Dear all,
I apologize on beforehand if I come across rude and insensitive in this email. I do however feel the need to be super clear about this important topic and do not want to fuzzify that with cuddling words.
I am very sorry to realize that since Frankfurt, we have not been able to hang on to our optimistic agenda setting. We planned summer 2010 for an inclusive process, involving people and allowing for input with a gradual process. Unfortunately, for many reasons that are not helpful to discuss, there was no real involvement until Frankfurt from the chapters or real life community outside the working group to think about what this movement should be shaped like.
After Frankfurt, people had unexpected time commitment issues, which can't really be helped. It took somewhat longer to get the matrix out, and as expected (considering the complexity) there was not a huge amount of feedback. Now also the New Models email has been delayed.
In todays irc meeting with 4 participants from this mailing list it was apparently decided that things are not going well and that we should leave the agreed path. Jon apparently had a discussion with Arne, and I understand that the path forward now would be to start writing a draft of a charter and publish that next week. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think that is the wrong way to go - because clearly I did not come across in the IRC meeting. If everybody feels this is the way to go I will submit to that of course.
The charter is our final goal - a piece of text that every single organization in our movement can and will agree upon. This is a task that should not be taken lightly and for granted - this will be very very hard. It will be possible to make compromizes up to 50 or 75% of the organizations to agree, but to have such a vast supermajority requires more. My feeling is and has always been that people need to feel owner of the problem to be able to allow solutions to become effective. They need to understand what we try to fix before they can accept that the situation might have to change. Otherwise we will not get further than describing the status quo. And I think at least in Frankfurt we all agreed that would not be a Good Thing.
To have people feel owner of the problem, they need to be actively involved in discussions. This is what currently is not happening. We agreed on a time path with several emails to be sent out with respect to tough topics - this would have made people aware of the needs, and perhaps involved them in the discussion. Skipping this step now and just start drafting in our corner (or even on meta) means that we could just as well not have had a process at all - because it would basically be exactly where we were in August 2009 in Buenos Aires - a bunch of people came up with a draft. The only difference would be that we spent this time a lot of effort in setting up a good process - which we then ignored.
Such a draft can be received in a few ways. It can be plainly ignored by most organizations because they don't see the importance or relevance to their situation. When it gets serious about signing, these people will finally wake up and see all the problems and bureaucracy it will cause - and they don't feel owner. Therefore they will not object to voting against it and therefore making it a failure. Another option is that people will protest on all the details that they don't like. You probably have seen enough discussions on foundation-l to imagine such a situation. After all, it is an external document, that is being put forward. They don't feel the need for it, they don't see the issues. And a final option is that things will just remain descriptive of the status quo. Then we will have to have these exact discussions which we set up this process and working group for, for fundraising (Barry is already doing that even) and other topics which are not clearly defined.
In my opinion the only way forward is to involve people. And we cannot do that just by the few hours that Austin can spend on this - as a group we need to reach out to the people we know, we need to spark discussions and see where they go. That is only possible if we invest time into it. If we do not depend just on the single person who was in charge. Also, I hope that Jon and Austin can be more direct in describing what still has to happen, and who needs to do what. And are you not able to make a committed time commitment? Sure, that can happen and I will not see you any less for it - but please tell us as soon as you realize it so that other people can help out.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
Hi,
this is not a reply to Lodewijk, only something that gets into my mind today, espacially after some expressions of disappointment. And to make it clear: I am disappointed, too.
I am one of those people Lodewijk mentioned, who are overloaded with work these days. And I really have a problem which can be described as the dilemma of pulled and pushed information. I really didn't realize that there was some important work on the charter draft. And I didn't realize the interesting group-thoughts on meta. Not because I am not interested but because I just cannot collect everything everywhere. So please, please, please: Just a short notice on this list if something is happening where you (and this "you" is everyone doing something in the mr-area) expect the help from us, the rest of this group.
