For some of us, Christmas is just around the corner. Which means some of us will be little available in the next few days.
Being leaving you, I would like to share with you part of an article (which you may find in a rather famous encyclopedia). I invite all of you to read it carefully.
----------
Transparency, as used in the humanities, implies openness, communication, and accountability.
Transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption. When government meetings are open to the press and the public, when budgets and financial statements may be reviewed by anyone, when laws, rules and decisions are open to discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest.
Transparency cannot exist as a purely one-way communication though. If the media and the public knows everything that happens in all authorities and county administrations there will be a lot of questions, protests and suggestions coming from media and the public. People who are interested in a certain issue will try to influence the decisions. Transparency creates an everyday participation in the political processes by media and the public. One tool used to increase everyday participation in political processes is Freedom of Information legislation and requests.
Modern democracy builds on such participation of the people and media. There are, for anybody who is interested, many ways to influence the decisions at all levels in society. The elections and referendums are no longer the prime or only way for the people to rule itself. The democracy is working continuously, and the elections are there just to make major changes in the political course. While a liberal democracy can be a plutocracy, where decisions are taken behind locked doors and the people have very small possibilities to influence the politics between the elections, a participative democracy is much closer connected to the will of the people.
Transparent procedures include open meetings, financial disclosure statements, the freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits, etc.
In government, politics, ethics, business, management, law, economics, sociology, etc., transparency is the opposite of privacy; an activity is transparent if all information about it is open and freely available.
Some organizations and networks, for example, Wikipedia, the GNU/Linux community and Indymedia, insist that not only the ordinary information of interest to the community is made freely available, but that all (or nearly all) meta-levels of organizing and decision-making are themselves also published. This is known as radical transparency.
---------
I think the last paragraph is interesting. Indeed, what some of you are asking is radical transparency at the organization level. And radical transparency is not really suitable for us, in most part because we are in the eye-storm of the media interest and that any scandal (or non-scandal actually) is likely to raise the interest of a journalist, and likely to spread at light-speed all over the planet.
Why should we care ? Collectively, we are likely to mostly care because of our economical system. We essentially rely on the goodwill of donators, and donators are heavily sensitive to public displays of disagreements, fights, errors, misestimates, major screw-ups.
Some of us also care for personal reasons. Either because public displays of screw-ups will damage their public image and possibly their income.
And perhaps should we also care because of a possible impact on the way the quality of our products is perceived. But frankly, I do not believe this impact is significant. People can see if a product is valuable or not and will not necessarily care so much about the background story.
Since I became chair, the board did some mistakes of appreciation. More than one. I can stand up for all the mistakes of appreciation I made. I am not ashamed of what we did. We were not perfect, far from it. I do not think anyone could have been perfect. The mistakes made may come from various reasons. None of us are professionals. We are all dispersed around the world, which makes it more difficult to communicate, share opinions, simply see what is really going on in the office or imagine what is going on in the head of a staff and board member. Mistakes were also done because of lack of funds and because of insufficient human resources, putting us on the verge of our own physical abilities. For example, we are looking for a treasurer. Can we reasonably appoint someone most of us have never met ? Likely not, but the next time we will try to all meet together is february. Which means delaying any appointment till then at least. Should we prefer to wait till february or should we prefer to appoint someone some of us never met ?
Other mistakes, and these ones are much more difficult to forgive, were made because of conflicts of interest.
I trust that most of you would generally agree that mistakes were understandable, given the circonstances, IF you were fully informed of the details.
Unfortunately, some of those mistakes are not, and will not, be discussed publicly. And the main reason is not that we fear your criticism, but is that we fear the consequences of a public display of these mistakes, and do not necessarily want someone to be made a scapegoat.
