Florence,
This is a very commendable email, and I admire its simplicity. The values you suggest are instinctive to anyone who has been involved in the projects for a while, but as Wikimedia grows, it is important to reiterate them again and again for new staff and new project members, who have not been raised on them.
That said, I do have a couple of questions and hope that you can clarify.
In a message dated 1/29/2008 5:06:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, anthere@anthere.org writes:
Our community is our biggest asset We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
Question: "Community" has always been a mantra of our projects. As such, I was a bit surprised by an email exchange with Jay Walsh last week, in which he said: "I'm hesitant to use the word 'community' as much as I'm hesitant to call people 'audience.' In reaching out to communicate, so far at least, I'm more inclined to speak of users, editors, stakeholders, casual readers etc - but this is my personal interpretation." I found his comment counter-intuitive, given the nature of the projects to date, and wonder if you might clarify your opinion on "community" and the terms used to describe it.
of service is a priority We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks.
Freedom We make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software.
Question: This was the subject of some debate last week, also on this mailing list. Are we committed "exclusively" to open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software?
Transparency We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public.
Independance As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations, grants, sponsorship etc...). It is very important to us to ensure our organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to refuse donations from a limited number of sources, and try to multiply the number of sources.
Question: As a charitable organization, it is easy to become dependent on the largesse of major donors, who could hold considerable sway over day-to-day operations. The answer is either to find an independent revenue stream or to create an endowment to ensure that basic costs are covered in perpetuity. Frankly, I am biased. I believe that "Independence" is the most important of these values--without it we will not be able to withstand challenges to all the other values. As such, what steps are being taken to ensure the Foundation's financial independence?
I believe in the values as you expressed them, and I am confident that the Board will vote unanimously in support of them. I am just curious about some of the practical implications, and eager to hear your thoughts on them.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Looking forward to watching discussion unfold about your note, Florence. I found the analogy at the opening quite strong and timely - it's true how so much of what we relate in casual conversation often captures our mission, values, and vision.
Just to clarify from Danny's comment - the views I expressed in that email regarding 'community' were specifically in the context of communications practice and the use of specific approaches to reach specific people, rather than the broadstroke idea of communicating with all people at the same time (which may not always be the right approach).
I think Florence's idea of 'community' as a collaborative, cooperative, mix of supporters is a highly significant value. In that case communications has a lot to do with listening and sharing from all parties. And 'community' is central to what makes us successful, it's where so much of our strength, capacity, and energy flourishes.
Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org +1 (415) 839 6885
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Florence,
This is a very commendable email, and I admire its simplicity. The values you suggest are instinctive to anyone who has been involved in the projects for a while, but as Wikimedia grows, it is important to reiterate them again and again for new staff and new project members, who have not been raised on them.
That said, I do have a couple of questions and hope that you can clarify.
In a message dated 1/29/2008 5:06:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, anthere@anthere.org writes:
Our community is our biggest asset We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
Question: "Community" has always been a mantra of our projects. As such, I was a bit surprised by an email exchange with Jay Walsh last week, in which he said: "I'm hesitant to use the word 'community' as much as I'm hesitant to call people 'audience.' In reaching out to communicate, so far at least, I'm more inclined to speak of users, editors, stakeholders, casual readers etc - but this is my personal interpretation." I found his comment counter-intuitive, given the nature of the projects to date, and wonder if you might clarify your opinion on "community" and the terms used to describe it.
of service is a priority We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks.
Freedom We make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software.
Question: This was the subject of some debate last week, also on this mailing list. Are we committed "exclusively" to open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software?
Transparency We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public.
Independance As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations, grants, sponsorship etc...). It is very important to us to ensure our organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to refuse donations from a limited number of sources, and try to multiply the number of sources.
Question: As a charitable organization, it is easy to become dependent on the largesse of major donors, who could hold considerable sway over day-to-day operations. The answer is either to find an independent revenue stream or to create an endowment to ensure that basic costs are covered in perpetuity. Frankly, I am biased. I believe that "Independence" is the most important of these values--without it we will not be able to withstand challenges to all the other values. As such, what steps are being taken to ensure the Foundation's financial independence?
