Hi all,
In the past years I have organized (alone and together with Deror Lin or
Nicole Ebber) the Wikimania presentation 'The Coolest Projects' where I
tried to give an inspiring overview of some of the amazing things Wikimedia
affiliates are doing in our movement - sometimes against the stream. I have
enjoyed it a lot and learned a huge amount of stuff from the volunteers I
spoke with in preperation for this presentation.
I decided however that 2013 will have been my last presentation on this
topic. I no longer have the luxury or enthusiasm to spend the countless
hours on collecting, investigating, expanding, comprehending and presenting
these projects. While Nicole had to make the same decision, I found Deror
Lin (with whom I presented together in 2012) prepared to continue the
project in 2014.
I think it is fair to say that the effort has become a project in itself.
I'm very glad Deror is taking the torch and I'm sure he can use all the
help he can get. Please don't tell him, but to give you an impression of
the work involved, we estimated that we easily spent hundreds of hours on
preparing this presentation last year. So if you want to help Deror, please
share your support. He will probably approach the affiliates in the coming
months to share their cool projects, and I hope that you don't make him
chase you too much :) Think about it already!
If you want to help out, or if you just want to show your support for the
presentation, please leave a note on
https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_coolest_projects_o….
Looking forward to an awesome presentation, but this time with me in the
comfortable seats,
Lodewijk Gelauff
Hi folks,
While watching the current changes to Wikimedia France microgrants program
implemented, I was curious to know which Wikimedia entities had similar
funding programs for individuals - how they worked, how we could learn form
each other.
Since apparently there was no Meta page for that(tm) (yet!) I went ahead and
drafted <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jean-Frédéric/Funding_programs
>
I dug my information out of my email archives and FDC proposal forms, so I
could totally have missed some programs - please add the ones you know
about!
Of course, it would be more useful to have more detailed information on
every program.
Together with Caroline & Pierre-Selim we threw some ideas on what we
thought was interesting to know about the programs, but that's still very
alpha - please add more ideas!
Looking forward to your thoughts about this!
Cheers,
--
Jean-Frédéric
Wikimédia France
(Stepping out of my WMF tech role, wearing my ca.wiki volunteering hat.)
This Sunday the program "30 minuts" of TV3 (top TV channel in Catalan)
will broadcast a documentary about "Wikipedistes". Yes, it has a small
audience compared to US prime time, but in terms of Catalan audience you
probably can't go more prime time than that without being ''indecent''
or wearing a FC Barcelona shirt. :)
http://www.tv3.cat/30minuts/en
What is more important, this veteran program keeps very high standards
in journalism and TV reporting. The two previews being aired these days
are promising:
http://www.tv3.cat/30minuts/proper
Any single editor appearing in these trailers has been already contacted
by friends and relatives ("Hey, I saw you on TV!!!"), and the ca.wiki /
Amical Wikimedia supporters can't wait to watch the full version.
The documentary will be available online. If it is as good as the
average "30 minuts" documentaries are, we {{Who}} might think of a way
to get it subtitled in English. They have an archive of programs with
English subtitles (see the first link), but with all the budget cuts
public TV is facing I don't know how much resources would they have for
translating "Wikipedistes", even if the idea makes sense. Crowdsourcing?
Anyway, more if/when the documentary is good.
--
Quim Gil
Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
Dear movement fellows,
Wikimedia Argentina would like to express its support for the letter by
Wikimedia Israel regarding URAA-motivated massive content deletions in
Wikimedia Commons. Yet, we would like to express our view not only to the
Foundation BoT but also to all Wikimedia editors, and especially to those
working in Wikimedia Commons.
Volunteers from Argentina have been among the most affected by the policy
adopted by Wikimedia Commons administrators regarding images that could
fall under URAA copyright provisions. Argentine copyright law provides that
images enter the public domain "only" 25 years after their production and
20 after their first documented publication. This relatively generous
criterion has enabled unaffiliated volunteers and we as Wikimedia Argentina
to enrich Commons with hundreds of thousands of historical images that are
absolutely free under Argentine law: images of the political and every day
life of the country, of its culture, of its popular idols, of its joyful
and dark days, of its customs and architecture.
However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have
conducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involving
entire categories. The burden of proof has been inverted: instead of having
to justify the deletion of a certain file, things go that volunteers have
to devout their time trying to justify the validity of their efforts. This
has caused great damage, not only by way of our readers loosing access to
free educational contents, but also de-motivating many editors and
volunteers by making them feel that their efforts are ultimately vain and
that our goal of free knowledge for everyone is being replaced by a certain
legal fetishism whose reason gets lost in processes and misses the outcome.
We acknowledge that the Wikimedia Foundation BoT and its Legal team have
repeatedly stated, as has been reinforced in recent communications, that
images shouldn't be deleted unless we receive a takedown notice, and that
it has not received a single URAA-motivated notice to date. Certain
Wikimedia Commons administrators have dismissed the Foundation's statement
as a mere opinion vis-à-vis the SCOTUS ruling. Yet, it is an opinion by the
organization that is legally responsible for the contents being hosted in
Wikimedia Commons.
