Hi Garfield, I completely agree that this is one of the fundamental issues at hand so I've split it from the thread about WMIL.
I still don't have a clear opinion about this but my perliminar thought are as follows: what is it that we do? 1. We increase participation (e.g. recruiting new editors) 2. We preserve participation (e.g. keeping old editors active) 3. We're approaching to release content (i.e. through GLAM) 4. We're creating new content (i.e. through editing contests) 5. We're improving content (i.e. through various cooperation with academic institutes) 6. Add yours...
I believe that once we'll find out what it is that we're doing it'll be easier to know what is it that needs funding. For example, if we're talking about GLAM, then releasing 50 images is a good result but 200 images is a better one. Cooperation with an academic institute that yields less than 5 articles is insufficient (just an example).
Personally, I believe that anything that is not measured, does not exist and hence should not be funded.
Tomer Ashur Chairman Wikimedia Israel (Personal opinion)
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Garfield Byrd gbyrd@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello:
In order for us to be accountable to each other we need think about what metrics we are going to use to measure the effectiveness of how we spend money. If we have agreed upon metrics then anyone, given that we publish just about everything, can see if the way we are spending money in a way that gets the desired outcomes. For example, if we fund a GLAM project we should be able to agree on what some of the measures of success (I say "some of the measures" because projects will have both quantifiable and non-quantifiable outcomes) are for that GLAM project. With this data we can determine what projects we should be spending money on or which projects are not meeting objectives and need to canceled or modified.
Garfield
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Tomer Ashur tomerashur@gmail.com wrote:
@Stu, The Audit committee is a separate entity from the board. The Israeli law requires that there will be no overlap. As for the terms, though we're not there yet (We're having hard time to find people willing to serve in the board) it sounds like good planning. I'll try to incorporate this into my proposal.
About the general question. I think the answer is yes, and external entity *can* do the "mission" auditing. This is much like the question whether a Management consultant or an industrial engineer is able to increase productivity. Such an external auditor is expected to meet with the board, interview people on the executive level plus people in the mid-level, read the plans, the goals and all the other papers we tend to produce, learn the subject and write its report.
I'm really a very small fan of how the Israeli bureaucracy works so I don't expect the government to be able to do that but I do think that this is theoretically feasible.
@Theo, as I said, the government can create any office they want. As long as the people in this office are lazy, things will remain the same. So at least on our case, this does not make us more accountable.
Tomer Ashur Chairman and Treasurer Wikimedia Israel
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Hiya Stu
One of my proposal/suggestions from several months ago when we were having a discussion about chapter fundraising on Internal, was a "Movement Auditor" who would work in conjunction with the wider community. I had specific ideas about how this could work and how to avoid the "volunteer fatigue" most other committees suffer from. It was actually one of 6 ideas I had at the time to come up with a structural solution for accountability for the entire movement. WMF and all chapters receiving donor money would be subject to one audit per year, with all records kept publicly.
I actually went further, and came up with a draft and a model for how this would work. As I said, this was one of 6 proposals that I never got a chance to discuss or even propose at the time. :(
Anyway, I'd love to know what others think.
Regards Theo
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Stuart West stu@wikimedia.org wrote:
That's a great question, Theo.
I have a broader one for the whole list. Do you think any outsider (e.g. an independent auditor, or government agency) could effectively do a "mission" audit? So could a government agent, or the public auditor (Commissaire aux comptes) that Thierry described a few months ago, actually be an effective judge of whether an organizations activities/spending are both consistent with the Wikimedia global vision and reasonably effective in pursuing it?
My instinct is that given the complexity of our movement's goals and structure that just couldn't work. Instead, i suspect we'll need to find a solution where people inside our community do accountability reviews around the global mission. I don't know who that would be -- a peer review committee of other movement entities? a special review committee like the GAC? the WMF? -- but it feels to me like it couldn't be say KPMG or the IRS.
-s WMF
On Jan 4, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
Hey Tomer
I am wondering about something. A lot of countries have this regulation aside from the tax agency requirement, you mentioned it as NGO "proper process certification". I recall Theirry from WMFR and a couple of other european chapters also mentioning something like this last year.
I also know, several countries mostly in the global south, that do not have this requirement aside from the legal tax agency record publishing one.
I am trying to gauge if this makes a chapter more accountable? is the process more comprehensive and analytical than just record publishing? I wonder if this changes the view on accountability for certain chapters depending on the legislation of the country.
Regards Theo
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Tomer Ashur tomerashur@gmail.comwrote:
Okay... I'm willing to go second. I thank Stu for starting this topic.