However, in the recent weeks, my belief is that, we have seen - a tendency to make things more and more private (to avoid information leaking), eg, restricting access to our internal list or creating an even more private list. - a tendency to shut down requests and criticism, whether on this list or even on private lists, in an attempt to canalize the nature of information being made available - a tendency to craft "authorized" messaging, accompanied with severe criticism against trusted members deviating from this authorized messages
Not all ideas in these three tendencies are wrong. Standardization may be a good idea in some circonstances and facilitate daily operations. Privacy to discuss sensitive matters is obviously a good idea. And speaking with a unique voice rather than a cloud of voices is strengthening.
But I would advise going too far on that path. It is not healthy generally, it is frustrating many good contributors. In an environmental situation which is very unstable with competitors, a rather decentralized, flexible system, with plenty of opportunities to jump in the system, is usually considered the best solution.
Ant
On Dec 22, 2007 10:43 AM, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
I think the last paragraph is interesting. Indeed, what some of you are asking is radical transparency at the organization level. And radical transparency is not really suitable for us, in most part because we are in the eye-storm of the media interest and that any scandal (or non-scandal actually) is likely to raise the interest of a journalist, and likely to spread at light-speed all over the planet.
I agree completely. This kind of transparency is detrimental to any organisation of significant size because it sacrifices the level of confidentiality and trust commonly needed in inter-organizational relationships in favor of an, in the end, unreachable ideal. Any organization that wants to accomplish something outside of its own capabilities has to work with other organizations. And in many cases, these cooperations can't be disclosed 100%, especially not while they are in the process of being set up. If, for example, a business has a tentative interest in a deal with the Wikimedia Foundation to publish Wikipedia content and use the trademark, those following negotiations will necessarily be confidential as will be the terms of the agreement. They have to be because incorporating Wikipedia content in a new, innovative way can be a significant competitive advantage - just think of the recent announcement by Spiegel in Germany to create a new knowledge portal combining a variety of sources with Wikipedia articles.
But I think that's not really an issue for most people if they have some experience of how the business world works. The kind of transparency Wikimedia, like any organization, can engage in, however, is related to how agenda topics are set up, how involvement in the decision-making process is organized, how decisions are announced, and how they are carried through. There are specific ways how those parts can be improved with minimal effort:
- Publish the non-confidential topics of the next board meeting agenda and invite comments. - Set up working committees for some areas where one of the board members serves as the chair. Keep them alive even if, for some periods, the board member is the only one actively working in the committee. Use these committees to address recurring or upcoming agenda topics and prepare some possible solutions for the board to adopt (with or without modifications). - For each resolution made, explain the reasoning behind it, what the problem is, why the problem is a problem, why the solution found is a good solution, what are its advantages. But also explain what are the shortcomings, what's missing. Nobody expects the board (or any organization) to come up with perfect solutions. Accepting that perfection is not achievable and every decision will have weakness is the first step. Identifying those weaknesses, assignig them to a committee to sort out, and inviting community feedback to address them will create a level of trust no "radical transparency" will be able to. And you will already be prepared for the questions and criticism every decision inevitably and understandably attracts. - Make sure the key people behind carrying out a decision are fully behind it. This means involving those stakeholders in the actual decision-making process by soliciting their feedback, making necessary adjustments to the proposed decision yet standing firm on the principles. Wash, rinse, repeat until there's no one left out of the loop who needs to be in the loop. - When there's criticism, address it in private. Don't respond to direct criticism on a public mailing list, in a wiki, or any other public place. And if your decision is questioned or if you don't think it's carried out correctly, address that in private too. There's no easier and faster way to lose someone who wants to help (paid or non-paid) than by attacking their work in public. - When there's a screw-up, some sort of bad news, be forward about it. Don't try to conceal something that will inevitably come out. As Forrest Gump found out, "shit happens". Be open about what happened, show that you understand this isn't good, and demonstrate what you are going to do (1) about the current situation and (2) to prevent it from repeating.
A decision that includes these steps will earn you the respect and the love of the people that Wikimedia really needs. Wikimedia or "free content movement" is a fantastic cause, something that brings an incredible benefit to this world in ways that we won't see completely until years to come. Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource and the other projects all have an incredible impact on everyone's ability to access well-written infomation about virtually anything. This is a movement whose goals, values, and ideals almost everyone can love and support. And the only thing that's standing in the way of realizing that potential are we ourselves. Let's do something about that.