We respectfully call the Wikimedia Commons community to reflect on the
practical consequences of its current policy on URAA's implementation.
Those files generating potential conflict could be even identified as such
without the need for a pre-emptive deletion. And we would like the Commons
community to reflect not only on the preventive loss of free contents we
are generating, but also on the harmful disconnection between Wikimedia
Commons and all of the other Wikimedia projects it serves as media
repository, mostly Wikipedia.
Many years ago, the editors of the Spanish Wikipedia decided to close the
possibility to directly host images, choosing instead to use Wikimedia
Commons. If we miss the opportunity to find a workaround that saves
hundreds of thousands of images from an unrequested deletion that hurts our
very mission, Wikipedia editors could ultimately evaluate reversing that
decision, reopening "project-hosted" uploads just to avoid the restrictive
and exclusionary URAA interpretation that Wikimedia Commons has been
sustaining against the Foundation's political and legal advice. That would
be far from being an optimal outcome.
We are sure that we as the broader community of Wikimedia volunteers can
find a common ground that permits to adapt to all legal conditions and
challenges while putting in the first place the fulfillment of our goal
towards free knowledge.
Approved by the Board of Wikimedia Argentina on February 22, 2014
Hi,
I just got a message that the Finnish Police have asked the fi.wikipedia, by sending an email to the wikifi-admin(a)list.wikimedia.org, to give a written statement about their possible violation of the laws that regulate fundraising in Finland. There is a little news about this already online in English. Here:
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/02/07/finnish_police_probe_w…
I chat about this with a lawyer friend and he was afraid that the police msy go after the volunteers that have participated in the fundraising, e.g. by translating the fundraising messages.
Is there any equivalent cases from other countries?
In Finland one needs a pre-given permission to do fundraising.
- Teemu
--------------------------------------------------
Teemu Leinonen
http://teemuleinonen.fi
+358 50 351 6796
Media Lab
http://mlab.uiah.fi
Aalto University
School of Arts, Design and Architecture
--------------------------------------------------
Wait, aren't the chapters composed from people from the wikimedia community?
Also, didn't you guys stop by a second to think the chapter thoroughly discussed the contents of the letter with its members, which may vote in favor or against publishing it?
And if it is on Meta, is open to discussion, no?
Finally, in Venezuela we say "el que se pica es porque ají come". No need to take it personally if you are not among those "certain" Commons admins, right?
Sent from Samsung Mobile
-------- Original message --------
From: Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com>
Date: 26/02/2014 18:46 (GMT+02:00)
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter on open letters (Was: Open letter
from Wikimedia Argentina regarding URAA)
On 26 February 2014 13:51, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe it's a cultural issue, does e.g.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter> have a geopolitically limited
> point of view? Open letters are a common tool of *discussion* with the
> public (= community in our case) in the corners of the world that I know
> best.
As a major unpaid Commons contributor, I find these emotive and
political emails to lists and open letters elsewhere confusing and
rather wasteful of the good faith volunteer effort behind them.
If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons,
then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than
making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in
non-Commons discussion channels, which most Commons volunteers are
unlikely to either notice or care much about.
For Chapters, I suggest you check who among your active volunteers are
most active on Commons[2] and ask them to help engage or create
discussion about policy and guideline changes. If you cannot find
anyone close to your chapter that is active and engaged on Commons,
perhaps you should change that situation before firing off official
letters.
Links:
1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:RFC
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Userlist
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
(This is the second in a series of monthly blog posts by the members
of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This month's post is by
Board member Alice Wiegand on the topic of Board governance, and is
available in English, Deutsch, Español, and Indonesian.)
From: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/28/board-service-every-board-needs-a-bit…
Board service: Every board needs a bit of maintenance
Posted by Alice Wiegand on February 28, 2014
For all the differences among the 40 regional organizations (chapters)
and one thematic organization in the Wikimedia movement, there is one
feature that is found at all the registered Wikimedia organizations: a
volunteer-basedsupervision and control committee. For the Wikimedia
Foundation, it is the Board of Trustees, at Wikimedia France, it is
the Conseil d'administration, with Wikimedia Germany, it is the
Präsidium, and of course there are a number of other different names.
For simplicity, here I use the term "board" for all these bodies.
Enable the board to do its job
We often take for granted that a committee composed of individuals
with different expectations, experiences and knowledge can find its
way into its tasks just by itself. That it manages them well and
effectively, always acting and communicating openly and
professionally. But can that really always be assumed? Is it not in
fact extremely difficult to come together as a group to figure out
individual strengths and weaknesses, and build up trust? Two things
that I think are essential for functional boards: a) the ability and
willingness to delegate and b) the ability and willingness to accept
and promote different positions and constructive confrontation within
the board. Both are only possible if the committee has agreed on basic
internal rules and procedures and if it accepts that it needs to
evolve constantly as a body.