And what I strongly recommend: Ask here for support for the charter first, share your thoughts on the timeline and your ideas of pushing things forward. It is ok to discuss it and openly talk about the delays. It was somehow confusing to hear in the IRC about moving the draft to meta before we have any discussion here. We all should try to save something from the cooperation and engagement we experienced in Frankfurt, but perhaps we need a nudge sometimes and a broad hint as often as possible ;)
Is this the place to start the work on the charter: http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter ?
Best regards, Alice.
Hi Alice
Great to see you on the chat this weekend.
Yes, there is important work to do on the draft charter. In Frankfurt, we said that we wanted to put a draft onto meta on Mar 10. Between now and then we only have left one IRC chat - this Friday at 1100. It would be great if you (and everyone else) can help edit the draft, and if we can discuss on Friday any points of contention that are arising.
And yes, you have the right place: http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter
Best regards
Jon Jon Huggett +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com www.huggett.com Skype jon.huggett
On Feb 25, 2011, at 22:24 , Alice Wiegand wrote:
Hi,
this is not a reply to Lodewijk, only something that gets into my mind today, espacially after some expressions of disappointment. And to make it clear: I am disappointed, too.
I am one of those people Lodewijk mentioned, who are overloaded with work these days. And I really have a problem which can be described as the dilemma of pulled and pushed information. I really didn't realize that there was some important work on the charter draft. And I didn't realize the interesting group-thoughts on meta. Not because I am not interested but because I just cannot collect everything everywhere. So please, please, please: Just a short notice on this list if something is happening where you (and this "you" is everyone doing something in the mr-area) expect the help from us, the rest of this group.
And what I strongly recommend: Ask here for support for the charter first, share your thoughts on the timeline and your ideas of pushing things forward. It is ok to discuss it and openly talk about the delays. It was somehow confusing to hear in the IRC about moving the draft to meta before we have any discussion here. We all should try to save something from the cooperation and engagement we experienced in Frankfurt, but perhaps we need a nudge sometimes and a broad hint as often as possible ;)
Is this the place to start the work on the charter: http://movementroles.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charter ?
Best regards, Alice.
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Dear Lodewijk
Thanks for your thoughts. I think we are all concerned that we are falling behind the ambitious plan set in Frankfurt.
A practical question for you. In Frankfurt we set the date of March 3 to put on meta our thoughts on "finances, flow of money", with you as the lead for this effort.[1] Would you like to discuss this on the chat on Friday, March 4?
Either way, could let us know, or edit the agenda?[2]
Cheers
Jon
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/2011-01-29/notes#Next_... [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_...
Jon Huggett +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com www.huggett.com Skype jon.huggett
On Feb 25, 2011, at 21:09 , Lodewijk wrote:
Dear all,
I apologize on beforehand if I come across rude and insensitive in this email. I do however feel the need to be super clear about this important topic and do not want to fuzzify that with cuddling words.
I am very sorry to realize that since Frankfurt, we have not been able to hang on to our optimistic agenda setting. We planned summer 2010 for an inclusive process, involving people and allowing for input with a gradual process. Unfortunately, for many reasons that are not helpful to discuss, there was no real involvement until Frankfurt from the chapters or real life community outside the working group to think about what this movement should be shaped like.
After Frankfurt, people had unexpected time commitment issues, which can't really be helped. It took somewhat longer to get the matrix out, and as expected (considering the complexity) there was not a huge amount of feedback. Now also the New Models email has been delayed.
In todays irc meeting with 4 participants from this mailing list it was apparently decided that things are not going well and that we should leave the agreed path. Jon apparently had a discussion with Arne, and I understand that the path forward now would be to start writing a draft of a charter and publish that next week. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think that is the wrong way to go - because clearly I did not come across in the IRC meeting. If everybody feels this is the way to go I will submit to that of course.
