Hi!
On 03/17/2016 07:22 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
I can see three potential benefits from a more federated model:
- Resilience. If any one organization experiences a crisis, other
independent organizations suffer to a lesser degree than departments within that organization.
- Focus. Wikimedia’s mission is very broad, and an organization with
a clearly defined mandate is less likely to be pulled in many different directions -- at every level.
- Accountability. Within a less centralized federation, it is easier
to ensure that funding flows to those who do work the movement wants them to do.
I strongly agree with you.
== Where to go from here? ==
<snip>
An important thing to remember here (a lesson I’ve had to learn painfully) is that big changes are best made in small steps, with room for trial and error.
I also agree with this too. :) In my candidate statement[1] for the current board election, I outlined a vision where existing affiliates would do some of the technical work that the WMF currently does (or doesn't). Many of the existing affiliates already have legal infrastructure and staff in place, and would require less bootstrapping than an entirely new organization, which should make it easier to test and demonstrate that a federated model will work, and be an advantage to the movement. One downside would be that regional chapters may be less focused (benefit #2) compared to say, an organization specifically dedicated to non-WMF MediaWiki development (I don't like the term third-party).
The fact that WMF has just experienced a major organizational crisis should not itself fill us with pessimism and despair. But we also shouldn’t ignore it. We must learn from it and do what reason tells us -- and in my view that is to build a more resilient _federation_ of organizations than what we have today.
+1.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Nominati...
-- Kunal Mehta / Legoktm