A board needs to keep pace with the organization's development, to
fulfill its oversight obligations at each stage of development of the
organization, and at the same time support the organization, promote
its development and frame its strategic direction. If the entire board
deals with the question of how to become or how to remain able to
work, it is running in circles, and tasks are not carried out. What
could be more appropriate than to entrust a smaller group with these
issues, thereby relieving the entire body immensely?
BGC - a committee in the background
Since 2010 there is such a group in the board of the Wikimedia
Foundation: the Board Governance Committee (BGC), whose chairman I
have been since joining the Board in 2012. Why am I doing this kind of
work in particular? I actually find it fun to deal with policies and
the development of processes. I believe that it is generally helpful
to have a resource for looking things up, a resource that is
understandable for everyone, and I know that the Board of Trustees has
not yet reached its own ideal conception of a board. And to this, I
can and I want to make a contribution. Even though we publish our
annual agenda and the minutes of our meetings on Meta, our work is
naturally more in the background and is only known to few people.
The BGC's purpose is to ensure that the Board fulfills its legal and
fiduciary obligations, and that it improves its control function,
efficiency and effectiveness. Sounds good, but what does that mean?
Traditionally, a BGC takes care of the composition of the board,
finding suitable candidates and preparing the appointments. Since the
Foundation's Board only partly consists of appointed board members,
and we consider additional areas such as policies and our own
evaluation to be as important as the composition of the board, our BGC
has an extended scope of tasks. In essence, the Wikimedia Foundation's
BGC takes care of three areas: 1. policies and processes, 2.
composition of the board, 3. training and evaluation of the board.
Specifically, this includes - for example - the Board Handbook, the
search for new board members like most recently Ana Toni, the support
of the community and Wikimedia organizations in the respective
selection processes for board members by the Board liaisons or an
Elections Committee, the 360-degree feedback for board members and the
evaluation of the entire body. The latter is currently taking place in
close collaboration with the HR Committee. In the board's daily
business, the BGC is positioned especially well to regularly question
processes and threads. From time to time, this includes reminding the
Board to concentrate on tasks that nobody else can do. Depending on
the size and structure of the organization, this can mean different
things. For example, the board of the Wikimedia Foundation does not
itself create the annual plan, that's the job of the ED, in person of
Sue Gardner (see the process summary). Our responsibility as the Board
is to provide directive input for the annual planning. In contrast, at
organizations without full-time employees, the annual plan is created
by the board itself. It is important to identify this explicit area of
responsibility for each board. Because that is the challenge to face,
which should be any Board's main focus.
Development is not an end in itself
A Board must not only take care of itself - but it may not lose sight
of its own development, either. Under the assumption that a Board's
constellation in the wikiverse changes relatively quickly, it must
ensure to become able to work effectively within a short time (and
continue to be so). The board must develop as the organization does,
because only then can it ensure a trusting and fruitful cooperation in
the board and - if applicable - between the board and the management.
Regularly questioning its own working methods and self-conception is
part of this. The trick is to implement the necessary legal or
rational procedures and processes, without losing yourself in a cage
of rules. A working group, whether it is called BGC or completely
different, can provide valuable support - in every board.
I'm looking forward to the Boards Training Workshop in early March in
London. We all can learn from each other, we only haven't yet found
the right ways to share our ideas and experiences in this matter.
Alice Wiegand (User:Lyzzy) has been serving on the WMF Board of
Trustees since 2012 as a Chapter selected trustee. She has been
involved with chapter and movement issues for many years and served on
the Board of Wikimedia Deutschland from 2008 to 2011.
Deutsch
Board-Service - Ein wenig Pflege braucht jedes Board
Bei allen Unterschieden zwischen den 40 regionalen Organisationen
(Chapter) und einer thematischen Organisation (Thematic Organization)
im Wikiversum gibt es ein Merkmal, dass sich bei allen eingetragenen
Wikimedia-Organisationen wiederfindet: ein ehrenamtlich tätiges
Aufsichts- und Kontrollgremium. Bei der Wikimedia Foundation ist es
das Board of Trustees, bei Wikimedia France das Conseil
d'administration, bei Wikimedia Deutschland ist es das Präsidiumund
natürlich gibt es noch eine Reihe weiterer unterschiedlicher
Bezeichnungen. Der Einfachheit halber nutze ich hier den kurzen
Begriff "Board" für all diese Gremien.