The charter is our final goal - a piece of text that every single organization in our movement can and will agree upon. This is a task that should not be taken lightly and for granted - this will be very very hard. It will be possible to make compromizes up to 50 or 75% of the organizations to agree, but to have such a vast supermajority requires more. My feeling is and has always been that people need to feel owner of the problem to be able to allow solutions to become effective. They need to understand what we try to fix before they can accept that the situation might have to change. Otherwise we will not get further than describing the status quo. And I think at least in Frankfurt we all agreed that would not be a Good Thing.
To have people feel owner of the problem, they need to be actively involved in discussions. This is what currently is not happening. We agreed on a time path with several emails to be sent out with respect to tough topics - this would have made people aware of the needs, and perhaps involved them in the discussion. Skipping this step now and just start drafting in our corner (or even on meta) means that we could just as well not have had a process at all - because it would basically be exactly where we were in August 2009 in Buenos Aires - a bunch of people came up with a draft. The only difference would be that we spent this time a lot of effort in setting up a good process - which we then ignored.
Such a draft can be received in a few ways. It can be plainly ignored by most organizations because they don't see the importance or relevance to their situation. When it gets serious about signing, these people will finally wake up and see all the problems and bureaucracy it will cause - and they don't feel owner. Therefore they will not object to voting against it and therefore making it a failure. Another option is that people will protest on all the details that they don't like. You probably have seen enough discussions on foundation-l to imagine such a situation. After all, it is an external document, that is being put forward. They don't feel the need for it, they don't see the issues. And a final option is that things will just remain descriptive of the status quo. Then we will have to have these exact discussions which we set up this process and working group for, for fundraising (Barry is already doing that even) and other topics which are not clearly defined.
In my opinion the only way forward is to involve people. And we cannot do that just by the few hours that Austin can spend on this - as a group we need to reach out to the people we know, we need to spark discussions and see where they go. That is only possible if we invest time into it. If we do not depend just on the single person who was in charge. Also, I hope that Jon and Austin can be more direct in describing what still has to happen, and who needs to do what. And are you not able to make a committed time commitment? Sure, that can happen and I will not see you any less for it - but please tell us as soon as you realize it so that other people can help out.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hi Jon,
I was hoping first for a little more input on my email from members of this group before I continue. It is quite relevant whether we want to drop the discussions and move to a draft or first have an (extra) attempt to actually involve and make aware the group. If we choose for the first, I see no relevance for me to spend time on this.
It is also for the Flow of the Money discussion quite unfortunate that Barry already came forward with his proposals (although I can imagine that there are different time schedules to keep in mind) because this is about a very related topic and his proposal set the tone quite a lot - leaving little room to wiggle.
With kind regards
Lodewijk
2011/2/27 Jon Huggett jon.huggett@gmail.com
Dear Lodewijk
Thanks for your thoughts. I think we are all concerned that we are falling behind the ambitious plan set in Frankfurt.
A practical question for you. In Frankfurt we set the date of March 3 to put on meta our thoughts on "finances, flow of money", with you as the lead for this effort.[1] Would you like to discuss this on the chat on Friday, March 4?
Either way, could let us know, or edit the agenda?[2]
Cheers
Jon
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/2011-01-29/notes#Next_... [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_...
*Jon Huggett* +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com *www.huggett.com* Skype jon.huggett
On Feb 25, 2011, at 21:09 , Lodewijk wrote:
Dear all,
I apologize on beforehand if I come across rude and insensitive in this email. I do however feel the need to be super clear about this important topic and do not want to fuzzify that with cuddling words.
I am very sorry to realize that since Frankfurt, we have not been able to hang on to our optimistic agenda setting. We planned summer 2010 for an inclusive process, involving people and allowing for input with a gradual process. Unfortunately, for many reasons that are not helpful to discuss, there was no real involvement until Frankfurt from the chapters or real life community outside the working group to think about what this movement should be shaped like.
After Frankfurt, people had unexpected time commitment issues, which can't really be helped. It took somewhat longer to get the matrix out, and as expected (considering the complexity) there was not a huge amount of feedback. Now also the New Models email has been delayed.
