependencies; group related tasks together
as single areas of responsibility; decide on the tools necessary to support
these functions ... and so on.
Once this is in place then it is easier to hire people and easier for them
to know what they do on Day 1, and thereafter.
The newly hired professionals may still not know where WMF is going, but at
least they can keep everything running in tip-top condition until a way
forward is presented.
On Fri, June 2, 2006 14:56, Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 6/2/06, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia(a)alisonwheeler.com> wrote:
>> For any charitable foundation which expects and *needs* to retain the
freely-donated level of work of its volunteers to engage a COO (as that
is
>> what the description is far closer too rather than a CEO - see next mail!)
>> without (a) advertising the position to its membership and generally, (b)
>> publicising the shortlisted candidates under consideration in some manner,
>> and (c) having an open recruitment process throughout, would seem to be
very contrary to good corporate governance.
>
> Why would a shortlist need to be publicised? Do you mean actually
listing the names of the candidates, or simply stating that "there is a
short list of candidates"? I am not sure posting the names of those
"still in the running" is that common a practice. Or are you
> referring to more publicity within the higher-ups of the Foundation?
My own view is both. Whilst it might not be a common practice it certainly
happens in some charities/foundations and WMF / wikiprojects generally are
a special case to my mind in that we have a *very* large number of people
involved at editing and sysop management level, with a very *very* small
fiscal/legal/organising operation trying to co-ordinate it all. That
co-ordination function has, I think everyone realises, not been working as
well as it could have in many ways. There are possible solutions I
believe, and being open about the process of trying to improve the
situation is one of the ways to get the buy-in from the general
wikipedians to the required structure.
We are an open project and, imho, our recruitment at the most senior
positions needs to be as open as possible. Whilst I would not expect to
see wikipedians 'voting' on the appointment - there are too many legal and
capability considerations for that to be at all a possibility - the wider
knowledge of the class of people coming forward for the job, and the
general knowledge that the WMF has chosen the *best* available rather than
the nearest/easiest/cheapest available can only be a good thing for wider
support around our projects.
Alison Wheeler
Anthere:
> There is something hugely upsetting in the comments I read in this thread.
> It is seeing people complain things are not publicly discussed...
> but who do not even comments when the issues are raised publicly.
> It is seeing people complain things are not done...
> but they do not do things themselves.
> It is seeing people complain we do not welcome their help...
> but they say no when we ask them.
Anthere, it is difficult to argue against generalisations. Several people
who argued in this thread are doing a lot,
be it in Mediawiki activities that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the
board or any subcommittee. Do you accept critical remarks only from people
that you work with every day?
Clearly all comments in this thread are here because an issue was indeed
raised publicly, namely about Mediawiki core values.
I for one consider it good taste not to reply on a thread unless I feel I
have something new to contribute and feel strongly about the issue.
So from me no 'yes, I think so too' replies. Actually I only send part of
the replies that I write and occasionaly only after several revisions and
more thought. Hopelessly out of touch with the IRC generation.
If people are overdemanding here and plainly work-shy everywhere else please
be specific.
Even then, it is one of the preconditions for a non-autocratic system that
people in a position of power answer to the public at large regardless of
what specific members of the public are doing themselves, at least those
members read posts and ask questions and show they are involved to a certain
degree.
In the outside world, in established political systems of any kind, power
corrupts almost without exception. Lip service is paid to a free press until
one has to deal with those 'press mosquitos' oneself, those people who
'always whine' and 'should start to do somethings themselves for the country
instead of scandalizing good people' etc etc. Clearly we do things
differently here and need not worry, or do we?
If your answer to people who ask critical questions is to discredit them, I
start to worry even more that Wikimedia has come close to the outside world.
Please let us not get personal. I respect your work for Mediawiki a lot.
Please assume good faith of others.
Erik Zachte
I have contacted El Wiki about their logo and trademark usage. I have not heard back. This situation will escalate if I don't hear from them.
--------------------------
Brad Patrick
Fowler White Boggs Banker
bpatrick(a)fowlerwhite.com
(813)-454-3420 cel/BB
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org <foundation-l-bounces(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu Jun 01 21:41:43 2006
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] jobs
Anthere schrieb:
> 10) Business development : I need someone to help figuring out how much
> are trademarks are worth. Example : if we make a dvd, how much to ask
> per item. If we make a board game : how much to ask per item.
The Wikimedia trademarks won't be worth a damn in the near future
because the Wikimedia Foundation does nothing to prevent them from
becoming generics.
No offense meant to you, you've done your best.
greetings,
elian
PS: second enquiry: Has anything been done about
http://onepiece.elwiki.com/index.php/Main_Page and the
[http://www.elwiki.com/gallery.php rest]?
PPS: Wikimedia Deutschland got 1 Euro per sold DVD, to answer your question.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
>> On 6/1/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com> did not write:
>>
>> A process whereby every committee holds open, widely announced
>> meetings and where advisor status is granted instantly without
>> bureaucratic process was discussed, but does not seem to be practiced
>> by any of the committees.
>>
> I don't know if anyone has pointed out to you, but the Communications
> Committee holds weekly IRC meetings which are open to the public and
> everyone is invited to participate.
> These meetings are scheduled on the Meta comcom page,
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee. I'm sure it was
> simply an oversight on your part to use grand generalizations without
> being certain of their veracity.
> Amgine
Amgine, I'm sure it was simply an oversight on your part, but this quote
isn't mine :)
Erik Zachte