Das Board arbeitsfähig machen
Wir nehmen es so oft als gegeben hin, dass ein Gremium,
zusammengesetzt aus Individuen mit unterschiedlichen Erwartungen,
Erfahrungen und Kenntnissen, von alleine in seine Aufgaben findet,
diese gut und effektiv bewältigt und dabei immer offen und
professionell agiert und kommuniziert. Aber kann das wirklich
vorausgesetzt werden? Ist es in Wirklichkeit nicht ungemein schwer,
als Gruppe zueinander zu finden, individuelle Stärken und Schwächen
herauszufinden und Vertrauen aufzubauen? Zwei Dinge sind meiner
Meinung nach unabdingbar für funktionsfähige Boards: a) die Fähigkeit
und die Bereitschaft zur Delegation und b) die Fähigkeit und
Bereitschaft, unterschiedliche Positionen und konstruktive
Konfrontation innerhalb des Boards zu ermöglichen und zu fördern.
Beides ist nur möglich, wenn das Gremium sich auf grundlegende interne
Regeln und Abläufe geeinigt hat und es akzeptiert, dass es sich als
Gremium ständig weiterentwickeln muss.
Ein Board muss mit der Entwicklung der Organisation Schritt halten, um
seine Aufsichtspflichten in jedem Entwicklungsstadium der Organisation
erfüllen zu können und diese gleichzeitig zu stützen, ihre Entwicklung
zu fördern und ihre strategische Ausrichtung zu gestalten. Wenn sich
das gesamte Board damit beschäftigt, wie es arbeitsfähig wird oder
bleibt, beißt sich die Katze in den Schwanz und die eigentlichen
Aufgaben bleiben liegen. Was liegt näher, als mit diesen Fragen eine
kleinere Gruppe zu beauftragen und so das gesamte Gremium immens zu
entlasten?
BGC - ein Komitee im Hintergrund
Seit 2010 gibt es eine solche Gruppe im Board der Wikimedia
Foundation, es ist das Board Governance Committees (kurz BGC), dessen
Vorsitzende ich seit meiner Aufnahme in das Board 2012 bin. Warum ich
gerade das mache? Ich habe tatsächlich Spaß an der Beschäftigung mit
Richtlinien und der Entwicklung von Prozessen. Ich glaube, dass es
grundsätzlich hilfreich ist, etwas zum Nachschlagen zu haben, was
jeder nachvollziehen kann und ich weiß, dass auch das Board der
Foundation seine Ideal-Vorstellung eines Boards noch nicht erreicht
hat. Und hierbei kann und möchte ich einen Beitrag leisten. Auch wenn
wir unsere jährliche Agenda und die Protokolle unserer Treffen auf
Meta veröffentlichen, bleibt unsere Arbeit naturgemäß eher im
Hintergrund und ist nur wenigen bekannt.
Zweck des BGC ist es sicherzustellen, dass das Board seine rechtlichen
und treuhänderischen Verpflichtungen erfüllt, und dass es seine
Steuerungsfunktion, Effizienz und Effektivität verbessert. Klingt gut,
aber was bedeutet das? Traditionell kümmert sich ein BGC darum, die
Zusammensetzung des Boards zu prüfen, geeignete Kandidaten zu finden
und die Ernennungen vorzubereiten. Da das Board der Wikimedia
Foundation nur zum Teil aus ernannten Board-Mitgliedern besteht und
wir weitere Arbeitsfelder wie Richtlinien und unsere eigene Evaluation
für ebenso wichtig wie die Zusammensetzung des Boards erachten, ist
das Aufgabenspektrum unseres BGCs erweitert. Im Wesentlichen kümmert
sich das BGC der Foundation um drei Bereiche: 1. Richtlinien und
Prozesse, 2. Zusammensetzung des Boards, 3. Ausbildung und Bewertung
des Boards.
Konkret zählen dazu zum Beispiel das Board-Handbuch, die Suche nach
neuen Boardmitgliedern wie zuletzt Ana Toni, die Unterstützung von
Community und Wikimedia-Organisationen bei den jeweiligen
Auswahlprozessen für Board-Mitglieder durch Board-Kontaktpersonen oder
eine Arbeitsgruppe Wahlen, das 360-Grad-Feedback für Board-Mitglieder
und die Evaluation des gesamten Gremiums. Letztere erfolgt derzeit in
enger Zusammenarbeit mit dem HR-Komitee. Im Tagesgeschäft ist es
funktionsbedingt vor allem das BGC, das regelmäßig Abläufe und
Diskussionsfäden in Frage stellen kann. Dazu zählt von Zeit zu Zeit
auch, das Board daran zu erinnern, sich auf das zu konzentrieren, was
niemand sonst machen kann. Abhängig von Größe und Struktur der
Organisation kann das unterschiedlich sein. So erstellt das Board der
Wikimedia Foundation den Jahresplan nicht selbst, das ist Aufgabe der
Geschäftsführung, in Person von Sue Gardner (siehe den Überblick über
den Planungsprozess). Unsere Aufgabe als Board ist es aber,
richtungsweisenden Input für die Jahresplanung zu geben. Bei
regionalen Organisationen ohne hauptamtliche Mitarbeiter wird ein
Jahresplan im Gegensatz dazu von dessen Board selbst erstellt. Wichtig
ist, diesen expliziten Aufgabenbereich eines jeden Boards zu
identifizieren. Denn dem muss es sich stellen, und der sollte auch
Arbeitsschwerpunkt eines jeden Boards sein.