I believe in the values as you expressed them, and I am confident that the Board will vote unanimously in support of them. I am just curious about some of the practical implications, and eager to hear your thoughts on them.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Florence,
This is a very commendable email, and I admire its simplicity. The values you suggest are instinctive to anyone who has been involved in the projects for a while, but as Wikimedia grows, it is important to reiterate them again and again for new staff and new project members, who have not been raised on them.
That said, I do have a couple of questions and hope that you can clarify.
In a message dated 1/29/2008 5:06:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, anthere@anthere.org writes:
Our community is our biggest asset We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
Question: "Community" has always been a mantra of our projects. As such, I was a bit surprised by an email exchange with Jay Walsh last week, in which he said: "I'm hesitant to use the word 'community' as much as I'm hesitant to call people 'audience.' In reaching out to communicate, so far at least, I'm more inclined to speak of users, editors, stakeholders, casual readers etc - but this is my personal interpretation." I found his comment counter-intuitive, given the nature of the projects to date, and wonder if you might clarify your opinion on "community" and the terms used to describe it.
Yup. Maybe I can point out to http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/036802.html for a start ?
In my mind, the community here is a mix of "editing community", "developer community" and "other people helping the WMF and who are not part of the two first group".
Arguably, we could expand that to "all those who have something to say about us". But keep in mind that this is intended as a guideline for the staff, or for outsiders to get to know us more. I actually prefer that the staff be more inclusive than the guidelines say, and actually also listen to what BusinessWeek, the New Yorker, Larry Lessig, the director of Alexandria Library, Assouline, or the Pope have to say. Than requiring that they listen to any jerk who thinks he "has it right about us". That would make no sense. So, yes, Jay has to speak to and share with ALL stakeholders. But this is not what is said above.
of service is a priority We will try our best to give access to high quality Wikimedia project content 24 hours a day and 7 days, as well as provide access to regularly updated, user-friendly, and free dumps of Wikimedia project content. To insure world-wide, unrestricted, dissemination of knowledge, we do not enter into exclusive partnerships, with regards to access to our content or use of our trademarks.
Freedom We make extra efforts to use only free software on our own servers, and to support open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software.
Question: This was the subject of some debate last week, also on this mailing list. Are we committed "exclusively" to open and patent-free media formats that are viewable and editable with free software?
For now, we are commited to nothing. I told the community some time ago that the board has been proposed a file format policy. As of today, no one but me has motion to vote the resolution.
I am not sure whether than means that * they were lazy, not available, tired, distracted, etc... * or they actually do not agree we should commit exclusively to open and etc...
We were supposed to have a board meeting this evening, but both Jimbo and I were forcely offline at that moment. It will be next week and it is on the agenda. Remind me to inform you if necessary ;)
Transparency We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public.
Independance As a non-profit, we mostly depend on gifts to operate (donations, grants, sponsorship etc...). It is very important to us to ensure our organization stays free of influence in the way it operates. For this reason, we strictly follow a donation policy, reserve the right to refuse donations from a limited number of sources, and try to multiply the number of sources.
Question: As a charitable organization, it is easy to become dependent on the largesse of major donors, who could hold considerable sway over day-to-day operations. The answer is either to find an independent revenue stream or to create an endowment to ensure that basic costs are covered in perpetuity. Frankly, I am biased. I believe that "Independence" is the most important of these values--without it we will not be able to withstand challenges to all the other values. As such, what steps are being taken to ensure the Foundation's financial independence?
You are perfectly correct, it is major issue. We recently took an important step in modifying the gift policy
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Update_of_Gift_Policy_-_janua...
Do you have other steps to suggest or directions to explore that would help Danny ?
I believe in the values as you expressed them, and I am confident that the Board will vote unanimously in support of them. I am just curious about some of the practical implications, and eager to hear your thoughts on them.
Danny
Does that answer your questions ?
Ant
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org