On 03/17/2016 07:22 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
I can see three potential benefits from a more
1) Resilience. If any one organization experiences a crisis, other
independent organizations suffer to a lesser degree than departments
within that organization.
2) 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.
3) 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? ==
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 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
The fact that WMF has just experienced a major
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.
-- Kunal Mehta / Legoktm