Weiterentwicklung ist kein Selbstzweck
Ein Board darf sich nicht nur um sich selbst kümmern - es darf aber
seine eigene Weiterentwicklung auch nicht aus den Augen verlieren.
Unter der Voraussetzung, dass sich die Konstellation eines Boards im
Wikiversum relativ schnell ändert, muss es dafür sorgen, in kurzer
Zeit arbeitsfähig und effektiv zu werden (und zu bleiben). Das Board
muss sich wie die Organisation weiterentwickeln, denn nur so kann es
sicherstellen, dass eine vertrauensvolle und befruchtende
Zusammenarbeit im Board und - wenn gegeben - zwischen Board und
Geschäftsführung stattfindet. Das regelmäßige Hinterfragen der eigenen
Arbeitsweisen und des Selbstverständnisses gehört dazu. Die Kunst
dabei ist es, die juristisch notwendigen oder vernünftigen Verfahren
und Abläufe einzuführen, ohne sich dabei selbst in einem Käfig aus
Vorschriften zu verlieren. Eine Arbeitsgruppe, egal ob sie BGC oder
ganz anders heißt, kann hierbei wertvolle Unterstützung leisten - in
jedem Board.
Ich freue mich auf den Boards Training Workshop Anfang März in London.
Wir alle können voneinander lernen, auch wenn wir noch nicht die
richtigen Wege gefunden haben, um uns in diesem Sinne auszutauschen.
Alice Wiegand (User:Lyzzy) ist seit 2012 ein von den regionalen
Organisationen ausgewähltes Mitglied im Kuratorium der Wikimedia
Foundation. Sie beschäftigt sich seit vielen Jahren mit Belangen der
regionalen Organisationen und der Bewegung und war Mitglied des
Vorstands von Wikimedia Deutschland von 2008 bis 2011.
Español
Servicio de la Junta: cada junta necesita algo de mantenimiento
Debido a todas las diferencias entre las cuarenta organizaciones
regionales (capítulos) y unaorganización temática en el movimiento
Wikimedia, existe una característica que se encuentra en todas las
organizaciones Wikimedia registradas: un comité de supervisión y
control integrado por voluntarios. Para la Fundación Wikimedia, esta
se trata de la Junta Directiva; en Wikimedia Francia, se trata
delConseil d'administration; en Wikimedia Alemania, es el Präsidium; y
por supuesto que hay una serie de otros nombres diferentes. Para
simplificar, aquí utilizo el breve término <<Junta>> para todos esos
órganos.
Permitir que la junta pueda hacer su trabajo
A menudo damos por sentado que un comité integrado por individuos con
diferentes expectativas, experiencias y conocimientos, puede encontrar
su camino en sus tareas por sí mismo. Eso es lo que gestionan bien y
efectivamente, siempre actuando y comunicándose abiertamente y
profesionalmente. ¿Pero en verdad puede asumirse que siempre es así?
¿No es en los hechos extremadamente difícil reunirse como grupo para
descubrir las fortalezas y debilidades individuales, y construir
confianza? Creo que son esenciales dos cosas para las juntas
funcionales: a) la aptitud y disposición para delegar y b) la aptitud
y disposición para aceptar y promover diferentes posiciones y
confrontaciones constructivas dentro de la Junta. Ambas son posibles
sólo si el comité acordó reglas internas básicas y procedimientos, y
si acepta que necesita evolucionar constantemente como órgano.
Una junta tiene que seguir el ritmo de desarrollo de la organización,
para cumplir con sus obligaciones de vigilancia en cada etapa del
desarrollo de la organización, y al mismo tiempo apoyar a la
organización, promover su desarrollo y el marco de su dirección
estratégica. Si toda la junta se ocupa de la cuestión de cómo ser o
cómo seguir siendo capaz de trabajar, se está ejecutando en círculos,
y las tareas no se llevan a cabo. ¿Qué podría ser más apropiado que
que confiara a un grupo más pequeño estos temas, aliviando así el
cuerpo entero inmensamente?
BGC - un comité en segundo plano
Desde 2010 existe un grupo como esté en la Junta Directiva de la
Fundación Wikimedia Comite de Gobernanza de la Junta(Governance
Committee o BGC, en inglés), del cual soy presidente desde que me uní
a la Junta en 2012. ¿Porqué hago este tipo de trabajo en particular?
Actualmente encuentro divertido lidiar con políticas y desarrollo de
procesos. Creo que por lo general es útil contar con un recurso para
onservar las cosas, un recurso que sea entendible para todos, y sé que
la Junta Directiva todavía no ha alcanzado su propia concepción ideal
de una Junta; y para ello, Yo puedo y quiero hacer una contribución. A
pesar de que publicamos nuestra agenda anual y las actas de nuestras
reuniones en Meta, nuestro trabajo es naturalmente mayor en segundo
plano y es conocido por pocas personas.