In todays irc meeting with 4 participants from this mailing list it was apparently decided that things are not going well and that we should leave the agreed path. Jon apparently had a discussion with Arne, and I understand that the path forward now would be to start writing a draft of a charter and publish that next week. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think that is the wrong way to go - because clearly I did not come across in the IRC meeting. If everybody feels this is the way to go I will submit to that of course.
The charter is our final goal - a piece of text that every single organization in our movement can and will agree upon. This is a task that should not be taken lightly and for granted - this will be very very hard. It will be possible to make compromizes up to 50 or 75% of the organizations to agree, but to have such a vast supermajority requires more. My feeling is and has always been that people need to feel owner of the problem to be able to allow solutions to become effective. They need to understand what we try to fix before they can accept that the situation might have to change. Otherwise we will not get further than describing the status quo. And I think at least in Frankfurt we all agreed that would not be a Good Thing.
To have people feel owner of the problem, they need to be actively involved in discussions. This is what currently is not happening. We agreed on a time path with several emails to be sent out with respect to tough topics - this would have made people aware of the needs, and perhaps involved them in the discussion. Skipping this step now and just start drafting in our corner (or even on meta) means that we could just as well not have had a process at all
- because it would basically be exactly where we were in August 2009 in
Buenos Aires - a bunch of people came up with a draft. The only difference would be that we spent this time a lot of effort in setting up a good process - which we then ignored.
Such a draft can be received in a few ways. It can be plainly ignored by most organizations because they don't see the importance or relevance to their situation. When it gets serious about signing, these people will finally wake up and see all the problems and bureaucracy it will cause - and they don't feel owner. Therefore they will not object to voting against it and therefore making it a failure. Another option is that people will protest on all the details that they don't like. You probably have seen enough discussions on foundation-l to imagine such a situation. After all, it is an external document, that is being put forward. They don't feel the need for it, they don't see the issues. And a final option is that things will just remain descriptive of the status quo. Then we will have to have these exact discussions which we set up this process and working group for, for fundraising (Barry is already doing that even) and other topics which are not clearly defined.
In my opinion the only way forward is to involve people. And we cannot do that just by the few hours that Austin can spend on this - as a group we need to reach out to the people we know, we need to spark discussions and see where they go. That is only possible if we invest time into it. If we do not depend just on the single person who was in charge. Also, I hope that Jon and Austin can be more direct in describing what still has to happen, and who needs to do what. And are you not able to make a committed time commitment? Sure, that can happen and I will not see you any less for it - but please tell us as soon as you realize it so that other people can help out.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hi Lodewijk,
On 02/27/2011 02:11 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Jon,
I was hoping first for a little more input on my email from members of this group before I continue. It is quite relevant whether we want to drop the discussions and move to a draft or first have an (extra) attempt to actually involve and make aware the group. If we choose for the first, I see no relevance for me to spend time on this.
It is also for the Flow of the Money discussion quite unfortunate that Barry already came forward with his proposals (although I can imagine that there are different time schedules to keep in mind) because this is about a very related topic and his proposal set the tone quite a lot - leaving little room to wiggle.
I had mentioned in Frankfurt the point that there are issues that need to be taken up outside of the MR process in the short term. It would not be practical to wait on the MR process to end in order to create a FR agreement for 2011/12. IMO the conversation being had on the agreement is a good one and serves the MR process well. I'd recommend that the MR Money discussion build from the agreement discussion. Note: the FR agreement draft is not /Barry's proposal./ It is the WMF's proposal.