Sebastian
A fairly long reply to Florence and Sebastian.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Florence Devouard wrote:
Being leaving you, I would like to share with you part of an article (which you may find in a rather famous encyclopedia). I invite all of you to read it carefully.
Thank you for sharing.
Some organizations and networks, for example, Wikipedia, the GNU/Linux community and Indymedia, insist that not only the ordinary information of interest to the community is made freely available, but that all (or nearly all) meta-levels of organizing and decision-making are themselves also published. This is known as radical transparency.
I think the last paragraph is interesting. Indeed, what some of you are asking is radical transparency at the organization level. And radical transparency is not really suitable for us
I regret that you feel this way. Are you deeply resolved that this is right? You who always stood up for the rights of the unwanted on the projects? The power of such transparency is being greatly undervalued -- indeed, even in this email on transparency, you do not once mention the value of transparency explicitly. When did we start doubting this basic truth?
I have always had the utmost faith in you as a board member, and then as Chair, precisely because you have such a strong sense of openness and propriety. So it disturbs me to read such muted overtones in this letter of yours.
in most part because we are in the eye-storm of the media interest and that any scandal (or non-scandal actually) is likely to raise the interest of a journalist, and likely to spread at light-speed
Why are we as a project so sensitive? Why should we care? Wikipedia is and will remain one of the most extraordinary collaborations in human history. The greatest exercise in knowledge organization OF ALL TIME.
The one great strength of the project is that there has been only one; there is nothing like it anywhere in the world, in any field. The ramblings of a journalist out for a juicy story are hardly relevant on a timescale of generations. Indeed, being remembered for radical transparency would do more to cement Wikipedia's reputation than any short-term gain in public approval. Why are we seeking 'public' approval?
Why should we care ? Collectively, we are likely to mostly care because of our economical system. We essentially rely on the goodwill of donators, and donators are heavily sensitive to public displays of disagreements, fights, errors, misestimates, major screw-ups.
Well, that's an interesting position. So we seek public approval for short-term financial gain. I also think it is entirely wrong. I believe that the most active and valuable contributors -- those few editors who put in thousands of hours of work a year on the site, whose talents we as a project could not possible find by posting job descriptions and trying to hire 'editors', who are contributing the most to our little Wiki-economy -- that those contributors will all appreciate this sort of transparency. Tremendously; appreciate with the depth of spirit that leads one to renew a commitment to devote one's spare waking hours to a great endeavour.
We should absolutely preserve a clean reputation; but that starts with our most prolific and active donors : the people who pay close enough attention to know the difference between a pr pitch and the truth : the people who love and respect the history of often heated debate which gave rise to Wikipedia as we know it.
And why should we want to hide fights, errors, and disagreements from the world, those who are not yet contributors? This is the nature of life; of collaboration; of any project. I think being open about conflict or tricky issues is often the best way to draw new people in -- the best way to encourage newfound trust. contribution to Wikipedia, like the foundation of any economic system, is based on widespread trust.
And again, even from a publicity standpoint; shows and programs about the instability of real life are today as popular as any on television. It is a myth that people prefer or respect simple scripted story lines and a facade of perfection to the turbulence of reality.
On the topic of having too little time and 'human resources' to deal swiftly with certain things (like the treasurer search):
For example, we are looking for a treasurer. Can we reasonably appoint someone most of us have never met ? Likely not, but the next time we
I know there was a community calls for interested treasurers. But was there a suggestion of having a public place to discuss these; or even to see who has applied? What is the rationale there? With more public discussion, many of us would have become more invested in the issue, and would likely have had good suggestions to make.
Perhaps I am not the only one reading this list who can think of potentially suitable person they have not contacted... Of course personal resumes and other information could be submitted privately. But I wonder if any of the truly eligible candidates are people who would not even want their interest in the position to be published and discussed openly.