El propósito del BGC es asegurarse de que la Junta cumpla sus
obligaciones legales y fiduciarias, y que mejore su función de
control, eficiencia y efectividad. Suena bien, pero ¿qué significa
esto? Tradicionalmente, un BGC se encarga de la composición de la
Junta, buscando candidatos adecuados y preparando los nombramientos.
Ya que la Junta Directiva de la Fundación se compone sólo en parte por
miembros designados, consideramos otras áreas como políticas y nuestra
propia evaluación tan importantes como la composición de la Junta,
nuestro BGC tiene un amplio espectro de tareas. En esencia, El comité
de Gobernanza de Junta de la Fundación Wikimedia se ocupa de tres
áreas: 1. Políticas y procesos, 2. Composición de la Junta, 3.
Capacitación y evaluación de la Junta.
Específicamente, esto incluye - por ejemplo - la Guía de la Junta, la
búsqueda de miembros nuevos de la Junta como Ana Toni, la más
reciente, el apoyo a la comunidad y a las organizaciones de Wikimedia
en sus respectivos procesos de selección de miembros de sus Juntas por
los coordinadores de la Junta Directiva o un Comité Electoral,
laretroalimentación de 360-grados para miembros de la Junta una
evaluación completa. Esta última se está llevando a cabo en
colaboración con el Comite de Recursos Humanos. En los asuntos
cotidianos de la Junta, el BGC está especialmente bien posicionado
para cuestionar procesos y subprocesos. Cada cierto tiempo, esto
incluye recordar a la Junta concentrarse en tareas específicas que
nadie más puede realizar. Dependiente del tamaño y estructura de la
organización, esto puede significar diferentes cosas; por ejemplo, la
Junta de la Fundación Wikimedia no crea por si misma el plan anual,
que es el trabajo del Director Ejecutivo, Sue Gardner (ver el Resumen
del proceso). Nuestra responsabilidad como Junta es proporcionar de
información directiva par ala planificación anual. En contraste, en
las organizaciones que no tienen empleados a tiempo completo, el plan
anual lo realiza la Junta en sí misma. Es importante identificar esta
área específica de responsabilidad de cada Junta; debido a que este es
el desafío a encarar, que debe ser el foco principal de cualquier
Junta.
El desarrollo no es un fin en sí mismo
Una Junta no sólo debe ocuparse de si misma - pero tampoco debe perder
e vista su propio desarrollo. Asumiendo que la constelación de una
Junta cambia relativamente rápido en el wikiuniverso, debe asegurarse
de ser capaz de trabajar de manera efectiva en un lapso corto de
tiempo (y continuar siéndolo). La Junta debe desarrollarse como lo
hace la organización, porque sólo entonces puede asegurarse un
cooperación en confianza y fructífera en la junta - y en su caso -
entre la junta y la gerencia. Cuestionar regularmente sus propios
métodos de trabajo y su concepción de sí mismo es parte de esto. El
truco es poner en práctica los procedimientos y procesos legales o
racionales necesarios, sin perderse en una jaula de reglas. Un grupo
de trabajo, ya sea que se llame Comite de Gobernanza o tenga un nombre
completamente diferente, puede proporcionar un valioso apoyo - en cada
junta.
Con miras al próximo Taller de capacitación de juntas a principios de
marzo en Londres; todos nosotros podemos aprender de cada uno, aún no
hemos encontrado la manera correcta de compartir nuestras ideas y
experiencias al respecto.
Alice Wiegand (User:Lyzzy) es parte de la Junta directiva de WMF desde
2012 miembro elegido de un Capítulo. Ella ha estado involucrada en
aspectos realacionados con el capítulo y el movimiento por varios años
y fue parte de la Junta de Wikimedia Alemania desde el 2008 al 2011.
Bahasa Indonesia
Layanan Dewan: Setiap dewan membutuhkan sedikit pemeliharaan
Untuk semua perbedaan diantara 40 organisasi regional (majelis) dan
satu organisasi tematik di gerakan Wikimedia, salah satu fiturnya
dapat ditemukan di semua organisasi terdaftar Wikimedia: yaitu
berdasarkan kesukarelaankomite pengawasan dan pengendalian. Untuk
Yayasan Wikimedia, ada Dewan Pengawas, di Wikimedia Perancis, ada
Conseil d'administration, di wikimedia Jerman, adaPräsidium, dan
tentunya masih banyak lagi dengan nama lain. Untuk kemudahan, kami
disini memberikan nama pendek "dewan" untuk semua badan organisasi.
Memudahkan dewan melakukan pekerjaan mereka
Kami juga sering mengetahui bahwa komite terdiri dari
individual-individual dengan harapan, pengalaman, dan pengetahuan yang
dapat menemukan cara untuk menyelesaikan tugasnya dengan sendirinya.