I'll try to write this from my mind stream. I'm writing this both as WMIL chairman and as its treasurer. Some of the things I'll write are my personal views (some are reflected as board resolutions and some aren't). I'll try to use italic font whenever I'm expressing an opinion rather than actual facts.
*Overview* Wikimedia Israel is an Israeli charitable non-government organisation. It was established and registered on 2007. Our primary governing document are the bylaws http://www.wikimedia.org.il/Bylaws.
*Governance* The bylaws gives us a general framework for our activities. The actual decision making is done in the board. The board is a group of 5 people elect by the general assembly. We used to have board meetings every month but lately due to some personality changes we shifted the center of decision making to emails and chats via gmail chat.
The audit committee is a two members committee responsible for checking that the chapter's expenditures is done according to its objectives (as defined by the bylaws) and that the decision was made using a proper decision making process. The audit committee is part of the board's mailing list and is invited (and usually come) to the board meetings.
The general assembly is the group of all chapter members. The bylaws states that the general assembly should meet once a year to approve all financial reports.
There are several ways to be part of the chapter. A member must be a person above 18, with previous history of contribution to free content projects. Until lately, being a member was subject to an annual fee. We've tried several fares until recently we've decided that the whole annual membership fee is more of a hassle than a joy and decided to replace them with entrance fee (or, in legal terms: membership fee for 99 years). A person which is not above 18 or has no previous history contributions to free content can join the chapter as a fellow. Someone who wished to contribute the chapter without paying the membership fee is an activist (or a contributor). Both fellows and activists enjoy the same rights as members apart from the right to vote in general assemblies or offer themselves for official roles. Whenever someone wants to join the chapter we express that we prefer activists over members and that there's no need to pay in order to be part of the good stuff we do.
*Opinions and Future Plans about Governance* *Since its founding it felt like the chapter belongs to its board. We're now at the process of changing that. Instead of holding the assemblies at someone's house we're renting a meeting space per hour. We urge the members to participate the assembly and ask them to give a brief overview of projects they're running. ** The bylaws does not define a specific time period for which the board is elected. This had led previous members of the board to the belief that they were appointed (much like the Pope or the Queen of England) for life. We're now looking for the proper way to change the bylaws so that the board will be elected for a period of one year and the general assembly will have to re-elect every member after this period (I'd also like to set a maximum term period but this doesn't seem to be in consensus). In any case, the board have been completely replaced during the last two years. This seemed to bring new blood to the chapter (However, I'm biased on this: I'm one of those who were elected instead of the "old board" members). *
*Finance\Legal:* Our main finance method was the annual fundraising. We are trying (and usually succeed) running a low budget-high impact projects. Whenever we do need a budget, we either find a sponsor (like we did with Wikimania or our Africa project) or we ask for a grant from the foundation (like we did with the 10th anniversary event). We have some reserve money and we have good ties with other organisations with more money.
We usually don't have legal problems. When someone bugs us with a cease and desist letter we send him to pursue the WMF. That usually does the work.
Our most valuable asset is our relationship with the community. This allows us to initiate projects with other organisations. Since we cannot bring money to these collaborations we bring our collective wisdom and workforce. We have good reputation and other organisations see the added value we can bring to projects. We also have an excellent spokesman which can create PR interest in the projects
We do not employ. We sometimes (*and I wish we would do that more*) hire a contractor for a specific task.
*Transperancy * We publish all board and GA minutes in our website. Despite the fact that the law oblige us only toward the GA we see the entire Hebrew Wikipedia community as stackholders. We invite them through the village pump to meetings and ask for their input about the minutes we publish.
*Government regulation* The chapter is subject to two regulators. Our financial and annual reports are subject to auditing from the IRS. We submit those reports annually like any other legal entity in Israel (let that be a charitable-NGO, company or a self-employed). In addition to the IRS we're subject to the "NGO-registrar" (*this seems like a good translation*) which checks our activities to verify and gives "proper process certification" (Another inaccurate but sufficient translation).
Both the IRS and the registrar does not waste much time about NGO's in our scale. They usually automatically approve our reports and issue whatever we need.
*Planning *To date, we didn't excel in planning. 2012 was the first year in which we were able to come up with a work plan on Decmeber (we also approved retroactively the work plan for 2011 on that date :) ). Israel has a long improvising tradition. So the work plan is somewhat subject to changes during the year.
At the general assembly the board display the work plan. If during the assembly there are objections to the plan we put it to vote. Otherwise, it is automatically approved.
That's about it. I'm available to any question.
Tomer Ashur Chairman & Treasurer Wikimedia Israel
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers
-- Garfield Byrd Chief of Finance and Administration Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext 6787 415.882.0495 (fax) www.wikimediafoundation.org
Treasurers mailing list Treasurers@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/treasurers