Hi Itzik,
I'm sorry you feel this way and would hope you would still feel inclined to
provide a critical point of view on the process. I agree with you that
we're bad at changing processes that are evidently broken, but don't you
think that we are exactly changing this fact by moving on from an affiliate
system that has been broken for at least 3-4 years now and are finally
prioritising measures that will support our communities in becoming
healthier and more fun to work in?
Best,
Philip
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 19:09, Kiril Simeonovski <kiril.simeonovski(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Anders,
There is an expression in Macedonian that says „Секое вештачко нешто се
распаѓа на природен начин.“ (Every artificial creation breaks down
naturally.). This is exactly what is going to happen with this strategy.
Best regards,
Kiril
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 7:05 PM Anders Wennersten <
mail(a)anderswennersten.se>
wrote:
There is a Swedish expression "har man tagit
fan i båten får man ro
honom i land" (If you have taken the devil into your boat you must row
him ashore"
Independent if this process has been bad or not, I see it is as just
some six month left of it. And it is important to do the best of it. It
would be a bad move to stop it at thois point in time, and would also be
too late to correct the process if it has been flawed.
Anders
Den 2019-03-27 kl. 14:05, skrev Itzik - Wikimedia Israel:
> Hi,
>
> Two weeks ago I sent this email to my strategy working group (resource
> allocation). I didn't plan to send a public email, just to share with
the
> rest of the group my reason to leave and
just to disappear.
> I receive feedbacks with many of the group members and also requesting
> permissions to transfer it with others outside of the group, which
leads
to
more conversations that I had around it.
Last week we had our weekly phone call, during which we discussed our
feelings and opinions about the process so far. From our long
conversation
> and the conversations with the others, I learned that many of these
> feelings exist among the other members, as well some ideas on how to
make
> it easier and less demanding and at the same
time publishing the
> conclusions sooner.
> Yesterday, following a good conversation with one of the WMF's board
> members about it, I was asked to share these thoughts with the
movement's
list, so
that it may also involve the community's feedback as well.
*Itzik Edri*
Chairperson (volunteer)
itzik(a)wikimedia.org.il
+972-54-5878078
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <itzik(a)wikimedia.org.il>
Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:08 PM
Subject: I decided to leave the working group
To: <wg2030-resourceallocation(a)wikimedia.org>
Dear friends,
For a long time I have been considering leaving the working group but
each
time I decided to give it another chance.
Yesterday, after long
consideration, I decided to write this email.
I must be honest - I was skeptical from the first moment about this
process. The huge amount of money which the board allocated to this
process
together with the complicated and (very) long
process planned for it -
make
> me doubt the ability to really have a real outcome in a reasonable
time.
> For the past two years, it seems to me like
the strategy took over
almost
every
movement event and activity. I feel bad for investing millions of
dollars from our donations and uncounted hours of volunteer time into
this
process.
I also felt hypocritical in the way the foundation acts - while
"freezing"
> grant programs (such as APG) and holding affiliates from increasing
their
programs
and budgets, "because of the strategy process" while
simultaneously approving itself to increase its budget and staff year
after
year by tens of percentage.
Despite my distrust of the chances of this process and the criticism I
felt
> for it, I instructed my organization to give it the full support we
been
> asked, as all our movement did. Later on, I
decided to join this
working
> group as I felt we almost reached the final
step of the process and I
> wanted to help shape the recommendations. I was totally wrong.
>
> In the first months of the workgroups, I felt it was completely wasted
of
time. I
saw how wonderful volunteers tried to lead the process within
each
group (thank you Daria!) - but it wasn't
their job, nor none of us. I
felt
> like I was returning to university, and every few weeks I received
> instructions and homework from the lecturer, with assignments to the
> following week - and in between, that we need to lead it and solve
things
> by ourselves. It took the core team a few
months to change it and bring
> external support, but even after the (right) change, it continues to
feel
like I
came *to work for *the strategic process, not with.
I felt like nothing happened for the past year(or years?) before the
working groups started to operate. As if we didn't have hundreds of
meetings around the world, with a total of tens of thousands of people
and
> an enormous amount of hours of conversations - and aside from a short
few
> sentences of a strategic direction, we
started from scratch. A
completely
> new process.
> From scratch to have discussions about what this process is,
definitions
> and concepts. What is the problem with the
current system? What are the
> challenges? What people shared during the first phase? Information
which
> wasn't available and ready for the
group, and still isn't. Eight months
> after we start, the real conversation about the subject which I joined
to
> discuss about and help shape recommendations
around it, is far, far
away
> from even to start.
>
> The more I spoke to more and more people who are part of the process, I
> realized that this despair is not only with me but with many. But we
are
a
> real Wikimedians, and we are committed to the things we start. We are
bad
with
stopping things when they don't work or have real reviews of the
things we do when we have the belief that this is the right thing. I
completely stopped thinking it is the right thing to our movement.
Last month, in our in-person meeting in Berlin, one of the opening
activities was to sum up the number of years we were all members of the
movement. Just think about doing the same, and sum up the number of
volunteer (and staff) hours invested until now in this process. We are
talking about tens of thousands of hours of work not even taking into
consideration the huge amount of money involved.
And the end of the process is very far away.
In one of our discussions, we doubt if to include volunteers as a
resource
> which can be allocated. We decided at the end it can't as such, but
just
try to
imagine it was, and try to think about a future whatever-will-be
the
> resource allocation body/structure: how he would deal with the decision
> whether to approve such a huge amount of volunteer time and money in
the
process.
Did the WMF's board even consider and discuss these resources
and
how it will affect the movement during the
process years? I doubt.
We tend to say that the movement newest project is WikiData. I think we
may
need to start address WikiStrategy as the newest
project. Just think
about
> what we could do with that amount of resources.
>
> The idea to massively involve the wide community within this process
was
> the right decision - but the
implementations from my point of view
were
wrong.
If the last strategy process was totally handled by outsiders - we took
this one completely to its opposite, without finding the right balance.
A strategy process is important, there is no doubt. And our movement
needs
> one, there is no doubt.
> But a strategy process can't take over the organization' activities for
> *years.*
>
> I want to warmly thank you, my teammates. It is heartwarming to see the
> commitment and amazing energy of all the members of this process, and
of
> course, the core team which is dedicated to
bringing a change. I have
no
doubt
that we all want to secure the future of our movement to years to
come and I don't know of such a high level of engagement and commitment
anywhere else. But at the same time, I think we should put limits to it
and
> reconsider it - and think how to make it shorter, lighter, less
demanding
and
expensive - both from the perspective of staff/volunteer time and
money.
Yours,
Itzik.
*Itzik Edri*
Chairperson
itzik(a)wikimedia.org.il
+972-54-5878078
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>