However, in the recent weeks, my belief is that, we have seen
<
- a tendency to shut down requests and criticism, whether on this list
or even on private lists, in an attempt to canalize the nature of information being made available
- a tendency to craft "authorized" messaging, accompanied with severe
criticism against trusted members deviating from this authorized messages
What does this mean, for such a large [set of] project[s]? What is an example of an authorized message?
Not all ideas in these three tendencies are wrong. Standardization may be a good idea in some circonstances and facilitate daily operations. Privacy to discuss sensitive matters is obviously a good idea. And speaking with a unique voice rather than a cloud of voices is strengthening.
I'm not sure the last sentence is true. When there *is* a shared voice and vision, that is strengthening. When this is forced, it is not. Speaking with many different [genuine!] voices can also be strengthening.
But I would advise going too far on that path. It is not healthy generally, it is frustrating many good contributors. In an environmental situation which is very unstable with competitors, a rather decentralized, flexible system, with plenty of opportunities to jump in the system, is usually considered the best solution.
I agree it is frustrating many contributors. I don't think competition has much to do with it...
Sebastian writes: -------------------------------------------------------------------
This kind of transparency is detrimental to any organisation of
< significant size...
If, for example, a business has a tentative interest in a deal with the Wikimedia Foundation to publish Wikipedia content and use the trademark, those following negotiations will necessarily be confidential as will be the terms of the agreement. They have to be because incorporating Wikipedia content in a new, innovative way can be a significant competitive advantage - just think of the recent announcement by Spiegel in Germany to create a new knowledge portal combining a variety of sources with Wikipedia articles.
I agree with all of the changes you suggest later in your email, Sebastian, but I disagree with your comments above... your example of the Spiegel and other similar efforts are hardly ones that need to be kept largely confidential -- if 10% of such discussions are kept private, that should both be quite transparent and help avoid divulging sensitive private/personal/financial data.
The competitive advantage argument falls flat; I suppose we could also encourage innovation in MediaWiki by engaging in business deals with people who want to develop competitive advantage by adding non-free extensions -- after all, it is one of the most widely used pieces of software in the world. There are good reasons, tied directly to goals of sharing information with the widest possible audience, that we don't do that. And the creators of the tools in question chose their licenses carefully to preempt such arguments shutting down the free sharing of future innovations.
Wishing you and everyone a happy holiday season, and a head start on a productive and joyful 2008,
SJ
I agree with SJ. Radical transparency seems to fit perfectly with the radical collaboration model used by Wikipedia. If we can give anonymous users the power to vandalise a page, which can then be seen by everyone, including the media, then I don't see why we can't let everyone see our decision-making processes, warts and all.
I also think that the term 'radical transparency' is a bit loaded: the word 'radical' seems designed to scare people in this context. Why not just use the word 'transparency'?! It is surely lesser forms of transparency that should have a qualifying term - e.g. 'semi-transparency'. It would surely be misleading to refer to such forms of semi-transparency simply with the term 'transparency'.
But I have a much, much deeper concern about Florence's post. Why are we merely being presented with the decision not to have 'radical transparency'? I appreciate that the board must be able to make certain decisions without consultation with the rest of the community, but surely not on such an incredibly fundamental issue as this? I'm new to this community and am wondering what rules are in place to dictate which decisions are made by the board and which by the community as a whole? For example, I assume it is not the case that the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
Derrick Farnell
On Dec 25, 2007 11:39 PM, SJ Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
A fairly long reply to Florence and Sebastian.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Florence Devouard wrote:
Being leaving you, I would like to share with you part of an article (which you may find in a rather famous encyclopedia). I invite all of you to read it carefully.
Thank you for sharing.
Some organizations and networks, for example, Wikipedia, the GNU/Linux community and Indymedia, insist that not only the ordinary information of interest to the community is made freely available, but that all (or nearly all) meta-levels of organizing and decision-making are themselves also published. This is known as radical transparency.
