Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 14/08/07, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
My take at this stage, and that is a personal opinion, is that it is high time that people like you and I, who feel they are part of "the community", organize themselves so as to be able to present a valid partner to the organisation.
By valid partner, I meant that saying "this is not working, fix it" is in my opinion, not the way to go. I'd rather hear something along the lines of "this is not working, here is how to fix it, here are the people that can fix it and here is how much it takes to fix it. Give us the money -- organisational framework in my acception of the term-- to fix it".
I like this idea and I like to think I have already started to work like this. (Well, I say, 'this is not working, toolserver person that is my friend, can you please write something that does a close enough job?' - it's doing pretty well for us so far. *grins*)
But this is a little problematic. When should a person feel they can start to speak on behalf of their project, or even a faction within their project? Because if all volunteers are equal, or equally volunteery, then there is no compelling reason to listen to one more than another. Does this make sense? If I was to try and approach a group that I thought could make a good partnership with Commons, what can I say? None of the volunteer editors have any authority to speak on behalf of their project or the Foundation. "I'm one of two hundred other geeks with way too much spare time. is that compelling?" :)
Maybe no one feels like they can or should speak with authority. For editing a huge collaborative project that seems to actually work reasonably well. But in other aspects, for example figuring out a priority list of problems, I suspect it works less well.
I also think with some trepidation of the Wikibooks-Lulu press debacle of July 06. Danny's posts were not encouraging: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/foundation-l/2006-July/021541.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/foundation-l/2006-July/021569.html Jimmy having the book removed from Lulu http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/foundation-l/2006-July/021567.html Danny: "It is the bad result of people acting unilaterally on behalf of the Foundation without fully understanding the implications of what they are doing." Jimmy: "this is not an issue of the foundation versus the community, but rather about an individual versus both the community and the foundation. We should have been told first, there should have been a discussion and some consideration given to a number of important factors."
Obviously we are not the same people we were then...
Nonetheless we (and by "we", I mean "I") intend to act in a way that is more bringing solved -problems to the Board, and asking for the official tick-off, rather than the traditional approach of "we're drowning, rescue us NOW".
Anyway, the point is that Commons now has some plans for some good initiatives, and Official People are at least vaguely aware of them, and thus we can expect our relationship to progress to a thing of symbiotic beauty revered by all. Or something. I spent too long trying to word this right and now it's time for tea. :)
cheers Brianna
I have been munching over this in the past few days. Tough, because it involves many issues, amongst which, the latter:
I also remember the debacle of the Lulu story. Since then, many points have been discussed internally, and I think it is fair to summarize it this way.
The content is public. Anyone can publish a book, or a DVD or a calendar or whatever, without having to ask any authorization to anyone. That's the point of the free license. As long as the license is respected, that is fine.
The logos (such as Wikipedia) are copyrighted by the Foundation. The names are trademarks. Some are registered in some countries, not all of them; but even non registered, there is something to consider. As such, any use of these (logo or name) must get the approval of the Foundation (or of a chapter, but let us keep things simple :-)). Ideally, the authorization should be given on a written document (contract). There are many reasons for this, which I will not detail here.
There might be a financial interest (if we negociate a financial compensation for the use of logo+names), but even beyond financial considerations, there are serious PR and legal reasons. As soon as the logo and the name appear on an object, from a public perspective, the Foundation appears to be the one in charge of the product. At a minimum, the Foundation appears supportive. If one distribute a calendar of free landscapes, this is very nice. If one distribute a calendar with pictures of naked children, this is far from a good idea.
So, in short, any project involving the use of the name and logo, should get the green light of the Foundation. If it involves only content, and the Foundation complains, you can tell us to shake it of.
Now, the second thing is about the authority. This might be the stickiest point. And believe it or not, this is one of my big worry for the future. Let me pick up a couple of examples, which, I am *sure* will resonnate in your brain. I was working on our organigram today. This is hopeless. I can somehow draw some lines of authority, some lines of communication, but the whole lot is messy. And my biggest fear right now is how the balance of authority will settle between volunteers and staff members.
If I pick up accounting, that's really easy. Aside from the board, no volunteers deal with accounting any more. And why would they ? Accounting is just a mean to reach our goals. It is not a position of "decision", at least, not on the projects.
if I pick up legal, there is a good sense that the lawyer of the Foundation will have final authority on legal matters threatening the Foundation. Fair enough.
If I pick up communication, this is already more tricky. 5 years ago, before I was on the board, I used to handle press a lot. I helped writing press release, I answered journalists. Just as a volunteer. Usually anon. Now, a lot of press stuff is handled by 1) staff, 2) communication committee and 3) chapter people. With the arrival of Sandy, when there is a sticky topic, we get "speaking points" from Sandy. The current trend (the one I see :-)) is more and more a situation where someone of authority in the staff, write down the official view of the Foundation. And this view, you better respect, as if you do not, you are sharply told you should avoid showing any disagreement between board members publicly. Public announcement are written by the staff, even if announced by chair. And then speaking points are used by communication committee members. And sometimes chapters. Whilst this has obviously important benefits, it is a bit disturbing trend. In a situation where committees are not very open, not very diverse and not easily renewed, this results in a certain mindset. Now, if a project community writes a press release, which is corrected by WMF staff and which lists as press contacts exclusively WMF, what happens ? Who communicates ? If WMF staff know wikimedia commons very well, that is cool, but what if not ? Who has the "authority" to answer the press ? to inform the press ? Besides, WMF being forced to have a physical location, and this one being in the USA, quite naturally, most staff hired will be american, and chance is that a large part of it will not be an original wikipedian. This constitute my fear for the future. Growing is necessary. But growth should not occur with WMF being in charge of too many areas, but only of those where it really make sense. Community must stay in charge in a large part, with the support of the Foundation.
If I pick up technical, another situation occur. Part of the technical control is in the hands of the staff. Of course ! Both because they are known and trusted by the WMF management. And because they have tech access. Not so for other developers. Who are not so well known, who may not know who to contact, or when, who do not have shell access. It seems logical that the hardware be in charge of the WMF, since we are hosting. But not so logical that we control the software so much, as the evolution of this latter should primarily be driven by community needs. Should WMF be more of a facilitator or more of a leader ? Who should make the software decisions ? How much authority results in being in the staff, versus not ? How to make sure to hear the voices of those not in the staff ? Again, this is a fear I have.
What I know however, Brianna, is that the more volunteers will take the lead, the more chance there is that the Foundation is a facilitator. The more volunteers will adopt a passive attitude, will voice expectations rather than push their own dreams, the more people will take the easy road, the more "authority" will get in Foundation hands.
Anyway, the point is that Commons now has some plans for some good initiatives, and Official People are at least vaguely aware of them, and thus we can expect our relationship to progress to a thing of symbiotic beauty revered by all.
Fully agree. But remember that "Official People are at least vaguely aware". Stress the "vaguely" :-)))
ant