(not replying to Liam in particular and apologies for the longer email in
advance)
Thank you all for this thread.
First of all a minor request from someone who's not that familiar with how
India and Wikimedia in India exactly is structured: I appreciate it that
people tell who they are and what their (apparent) conflicts of interest
are, but I hope sincerely that we will be able to keep discussions about
the validity of people to a minimum and focus on the validity of arguments.
I think it brought up some issues that have to be dealt with that the Trust
seemed to be unaware of, judging its initial replies. It is clear that some
valued and active volunteers don't feel involved, and consider the trust to
be a threat to the future development of the chapter in India. I can see
some dangers in it too (although I don't know the specific situation as
well - so I'll try to stay in general terms, some may or may not apply to
India) and would like to share them. This doesn't mean I'm against the
trust or not (I haven't made up my mind yet), but it may give a better
insight in why I am interested and concerned, and perhaps some other
worried people have similar feelings.
When there are two organizations calling themselves "Wikimedia" in one
country, there are some obvious and some less obvious problems. In the
Netherlands we have encountered some of those problems in a lesser degree -
but I will spare you the details of that specific situation and how it came
to be. It is of course obvious that there is potential confusion in the
press - personally I don't think that is the one with the most impact to
our mission, but it certainly is annoying to volunteers. The press has on
some occasions attributed projects of Wikimedia Nederland to the Foundation
or even once to Wikimedia Deutschland - and here the chance for that to
happen is quite small. So yes, brace for impact, if you have two
organizations in one country, you *will* get lots more confusion.
The money issue has been covered as well - Both are targeting the same
companies for sponsoring their activities, both are aiming for perhaps the
same major donors. Even though India is a huge country (understatement) it
is likely that every now and then they will encounter each other here.
Clear agreements on who does what and when seems vitally important.
Probably this is one of the most important reasons why I think it would be
good that if there is a seperate trust, that the chapter gets a say in the
appointment of their trustees as well. Anyway, I don't need to cover this
in detail, others did.
But when it comes to money, there is one thing we have to be very careful
of too: envy. I don't accuse people on this list of that, but it is
something they have to consider in the back of their minds when they are
bridging this information to their supporters and members. I have seen in
several chapters a certain level of "envy" towards the foundation or richer
chapters and that they were getting demotivated, because those other
organizations should just hire people to do that stuff instead of bothering
them with it. Again it seems likely this gets stronger the closer by it
gets.
What is perhaps less obvious, is that both organizations will be drawing on
volunteers (I hope! If either wouldn't try to work primarily with
volunteers, I would personally consider it a missed opportunity to use a
euphemism), and that the volunteers will be likely confused about the
organizations just like the press is. The really active ones will know, but
I have seen a situation that very active Wikimedia Nederland members did
not comprehend the differences between the WMF and WMNL - now again imagine
how the situation must be when there are two organizations in one country.
I definitely think that communication is very important, and some signals
on this list have worried me. I also have heard a few times "this is a
first time" etc, and I would like to remark that this doesn't excuse us
from thinking this through very well. The Wikimedia Foundation strategic
plan identifies India as a key country, and that is one of the reasons we
cannot risk letting the chapter going down the drain because some
experiment is executed. We should be very careful about side effects,
exhausting volunteers simply because they feel their work becomes useless
or giving people the feeling they are not needed because the WMF will hire
other people anyway (this is a general concern I have about some
initiatives throughout the world).
Just to repeat myself: I have not yet taken a position, and I am not
against anything. I applaud the intentions, but I am worried about many
side effects. And if several very valued Indian volunteers are brave enough
to step up and out this criticism, I become even more careful.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia Sábado, 12 de Novembro de 2011, Liam Wyattliamwyatt(a)gmail.comescreveu:
On 12 November 2011 06:53, Bishakha Datta
<bishakhadatta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This thread started out with questions about the
legal and practical
differences between chapter and trust, but has veered much more into the
terrain of funding and money.
In addition, there have been numerous emails on bank accounts, grants,
fellowships and what not.
I'm glad we're talking about money and funding, but it's seeming like
this
is of greater concern than programs and
activities - surely, funding is
just a means to an end, rather than an end in itself?
Funding is being discussed almost as if funding is an 'end' in itself -
as
if money is of greater importance than the huge
amounts of work needed to
build editing communities. This is both ironical in a volunteer
community,
and a source of worry, and I would like to place
this on record.
Best
Bishakha
I understand what you mean, and agree with the sentiment, but I think the
"funding question" you're referring to is the practical application of the
broader issue of "organisational roles".
What I still don't understand, despite the fast and helpful answers from
both yourself and Hisham (thank you) is the differentiation of the
organisational roles between the Trust and the Chapter. I had originally
assumed that the Trust was set up because it provided a legal way for the
WMF India Team to be a 'branch' organisation of the WMF (not just
individual contractors). But, from reading the description of the legal
setup of the Trust, it seems that the Trust is, in fact, legally
independent. Presumably this means that Hisham and the rest of the team are
now employees of the Trust and no longer contractors to the WMF directly.
If that is the case, then presumably the WMF has basically the same amount
of legal and financial control over the Trust than it has over the Chapter.
Namely, it provides project funds (one-off or ongoing) and provides
trademark permission. Both organisations, presumably, also have the right
to seek funding and undertake projects independently from the WMF so long
as they meet their organisation's mission.
Therefore... I'm confused about the differentiation of organisational roles
because it seems we now have two, independent from each other, non-profit
organisations in India that are both also equally independent from the WMF.
The only difference, as I understand it from what Bishakha explained
earlier, is that the Chapter is legally a "Society" (with an elected board
and members) and the Trust has two appointed trustees.
Is that the case? As a practical question - to make it more concrete and
less abstract - what can the Trust do that the Chapter cannot? And, if the
Chapter can legally do all the things that the Trust can do (and the WMF
has the same amount of control either way), why do we need two
organisations?
-Liam
p.s. and yes, to support Erik's point, let's please focus on what actual
work can be done rather than arguing about who was present at which meetups
and whether contractors are "outsiders".
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l