I think the last paragraph is interesting. Indeed, what some of you are asking is radical transparency at the organization level. And radical transparency is not really suitable for us
I regret that you feel this way. Are you deeply resolved that this is right? You who always stood up for the rights of the unwanted on the projects? The power of such transparency is being greatly undervalued -- indeed, even in this email on transparency, you do not once mention the value of transparency explicitly. When did we start doubting this basic truth?
I have always had the utmost faith in you as a board member, and then as Chair, precisely because you have such a strong sense of openness and propriety. So it disturbs me to read such muted overtones in this letter of yours.
in most part because we are in the eye-storm of the media interest and that any scandal (or non-scandal actually) is likely to raise the interest of a journalist, and likely to spread at light-speed
Why are we as a project so sensitive? Why should we care? Wikipedia is and will remain one of the most extraordinary collaborations in human history. The greatest exercise in knowledge organization OF ALL TIME.
The one great strength of the project is that there has been only one; there is nothing like it anywhere in the world, in any field. The ramblings of a journalist out for a juicy story are hardly relevant on a timescale of generations. Indeed, being remembered for radical transparency would do more to cement Wikipedia's reputation than any short-term gain in public approval. Why are we seeking 'public' approval?
Why should we care ? Collectively, we are likely to mostly care because of our economical system. We essentially rely on the goodwill of donators, and donators are heavily sensitive to public displays of disagreements, fights, errors, misestimates, major screw-ups.
Well, that's an interesting position. So we seek public approval for short-term financial gain. I also think it is entirely wrong. I believe that the most active and valuable contributors -- those few editors who put in thousands of hours of work a year on the site, whose talents we as a project could not possible find by posting job descriptions and trying to hire 'editors', who are contributing the most to our little Wiki-economy -- that those contributors will all appreciate this sort of transparency. Tremendously; appreciate with the depth of spirit that leads one to renew a commitment to devote one's spare waking hours to a great endeavour.
We should absolutely preserve a clean reputation; but that starts with our most prolific and active donors : the people who pay close enough attention to know the difference between a pr pitch and the truth : the people who love and respect the history of often heated debate which gave rise to Wikipedia as we know it.
And why should we want to hide fights, errors, and disagreements from the world, those who are not yet contributors? This is the nature of life; of collaboration; of any project. I think being open about conflict or tricky issues is often the best way to draw new people in -- the best way to encourage newfound trust. contribution to Wikipedia, like the foundation of any economic system, is based on widespread trust.
And again, even from a publicity standpoint; shows and programs about the instability of real life are today as popular as any on television. It is a myth that people prefer or respect simple scripted story lines and a facade of perfection to the turbulence of reality.
On the topic of having too little time and 'human resources' to deal swiftly with certain things (like the treasurer search):
For example, we are looking for a treasurer. Can we reasonably appoint someone most of us have never met ? Likely not, but the next time we
I know there was a community calls for interested treasurers. But was there a suggestion of having a public place to discuss these; or even to see who has applied? What is the rationale there? With more public discussion, many of us would have become more invested in the issue, and would likely have had good suggestions to make.
Perhaps I am not the only one reading this list who can think of potentially suitable person they have not contacted... Of course personal resumes and other information could be submitted privately. But I wonder if any of the truly eligible candidates are people who would not even want their interest in the position to be published and discussed openly.
However, in the recent weeks, my belief is that, we have seen
<
- a tendency to shut down requests and criticism, whether on this list
or even on private lists, in an attempt to canalize the nature of information being made available
- a tendency to craft "authorized" messaging, accompanied with severe
criticism against trusted members deviating from this authorized
messages
What does this mean, for such a large [set of] project[s]? What is an example of an authorized message?
Not all ideas in these three tendencies are wrong. Standardization may be a good idea in some circonstances and facilitate daily operations. Privacy to discuss sensitive matters is obviously a good idea. And speaking with a unique voice rather than a cloud of voices is strengthening.
I'm not sure the last sentence is true. When there *is* a shared voice and vision, that is strengthening. When this is forced, it is not. Speaking with many different [genuine!] voices can also be strengthening.
