[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust

Fri Nov 11 19:10:51 UTC 2011

Ohai Achal

As usual, I disagree. I am a bit more informed of the current situation
than most people, maybe not as much as the current WMF advisory board
member but who knows.

My opinion on this is from a regular community member before much of the
community in other cities was active. I am not affiliated with the chapter
or the India operations.

Honestly, from my proximity, and I have been in close proximity for a while
to both entities, there is some tension and a sense of antagonism on a lot
of issues. The fact they can't and usually don't co-ordinate before, only
heightens the issue.

As for solicitation and being open for the famed India education program, I
recall mentioning this to Hisham when he first brought it up, weeks after
he was hired. My opinion at the time, and now is, he did it in the wrong
city, the wrong colleges and with the wrong people. I still stand by my
opinion.

You brought up Anirudh's physical presence as affecting his judgement about
the chapter. I would like to point out that the India offices are located
in Delhi, the foundation offices in San Francisco, neither of those put you
in a better position to comment than Anirudh. Many chapters and you can
check if you like, have board members who are not resident or are
temporarily resident outside a country. It is usually a chapter's decision,
if they have objections or not.

As for the Media getting it wrong, well, it's sad you can't correct
everyone on what the "Movement" is or where it should be headed.

Theo

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Achal Prabhala <aprabhala at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hallo Anirudh, Lodewijk,
>
> While I think that this discussion is very useful, it has been happening
> for some time - I know that Anirudh has raised these questions before,
> for instance. In that sense, I'm not sure how the registration of a
> trust changes the situation at all; I think that for anyone involved
> with the Wikimedia movement in India, the relationship between the
> Foundation entity in India and the India chapter has been perceived as
> an interesting, evolving - and highly experimental - situation, at least
> since the strategic plan was concluded.
>
> To repeat, I think this discussion is very useful, but I think it's
> important to remember that the situation is neither new nor unexpected.
> Having said that:
>
> On Friday 11 November 2011 10:09 AM, Anirudh Bhati wrote:
> > My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or
> the
> > Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
>
> I'd be interested in understanding what the India chapter and the
> WikiConference India organising committee (to name one formal community
> grouping outside either the chapter or foundation) think of the
> Foundation's presence in India. In my own personal experience, there
> have been large periods of time when the India chapter was not as active
> as it is now; there have also been (as can be expected) many differences
> of opinion between community groupings in India. To that extent, and
> assuming good faith, have the presence of several entities (formal and
> informal) helped balance out periods of inactivity or dysfunction among
> all involved?
>
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk<lodewijk at effeietsanders.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much
> >> interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust and
> >> Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or
> on
> >> the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
> Wikimedia
> >> India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
> country I
> >> could imagine them to have a say in it.
> >>
> > Nope.  Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India
> > Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the
> > Wikimedia India Program Trust.  And given that not many people are going
> to
> > talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
>
> There appears to be a strong sense of exclusion you are expressing here,
> which I think it's important to bring up. I'm curious to understand if
> it's a more widespread feeling - are there others who were consulted? Or
> weren't but felt they should be? My own understanding of the program is
> that the India Education Program involved people who elected to get
> involved - as a community member, I, for instance, know very little
> about it because I feel I have nothing to contribute there. More
> importantly, does the chapter feel it was inadequately consulted? And
> does it feel like it was in a position to contribute more? I think this
> would be very interesting to probe a little further.
>
>
> >
> >> How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention
> that
> >> there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the
> >> default or the exception?
> >
> > > From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune
> > community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been
> > excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning.  In
> fact,
> > the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when
> Frank
> > Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
> >
> >
> >> And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of
> >> contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia?
> Will
> >> they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if they
> >> dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will
> the
> >> chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
> >>
> > I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two
> entities
> > operating out of India.  Going by the media, news reporters are already
> > very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally
> get
> > a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of
> > Wikimedia offices.  With its paid consultants, the local WMF consultants
> > have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in Western
> > India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from WMF
> > (the "international organization") than WMIN.
>
> Honestly, news reporters in India are confused about *everything*
> related to Wikipedia and Wikimedia :) Even a cursory analysis of news
> coverage will confirm that they routinely mix up what the movement is,
> what the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is,
> what the difference between a chapter member and a staff member is, etc.
> And as someone who has been following this from the outset, I can say
> with some confidence that this has nothing to do with the chapter and
> the Foundation in India, rather, just our own complicated terminology
> and insider-language, and a general laziness on the part of Indian news
> media to learn the details. Basically, we'd still get completely whacky
> press coverage even if there was no chapter and no Foundation entity.
>
> >
> > The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another
> > non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to
> > execute specific (and large-scale) programmes.  As of now, the WIPT
> > (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
> with
> > the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
> have
> > paid employees and bypass community.  This is what I foresee happening:
> >   WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
> which
> > support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in
> > India (who are understandably looking to club with international
> > organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants
> > (since WMIN is not a professional body).  WMIN and WIPT will
> theoretically
> > compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
> WIPT,
> > given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and
> > in WMF's good graces.  This is how WMIN has been made redundant
> (something
> > that I have been saying for a long, long time).
>
> I think it's a little premature to say that WMIN has been made
> redundant. As someone who helped the chapter group, right from 2008, for
> the India chapter to be made redundant would mean that some 3+ years of
> work and involvement on my part is flushed down the toilet. If that's
> the case, or is ever made the case, I'll be shouting on the streets -
> but it isn't, and I'm not sure it's anyone's intention.
>
> For instance, Anirudh, the fact that you are on the board of the India
> chapter, but don't live in India anymore (you live in Cambodia now,
> right?), leads me to believe that your involvement with India-based
> activities, or leading efforts on the ground, is necessarily at a
> minimum. Don't you think that overall, the effectiveness of the India
> chapter is a consequence of the involvement and productivity of its
> members? I recall a host of recent events - the WikiAcademy for
> librarians in Bangalore, a widely attended copyright seminar, the AGM,
> elections, regular newsletters - that are testament to the fact that the
> India chapter is not - and doesn't want to be - "redundant". But perhaps
> this is something the chapter can clarify more officially.
>
> I'm not saying that there are no issues of overlap to sort out; I am
> saying that from my perspective it does not seem like there is anything
> close to the level of antagonism or redundancy you describe in your email.
>
> >
> > The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking
> > about, is in the distribution of money.  The WIPT in India will have
> access
> > to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning *real
> > significant*).  Around the time when discussions about the India Office
> > began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be here
> > for a period of 3-5 years.  I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick
> to
> > its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven
> > projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale
> > programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no relevant
> > background (with a couple of exceptions).
>
> Like you, I read of the India Education Program's work with some
> concern. While I think that serious analysis and introspection is in
> order, I think it's a little premature to jump on this incident and
> dismiss the entire scope of potential Foundation activity in India.
>
> I share your concerns overall, but I think we can be concerned without
> launching an outright offensive against all Foundation staff, right?
> Think back to some of the tough moments the India chapter has had to
> face from Indian community groupings - the chapter was then placed in
> the position that the Foundation now finds itself in, i.e. being "the
> man" - and I don't think it would have helped anyone to run this kind of
> black/white, I'm good/ you're bad dialogue.
>
> >
> >
> >> Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
> >>
> > No, thank you for asking the right questions.
>
> Thank you too, for opening up the discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Achal
>
> >
> >
> >> Lodewijk
> >>
> >>
> > anirudh
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>