I second Jan-Bart; thanks to Nat for this letter. As someone who asked for
a board statement, I appreciate this very much. And as someone who has also
been on the other side, like Jan-Bart I am aware of how much work a
statement like this likely took (and how difficult it is to balance many
perspectives, and address many audiences, knowing many will be irritated or
angry in any controversial debate).
I also take heart -- honestly and genuinely -- that we are debating this
issue. I am glad that enough people care about Wikimedia, and what it
means, that they are willing to argue the point -- it would be a sad day
indeed if that wasn't true. I take heart that we do want more people to
join our projects and movement, and are exploring ways to do that --
including how people know of us, our names and brands. I also, lastly, want
to acknowledge Brad's post, with which I agree. It is a fundamental role of
the Foundation to hold our marks in trust on behalf of the community. This
(like hosting the servers themselves, or other essential infrastructure
work) is part of what we need a corporate entity for. And our legal team,
over many years and many GCs and leaders, has done an admirable job of
defending those marks and keeping them for all of us. I appreciate that
very much. Keeping the marks is a social trust as well as a legal one, and
that social aspect is what we find ourselves discussing now.
For the staff involved, I want to acknowledge that many of you have been
working on this for years, and it must feel like you cannot win, or that
there is not enough consultation in the world. Is there enough consultation
in the world to get hundreds of thousands of Wikimedians to all agree?
Probably not, no. But is there enough consultation to, as the Quakers would
say, discern the sense of the meeting? I think that there is, and I think
with every consultation exercise we get closer to finding that consensus. I
wrote elsewhere on Meta that I was profoundly disappointed in this process.
That is true, and yet: I am also profoundly glad that I, and so many of us,
have such high standards for our movement -- our absolutely unique,
sometimes infuriating, and profoundly essential movement, that values
debate and dissent, collaboration and consensus. That is a brand we all
keep in trust.
-- Phoebe
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 6:25 AM Jan-Bart de Vreede <jan-bart(a)wikimedia.nl>
wrote:
Hi Natalii (and everyone)
Thank you for this mail. I know this was hard to write, also knowing that
it will be dissected by a lot of people who will read it with a perspective
all of their own.
Having been on the other side of the fence I know how hard it is to
(re)gain trust after mistakes have been made (and to be clear, mistakes
have and will be made by everyone). In my opinion this is caused by an
existing tension between the volunteer movement and the Foundation which is
based mostly on emotions and a difference of opinion with regards to the
best path forward for a lot of issues. Everyone seems to remember the time
that the Foundation was tone deaf, but no one recalls all the things that
are going well. So it is encouraging to read that we still have time before
the board has to make this decision (and to understand that the deciion has
not been made)
Honestly: I realise that people find it annoying to be reminded that the
board has the authority to change the name of the Foundation. But apart
from being very direct it is not only true, but also your responsibility.
As I stated elsewhere I look towards the board to make a decision which
looks at the benefits (which could be financial or otherwise) and the costs
(which in this case seem to include a lot of resistance from the
community). Apparently you are not in a position to make that decision at
this time, and that is understandable.
However: there is a question if you can accurately measure the outcome of
the survey as it is formulated now (which should give you a good indication
of the movements feelings on this topic)… I have heard several people
complain that it is “not easy” to fill in the survey to indicate that one
is against a name change altogether. It might be a good idea to make this
an easier option or gauge feedback in another way. by pausing or restarting
the community consultation process in a different way.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Jan-Bart de Vreede
PS: I am thinking of making a standard disclaimer under my emails on
topics such as these: During my 9 years as a Board member of the Foundation
I have made mistakes and so have the people I worked with, both volunteers
and staff. I have however never doubted anyone’s intentions and have always
noticed that tensions such as these are also fueled by a passion that can
only come from caring a lot about the subject matter. It is often easy to
forget that. I take the blame for the mistakes that were made during my
tenure, and I hope that the above remarks can be seen as constructive.
On 22 Jun 2020, at 02:43, Nataliia Tymkiv
<ntymkiv(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Dear all,
As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
[1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for
all
the frustration this whole situation has caused
to volunteers, who have
engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the
Wikimedia
projects to new languages, communities, and
geographies, as part of our
global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively
long
term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term
Wikimedian), was basically
convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from
the
minutes the Board believed that communication is
crucial, but already a
possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
considered [3].