But I would advise going too far on that path. It is not healthy generally, it is frustrating many good contributors. In an environmental situation which is very unstable with competitors, a rather decentralized, flexible system, with plenty of opportunities to jump in the system, is usually considered the best solution.
I agree it is frustrating many contributors. I don't think competition has much to do with it...
Sebastian writes:
This kind of transparency is detrimental to any organisation of
< significant size...
If, for example, a business has a tentative interest in a deal with the Wikimedia Foundation to publish Wikipedia content and use the trademark, those following negotiations will necessarily be confidential as will be the terms of the agreement. They have to be because incorporating Wikipedia content in a new, innovative way can be a significant competitive advantage - just think of the recent announcement by Spiegel in Germany to create a new knowledge portal combining a variety of sources with Wikipedia articles.
I agree with all of the changes you suggest later in your email, Sebastian, but I disagree with your comments above... your example of the Spiegel and other similar efforts are hardly ones that need to be kept largely confidential -- if 10% of such discussions are kept private, that should both be quite transparent and help avoid divulging sensitive private/personal/financial data.
The competitive advantage argument falls flat; I suppose we could also encourage innovation in MediaWiki by engaging in business deals with people who want to develop competitive advantage by adding non-free extensions -- after all, it is one of the most widely used pieces of software in the world. There are good reasons, tied directly to goals of sharing information with the widest possible audience, that we don't do that. And the creators of the tools in question chose their licenses carefully to preempt such arguments shutting down the free sharing of future innovations.
Wishing you and everyone a happy holiday season, and a head start on a productive and joyful 2008,
SJ
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Derrick Farnell wrote:
I agree with SJ. Radical transparency seems to fit perfectly with the radical collaboration model used by Wikipedia. If we can give anonymous users the power to vandalise a page, which can then be seen by everyone, including the media, then I don't see why we can't let everyone see our decision-making processes, warts and all.
I also think that the term 'radical transparency' is a bit loaded: the word 'radical' seems designed to scare people in this context. Why not just use the word 'transparency'?! It is surely lesser forms of transparency that should have a qualifying term - e.g. 'semi-transparency'. It would surely be misleading to refer to such forms of semi-transparency simply with the term 'transparency'.
But I have a much, much deeper concern about Florence's post. Why are we merely being presented with the decision not to have 'radical transparency'? I appreciate that the board must be able to make certain decisions without consultation with the rest of the community, but surely not on such an incredibly fundamental issue as this? I'm new to this community and am wondering what rules are in place to dictate which decisions are made by the board and which by the community as a whole?
I don't think that we can fairly talk about "radical" transparency unless we have an understanding of transparency. Presumably then we might achieve radical transparency by opening up some areas that might normally be done outside the public eye.
There are two things in my mind that are essential for transparency: 1. Make all normal reports in a timely fashion. This applies particularly to financial statements. I'm not just talking about audited statements. Periodic statements that are clearly marked "Unaudited" are perfectly acceptable on an interim basis. Nothing makes people more antsy than a lack of proper reporting; it gives the impression that something is being hidden. 2. Establish a Board policy about which kinds of matters should be confidential. If the matter does not clearly fall into that list it is public by default.
Ec
Derrick Farnell wrote:
I agree with SJ. Radical transparency seems to fit perfectly with the radical collaboration model used by Wikipedia. If we can give anonymous users the power to vandalise a page, which can then be seen by everyone, including the media, then I don't see why we can't let everyone see our decision-making processes, warts and all.
I also think that the term 'radical transparency' is a bit loaded: the word 'radical' seems designed to scare people in this context. Why not just use the word 'transparency'?! It is surely lesser forms of transparency that should have a qualifying term - e.g. 'semi-transparency'. It would surely be misleading to refer to such forms of semi-transparency simply with the term 'transparency'.
But I have a much, much deeper concern about Florence's post. Why are we merely being presented with the decision not to have 'radical transparency'? I appreciate that the board must be able to make certain decisions without consultation with the rest of the community, but surely not on such an incredibly fundamental issue as this? I'm new to this community and am wondering what rules are in place to dictate which decisions are made by the board and which by the community as a whole? For example, I assume it is not the case that the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
Derrick Farnell
It is a good question.
