Le Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:16 +0200, Anders Wennersten
<mail(a)anderswennersten.se> a écrit:
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1]
and the
decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or
is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round
and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
As stated, all seven FDC
members before the meeting asses all proposals
and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation
these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even
that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others
no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very
intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully
paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide,
we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a
level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases
there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other
there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the
recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases
we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree
with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So
no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i
believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I
myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved
in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an
agreement with consensus.
So, are there public minutes of the discussions or a public comprehensive
text about pros and cons of the FDC decision?
From the round
2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of
text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring
that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where
staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We
encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and
volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers
leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer
activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff
and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth
rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to
the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia
chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff
should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage
their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are
involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.
I’m not familiar with the case, but I cannot understand, in case of a
contradictory debate, how the outcome of this debate could be "absolutely
no money", no even a similar amount than the last year (and the same for
WMCZ), with simple arguments as "concerns about […] internal governance,
financial management capacity, and capacity of volunteers to manage a plan
of this [too big] size" and "not sufficiently demonstrate a […] high
impact".
As Deryck stated, if volunteers are exhausted with the current workload,
they obviously cannot do more in these fields, and their proposal of an
accountant and ED could help improving the situation and by the way free
time to volunteers to do programmatic activities. By receiving no money,
they will have to do the administrative stuff themselves (so less time for
program), find themselves money or support to do programmatic activities
[by comparison all big chapters have a dedicated staff with this task],
and if they have time and energy, do some programmatic activities. In
other words there is probably little chance they will have a professionnal
system next year as the FDC wants.
So I fully understand Deryck’s decision. When volunteers work hard to try
to do good job and they are granted nothing, they leave.
Sébastien