With kind regards
Lodewijk
2011/2/27 Jon Huggett <jon.huggett@gmail.com mailto:jon.huggett@gmail.com>
Dear Lodewijk Thanks for your thoughts. I think we are all concerned that we are falling behind the ambitious plan set in Frankfurt. A practical question for you. In Frankfurt we set the date of March 3 to put on meta our thoughts on "finances, flow of money", with you as the lead for this effort.[1] Would you like to discuss this on the chat on Friday, March 4? Either way, could let us know, or edit the agenda?[2] Cheers Jon [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/2011-01-29/notes#Next_steps [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_2011-3-4 *Jon Huggett* +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com <mailto:jon@huggett.com> _www.huggett.com_ Skype jon.huggett On Feb 25, 2011, at 21:09 , Lodewijk wrote:Dear all, I apologize on beforehand if I come across rude and insensitive in this email. I do however feel the need to be super clear about this important topic and do not want to fuzzify that with cuddling words. I am very sorry to realize that since Frankfurt, we have not been able to hang on to our optimistic agenda setting. We planned summer 2010 for an inclusive process, involving people and allowing for input with a gradual process. Unfortunately, for many reasons that are not helpful to discuss, there was no real involvement until Frankfurt from the chapters or real life community outside the working group to think about what this movement should be shaped like. After Frankfurt, people had unexpected time commitment issues, which can't really be helped. It took somewhat longer to get the matrix out, and as expected (considering the complexity) there was not a huge amount of feedback. Now also the New Models email has been delayed. In todays irc meeting with 4 participants from this mailing list it was apparently decided that things are not going well and that we should leave the agreed path. Jon apparently had a discussion with Arne, and I understand that the path forward now would be to start writing a draft of a charter and publish that next week. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think that is the wrong way to go - because clearly I did not come across in the IRC meeting. If everybody feels this is the way to go I will submit to that of course. The charter is our final goal - a piece of text that every single organization in our movement can and will agree upon. This is a task that should not be taken lightly and for granted - this will be very very hard. It will be possible to make compromizes up to 50 or 75% of the organizations to agree, but to have such a vast supermajority requires more. My feeling is and has always been that people need to feel owner of the problem to be able to allow solutions to become effective. They need to understand what we try to fix before they can accept that the situation might have to change. Otherwise we will not get further than describing the status quo. And I think at least in Frankfurt we all agreed that would not be a Good Thing. To have people feel owner of the problem, they need to be actively involved in discussions. This is what currently is not happening. We agreed on a time path with several emails to be sent out with respect to tough topics - this would have made people aware of the needs, and perhaps involved them in the discussion. Skipping this step now and just start drafting in our corner (or even on meta) means that we could just as well not have had a process at all - because it would basically be exactly where we were in August 2009 in Buenos Aires - a bunch of people came up with a draft. The only difference would be that we spent this time a lot of effort in setting up a good process - which we then ignored. Such a draft can be received in a few ways. It can be plainly ignored by most organizations because they don't see the importance or relevance to their situation. When it gets serious about signing, these people will finally wake up and see all the problems and bureaucracy it will cause - and they don't feel owner. Therefore they will not object to voting against it and therefore making it a failure. Another option is that people will protest on all the details that they don't like. You probably have seen enough discussions on foundation-l to imagine such a situation. After all, it is an external document, that is being put forward. They don't feel the need for it, they don't see the issues. And a final option is that things will just remain descriptive of the status quo. Then we will have to have these exact discussions which we set up this process and working group for, for fundraising (Barry is already doing that even) and other topics which are not clearly defined. In my opinion the only way forward is to involve people. And we cannot do that just by the few hours that Austin can spend on this - as a group we need to reach out to the people we know, we need to spark discussions and see where they go. That is only possible if we invest time into it. If we do not depend just on the single person who was in charge. Also, I hope that Jon and Austin can be more direct in describing what still has to happen, and who needs to do what. And are you not able to make a committed time commitment? Sure, that can happen and I will not see you any less for it - but please tell us as soon as you realize it so that other people can help out. Best regards, Lodewijk _______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles_______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
On 02/27/2011 02:11 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Jon,
I was hoping first for a little more input on my email from members of this group before I continue. It is quite relevant whether we want to drop the discussions and move to a draft or first have an (extra) attempt to actually involve and make aware the group. If we choose for the first, I see no relevance for me to spend time on this.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm expecting that there'll be some good and diverse feedback on New Models once it's out - because people are interested in it, and it has a fair amount of detail - so it is easier to react to, in that sense.The internal-l discussion on flow of money does dovetail with MR to some extent too, not all.