Komite tersebut dapat mengatur diri mereka dengan baik dan efektif,
selalu bekerja dan berkomunikasi secara terbuka dan profesional. Namun
dapatkah itu selalu dapat diasumsikan? Bukankah pada kenyataannya
sangat sulit untuk bekerja bersama-sama dalam tim untuk memahami
kekuatan dan kelemahan setiap individual, dan membangun kepercayaan?
Dua hal saya pikir sangat penting untuk dewan fungsional; kemampuan
dan kerelaan untuk menerima dan mempromosikan setiap posisi dan
konfrontasi yang konstruktif secara berbeda di dalam dewan. Keduanya
hanya akan terjadi jika komite telah menyetujui peraturan dan prosedur
internal yang dasar, dan jika diterima maka akan berevolusi secara
konstan sebagai sebuah lembaga.
Dewan perlu menjaga langkah dengan pengembangan organisasi, untuk
memenuhi kewajiban pengawasan pada setiap tahap pengembangan
organisasi, dan pada waktu yang sama mendukung organisasi,
mempromosikan pengembangannya dan kerangangka arah strateginya. Jika
seluruh dewan setuju dengan pertanyaan bagaimana untuk menjadi atau
bagaimana untuk tetap dapat bekerja, bekerja di dalam lingkaran serta
tugas yang tidak dilakukan. Apa yang dapat lebih tepat dari
mempercayai kelompok kecil dengan masalah ini, sehingga meringkankan
tugas lembaga secara keseluruhan?
BGC - komite yang melatar belakangi
Sejak 2010 terdapat kelompok di lembaga dari Wikimedia Foundation:
Board Governance Committee (BGC), di mana saya sebagai ketua telah
bergabung dengan dewan sejak 2012. Mengapa saya melakukan pekerjaan
ini secara khusus? Saya benar-benar menemukan minat untuk bertransaksi
dengan kebijaksanaan dan pengembangan dari proses. Saya percaya bahwa
secara umum sangat membantu untuk menemukan sumber daya untuk mencari
apapun, sumber daya yang dimengerti oleh semua orang, dan saya tahu
bahwa Dewan Pengawas belum mencapai konsep yang ideal untuk dewan. Dan
untuk ini, saya dapat dan saya ingin untuk memberikan kontribusi.
Walaupun kami telah menerbitkan agenda tahunandan pertemuan di Meta,
pekerjaan kami tentu saja berada di belakang layar dan hanya diketahui
oleh beberapa orang saja.
Tujuan BCG ialah untuk menyakinkan bahwa Dewan memenuhi kewajiban
pergadaian dan keabsahan, dan meningkatkan fungsi kontrol, efisiensi
dan efektivitasnya. Kedengarannya bagus, namun apa artinya? Secara
tradisional, BGC mengurus komposisi dari dewan, menemukan kandidat
yang tepat dan mempersiapkan pertemuan. Sejak Dewan Foundation hanya
sebagian yang terdiri dari anggota dewan tertunjuk, dan kami
mempertimbangkan area tambahan seperti kebijakan dan evaluasi kami
sendiri menjadi sepenting susunan dewan, BGC kami telah memperluas
cakupan tugas. Secara esensial, BGC Wikimedia Foundation mengurusi
tiga area: 1. Kebijakan dan proses, 2. Susunan dewan, 3. Pelatiahan
dan evaluasi dewan.
Khususnya, hal ini termasuk -contohnya- Buku pegangan anggota Dewan,
perekrutan anggota dewan paling terbaru Ana Toni, dukungan komunitas
dan organisasi Wikimedia di bagian prosed tertentu untuk anggota dewan
perwakilan atau komite pemilihan, 360-degree feedback untuk anggota
dewan dan evaluasi seluruh badan organisasi. Yang terakhir saat ini
sedang berlangsung kerjasama erat dengan Komite Humas. Dalam tugas
dewan sehari-hari, ikut diingatkan bahwa Dewan harus berkonsentrasi
pada tugas yang dimana orang lain tak dapat lakukan. Tergantung dari
ukuran dan struktur organisasi, ini bisa berarti banyak. Contohnya,
Dewan Yayasan Wikimedia sendiri tidak menentukan jadwal tahunan,
dikarenakan penentuan tersebut adalah tugas ED, orangnya adalah Sue
Gardner (lihat ringkasan proses). Tugas kami sebagai Dewan adalah
untuk menyediakan masukan langsung untuk perencanaan tahunan.
Sebaliknya, dalam organisasi dengan pegawai tetap, rencana tahunan
dilakukan oleh dewan itu sendiri. Sangatlah penting untuk menentukan
area tugas untuk tiap dewan. Dikarenakan banyak halangan yang akan
dihadapi, yang tentu harus menjadi fokus utama Dewan.