And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of
something
like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense,
whether or not it makes
sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to
just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was
convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this
initiative.
The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the
way,
including approving continued work in the 2019
and 2020 annual plans.
However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation
about
what the Board will do when the work is finished,
including how to
balance
feedback from many communities, and the
importance of reaching new
communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the
exploratory project was and still is ongoing.
The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its
process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some
volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively
manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance,
people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the
previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community
or
the Board. The Board did not make its decision to
support the brand
project
based on that number, nor does the clarification
of that number or
removal
of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the
project. Good-faith
mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the
purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is
hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this
created a lot of bitterness.
I want us to take a step back and try to have an honest and constructive
conversation on what our future work will be together. I know there is
mistrust towards the Wikimedia Foundation acting in good faith, I also
know
the staff members feel intimidated when talking
with the communities, so
it
is really difficult to have a frank dialog. We
are all in this vicious
circle - we do not trust each other, so we do not talk honestly; we do
not
talk honestly so we cannot build that trust. I
truly want that to change.
So I am going to be as direct as possible about the Board’s perspective.
The executive statement says, “A rebrand will happen. This has already
been
decided by the Board” [4]. What does it mean? The
brand project was
approved by the Board in 2018. Rebrand may include: names, logos,
“taglines,” colours, typography, or any combination of the above. An
outcome of the project will be a set of recommended new branding
practices.The Board has not approved any specific recommendations yet.
However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if
it
decides.
Has the Board made the decision to change the name of Wikimedia
Foundation
yet? No, the Board has not. In 2018, the Board
agreed that the name of
the
Wikimedia Foundation does not help us with our
strategic goals. From
2018-2020, the Board has been reviewing research and participating in the
brand process with the goal of finding a better name. The Board has not
yet
made a decision to change the name to another
name, as the Board has not
yet had a final report on the results of the Brand Project, or the
opportunity to discuss the findings and tradeoffs, and make a decision
for
what the Board will do. The Board conversation
about this is planned to
happen during the August meeting.
Did the Board want to possibly have the rebranding (if approved) to take
place before Wikipedia’s 20th birthday in January 2021? Yes, in a way.
The
resolution [5] talks about the work being done by
then, but it is indeed
unclear whether the changing of the brand was included or just the
completion of the research by the Foundation. The timeline can still
change
if the Board decides it.
Should the Board be clearer in what the Board is directing the Wikimedia
Foundation to do? Yes, I believe so. Some of this unclarity and
misalignment is the cause of all this unfortunate frustration.
What are the possible outcomes for the August Board meeting on branding?
The Board can 1) stop the project, 2) pause the work being done or 3)
continue with it.
Does the Board still want you to take the survey [6] then? Yes. The
currently open survey [6] is intended to find the best possible outcome
if
the Foundation's (!) branding were centered
around Wikipedia, and your
voice is needed. It is an opportunity to provide constructive feedback on
those alternatives. If you are engaging in discussions around it, please
be
kind to each other.
Do all organisations in our movement have to have a uniform name? Per the
Board’s resolution from 2013
<https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11#Movement_roles>
[7]
- yes, but it was a decision made at that time
when the Board believed
there was a chance to increase visibility and recognition of Wikimedia
as a
brand. It is 2020 now, and it may be the right
time to loosen up on this
approach and allow all organisations in the movement to use different
names
[8], best suited for their local context. Or keep
uniform names, but
allow
using any of our brands for fundraising purposes.
Or something else. The
Board does have a sense that there is a need to be much more
outward-looking and optimize our key assets, including our brands, for
the
challenges to come.
All across the Movement we have a lot to do to accomplish our 2030 goals
and build out our movement strategy. And that work can be done as the
Wikimedia Movement, Wikimedia communities, and the Foundation even with a
new name, depending on our needs.
Stay safe,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
[1]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2020-02#Board_Business
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal…
[3]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_moveme…
[5]
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May…
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Naming_guidel…
*NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
working
hours/days, as I usually can work more as a
volunteer during weekend. You
should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
advance!*
_______________________________________________
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>
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at>