While I too personally prefer to have much more feedback from others etc before embarking on the charter, circulating the table of contents + key questions in each section seems fine to me (unless I am missing something and much more is planned).
Building on all this, I think we should seriously focus our energies on how to get maximum and concrete feedback from chapter reps in Berlin - and craft the MR session/s at the Chapters Conference accordingly.
Best Bishakha
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/27/2011 02:11 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Jon, I was hoping first for a little more input on my email from members of this group before I continue. It is quite relevant whether we want to drop the discussions and move to a draft or first have an (extra) attempt to actually involve and make aware the group. If we choose for the first, I see no relevance for me to spend time on this.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm expecting that there'll be some good and diverse feedback on New Models once it's out - because people are interested in it, and it has a fair amount of detail - so it is easier to react to, in that sense.The internal-l discussion on flow of money does dovetail with MR to some extent too, not all.
While I too personally prefer to have much more feedback from others etc before embarking on the charter, circulating the table of contents + key questions in each section seems fine to me (unless I am missing something and much more is planned).
Building on all this, I think we should seriously focus our energies on how to get maximum and concrete feedback from chapter reps in Berlin - and craft the MR session/s at the Chapters Conference accordingly.
Would it make sense to ask specifically the chapters to look at the Movement Roles proposal for Berlin? Something like "how about you tell us in two sentences what you think of it" (broad, but designed to get attention maybe?)
Bence, can you think of something?
Delphine
2011/3/1 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com
Would it make sense to ask specifically the chapters to look at the Movement Roles proposal for Berlin? Something like "how about you tell us in two sentences what you think of it" (broad, but designed to get attention maybe?)
I think it makes sense to ask the chapter representative to please take time to read the proposal *before* arriving in Berlin, and ideally to try and collect some feedback from their respective chapter boards.
A.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:
2011/3/1 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com
Would it make sense to ask specifically the chapters to look at the Movement Roles proposal for Berlin? Something like "how about you tell us in two sentences what you think of it" (broad, but designed to get attention maybe?)
I think it makes sense to ask the chapter representative to please take time to read the proposal *before* arriving in Berlin, and ideally to try and collect some feedback from their respective chapter boards.
Just a quick one - does a reminder need to be sent to chapter representatives about this? I think it's a good idea for us to really push all possible approaches to get feedback.
Bishakha
Hi Bishakha
We do need to think about how to get maximum and concrete feedback from chapter reps in Berlin. I've put this on the draft agenda for our next IRC chat on Friday. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Working_group_meeting_...
Cheers
Jon Jon Huggett +44-795-278-0688 +1-415-465-2700 jon@huggett.com www.huggett.com Skype jon.huggett
On Mar 1, 2011, at 06:38 , Bishakha Datta wrote:
On 02/27/2011 02:11 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi Jon,
I was hoping first for a little more input on my email from members of this group before I continue. It is quite relevant whether we want to drop the discussions and move to a draft or first have an (extra) attempt to actually involve and make aware the group. If we choose for the first, I see no relevance for me to spend time on this.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm expecting that there'll be some good and diverse feedback on New Models once it's out - because people are interested in it, and it has a fair amount of detail - so it is easier to react to, in that sense.The internal-l discussion on flow of money does dovetail with MR to some extent too, not all.
While I too personally prefer to have much more feedback from others etc before embarking on the charter, circulating the table of contents + key questions in each section seems fine to me (unless I am missing something and much more is planned).
Building on all this, I think we should seriously focus our energies on how to get maximum and concrete feedback from chapter reps in Berlin - and craft the MR session/s at the Chapters Conference accordingly.