Pengembangan bukanlah tujuan akhir
Dewan tidak boleh hanya mengurus hal ini - tetapi juga tidak hilang
sasaran pada pengembangannya sendiri. Dengan asumsi konstelasi Dewan
di dunia wiki yang secara relatif terus berganti, diharuskan mampu
bekerja secara efektif dalam waktu yang pendek (dan berterusan). Dewan
harus berkembang dan bergerak seperti organisasi, dikarenakan hanya
dengan ini dapat dipastikan kepercayaan dan hasil dari kerja sama
dalam dewan dan -mungkin saja- di antara dewan dan manajemen. Secara
reguler mengevaluasi metode pekerjaan sendiri dan pembuatan konsep
sendiri adalah bagian dari ini. Triknya adalah untuk menerapkan
prosedur dan proses yang legal dan rasional, tanpa kehilangan arah di
kungkungan peraturan. Kelompok kerja, terserah apakah itu BGC atau
sesuatu yang berbeda sama sekali, dapat memberikan dukungan yang
berharga - di setiap kedewanan.
Saya menantikan untuk ikut serta di Lokakarya Pelatihan Dewan diawal
maret nanti di London. Kami dapat mempelajari satu sama lainnya, kami
hanya belum menemukan jalan yang tepat untuk membagi ide dan
pengalaman tentang hal ini.
Alice Wiegand (User:Lyzzy) telah melayani Dewan Pengawas WMF sejak
tahun 2012 sebagai anggota Majelis yang dipercaya. Dia telah terlibat
dengan majelis dan isu isu organisasi untuk beberapa tahun dan
melayani Dewan Wikimedia Jerman dari tahun 2008 sampai pada tahun
2011.
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Hi all,
The Wikimedia Foundation and the Individual Engagement Grants Committee
invite you to submit and review proposals for community-led experiments to
improve Wikimedia!
Individual Engagement Grants support individuals and small teams to
organize projects for 6 months. You can get funding to turn your idea for
improving Wikimedia projects into action, with a grant for online community
organizing, outreach and partnerships, tool-building, or research. Funding
is available for a few hundred dollars up to $30,000.
Proposals for this round are due 31 March 2014:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG
We're also seeking new committee members to help review and recommend
proposals for funding. Candidates are invited to sign up by 9 March 2014:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Committee
Some examples of projects we've funded in the past:
*Organizing social media for Chinese Wikipedia ($350 for materials)[1]
*Improving gadgets for Visual Editor ($4500 for developers)[2]
*Coordinating free access to reliable sources for Wikipedians ($7500 for
project management, consultants and materials)[3]
*Building community and strategy for Wikisource (EURO 10000 for organizing and
travel)[4]
You can read more on the WMF blog:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/individual-engagement-grants/
Hope to have your participation in this round!
Best wishes,
Siko
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Build_an_effective_method_of_pub…
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Visual_editor-_gadgets_compatibi…
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/The_Wikipedia_Library
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_v…
--
Siko Bouterse
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. *
*Donate <https://donate.wikimedia.org> or click the "edit" button today,
and help us make it a reality!*
Hi all,
The Wikimedia Foundation and the Individual Engagement Grants Committee
invite you to submit and review proposals for community-led experiments to
improve Wikimedia!
Individual Engagement Grants support individuals and small teams to
organize projects for 6 months. You can get funding to turn your idea for
improving Wikimedia projects into action, with a grant for online community
organizing, outreach and partnerships, tool-building, or research. Funding
is available for a few hundred dollars up to $30,000.
Proposals for this round are due 31 March 2014:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG
We're also seeking new committee members to help review and recommend
proposals for funding. Candidates are invited to sign up by 9 March 2014:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Committee
Some examples of projects we've funded in the past:
*Organizing social media for Chinese Wikipedia ($350 for materials)[1]
*Improving gadgets for Visual Editor ($4500 for developers)[2]
*Coordinating free access to reliable sources for Wikipedians ($7500 for
project management, consultants and materials)[3]
*Building community and strategy for Wikisource (EURO 10000 for organizing and
travel)[4]
You can read more on the WMF blog:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/individual-engagement-grants/
Hope to have your participation in this round!
Best wishes,
Siko
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Build_an_effective_method_of_pub…
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Visual_editor-_gadgets_compatibi…
[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/The_Wikipedia_Library
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_v…
--
Siko Bouterse
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. *
*Donate <https://donate.wikimedia.org> or click the "edit" button today,
and help us make it a reality!*
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
Greetings!
I wanted to bring to everyones attention that we are recruiting for a
communications coordinator for the evaluation team.
It is important that this person have familiarity and a positive history
with Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedian community.
If you know any awesome Wikimedians with a background and experience in
communications and community coordination (or if you are one yourself),
please encourage them to learn about the position and
apply<http://hire.jobvite.com/CompanyJobs/Careers.aspx?c=qSa9VfwQ&cs=9UL9Vfwt&pag…>
!
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Jaime
--
Jaime Anstee, Ph.D
Program Evaluation Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
+1.415.839.6885 ext 6869
www.wikimediafoundation.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
*https://donate.wikimedia.org <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>*