Best Bishakha
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
Hey Lodewijk,
thanks for your email. Unfortunatley I was not able to attend the IRC session on Friday, so I couldn't react to your arguments. It's correct that Jon and I had a brief conversation, and we talked about giving the charter draft a higher priority, to have at least something that we can share in Berlin.
IMO this does not mean that we have to drop everything else, and it also does not mean that we're writing a final charter now. But we need some draft, so that people get an idea of how this charter could look like. You and me seem to have this understanding already, but I doubt that this is the case for the people outside of this group. We need to show them at least a Table of contents - some sections might already be filled with draft text, some just with questions, or notes of disagreement, or references to future discussions.
Does that make sense?
Arne
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Dear all, I apologize on beforehand if I come across rude and insensitive in this email. I do however feel the need to be super clear about this important topic and do not want to fuzzify that with cuddling words. I am very sorry to realize that since Frankfurt, we have not been able to hang on to our optimistic agenda setting. We planned summer 2010 for an inclusive process, involving people and allowing for input with a gradual process. Unfortunately, for many reasons that are not helpful to discuss, there was no real involvement until Frankfurt from the chapters or real life community outside the working group to think about what this movement should be shaped like. After Frankfurt, people had unexpected time commitment issues, which can't really be helped. It took somewhat longer to get the matrix out, and as expected (considering the complexity) there was not a huge amount of feedback. Now also the New Models email has been delayed. In todays irc meeting with 4 participants from this mailing list it was apparently decided that things are not going well and that we should leave the agreed path. Jon apparently had a discussion with Arne, and I understand that the path forward now would be to start writing a draft of a charter and publish that next week. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think that is the wrong way to go - because clearly I did not come across in the IRC meeting. If everybody feels this is the way to go I will submit to that of course. The charter is our final goal - a piece of text that every single organization in our movement can and will agree upon. This is a task that should not be taken lightly and for granted - this will be very very hard. It will be possible to make compromizes up to 50 or 75% of the organizations to agree, but to have such a vast supermajority requires more. My feeling is and has always been that people need to feel owner of the problem to be able to allow solutions to become effective. They need to understand what we try to fix before they can accept that the situation might have to change. Otherwise we will not get further than describing the status quo. And I think at least in Frankfurt we all agreed that would not be a Good Thing. To have people feel owner of the problem, they need to be actively involved in discussions. This is what currently is not happening. We agreed on a time path with several emails to be sent out with respect to tough topics - this would have made people aware of the needs, and perhaps involved them in the discussion. Skipping this step now and just start drafting in our corner (or even on meta) means that we could just as well not have had a process at all
- because it would basically be exactly where we were in August 2009 in
Buenos Aires - a bunch of people came up with a draft. The only difference would be that we spent this time a lot of effort in setting up a good process - which we then ignored. Such a draft can be received in a few ways. It can be plainly ignored by most organizations because they don't see the importance or relevance to their situation. When it gets serious about signing, these people will finally wake up and see all the problems and bureaucracy it will cause - and they don't feel owner. Therefore they will not object to voting against it and therefore making it a failure. Another option is that people will protest on all the details that they don't like. You probably have seen enough discussions on foundation-l to imagine such a situation. After all, it is an external document, that is being put forward. They don't feel the need for it, they don't see the issues. And a final option is that things will just remain descriptive of the status quo. Then we will have to have these exact discussions which we set up this process and working group for, for fundraising (Barry is already doing that even) and other topics which are not clearly defined. In my opinion the only way forward is to involve people. And we cannot do that just by the few hours that Austin can spend on this - as a group we need to reach out to the people we know, we need to spark discussions and see where they go. That is only possible if we invest time into it. If we do not depend just on the single person who was in charge. Also, I hope that Jon and Austin can be more direct in describing what still has to happen, and who needs to do what. And are you not able to make a committed time commitment? Sure, that can happen and I will not see you any less for it - but please tell us as soon as you realize it so that other people can help out. Best regards, Lodewijk
Movementroles mailing list Movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
movementroles@lists.wikimedia.org