Probably best to mention right now that the WMF board has not decided to add advertisements :-)
But, I think the Wikimedia Foundation staff has technically the power to introduce ads. Then the Wikimedia Foundation board has the power to request that ads be removed. If the board decides not to remove the ads placed, the community has the power to elect new members in may, and then vote the ads to be removed. Or the community can decide to shame so much the board members that they will resign in disgust and be replaced by new community members, who can then vote the ads to be removed.
"Power" is a complex notion. It is different if approached from a legal perspective, from a technical perspective or from an ethical perspective.
I am against putting advertisements on the articles. This has been my position since 2002, when I joined the projects. I will never agree to this.
Now, it may be, this year, or next year perhaps, that we will realize that in spite of our efforts, only relying on altruistic gifts will not be sufficient. I do not know if you realize, but our current revenue is quite significantly below what we will need this year. And in front of such a situation, we probably have three paths (other paths exist, but require investments, additional human resources or will take too much time).
Path 1 is diet. As in "serious diet". Diet will mean that the websites which have been working very smoothly for the past 18 months or so, will not work so well. Sluggish, perhaps even down sometimes. A sluggish site will automatically lose audience, which will lighten the pressure. Diet will also mean losing some staff. I am not quite sure which one we can really afford losing right now.
Path 2 is business deals. Such as advertisements. If ads on articles is too controversial, perhaps a consensus position will be to put ads on the search pages.
Path 3 is relying on big donors. But big donors have a serious drawback, which is called "loss of independence". There is no mystery, when a donor give you 25% of your annual revenue, it is quite expected that they will try to influence you. Perhaps will it be light, or perhaps will it be much heavier. Perhaps big thank yous on the website, perhaps pushing so that the board accepts as its treasurer someone of big donnor staff, perhaps asking for exclusive use of our trademarks, perhaps asking that "annoying" board members be removed from the board, perhaps suggesting certain partnerships rather than others. Loss of independance would be a terrible thing to happen. Much more dangerous than advertisement actually, because it may not be reversible at all.
I am not *presenting* you with a *decision* of non-radical transparency. I am telling you that we can not provide radical transparency anymore. As for the good old regular transparency, I wish there was more willingness to provide it.
Ant
For example, I assume it is not the case that
the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
Derrick Farnell
It is a good question.
Probably best to mention right now that the WMF board has not decided to add advertisements :-)
But, I think the Wikimedia Foundation staff has technically the power to introduce ads. Then the Wikimedia Foundation board has the power to request that ads be removed. If the board decides not to remove the ads placed, the community has the power to elect new members in may, and then vote the ads to be removed. Or the community can decide to shame so much the board members that they will resign in disgust and be replaced by new community members, who can then vote the ads to be removed.
"Power" is a complex notion. It is different if approached from a legal perspective, from a technical perspective or from an ethical perspective.
I am against putting advertisements on the articles. This has been my position since 2002, when I joined the projects. I will never agree to this.
Now, it may be, this year, or next year perhaps, that we will realize that in spite of our efforts, only relying on altruistic gifts will not be sufficient. I do not know if you realize, but our current revenue is quite significantly below what we will need this year. And in front of such a situation, we probably have three paths (other paths exist, but require investments, additional human resources or will take too much time).
Path 1 is diet. As in "serious diet". Diet will mean that the websites which have been working very smoothly for the past 18 months or so, will not work so well. Sluggish, perhaps even down sometimes. A sluggish site will automatically lose audience, which will lighten the pressure. Diet will also mean losing some staff. I am not quite sure which one we can really afford losing right now.
Path 2 is business deals. Such as advertisements. If ads on articles is too controversial, perhaps a consensus position will be to put ads on the search pages.
Path 3 is relying on big donors. But big donors have a serious drawback, which is called "loss of independence". There is no mystery, when a donor give you 25% of your annual revenue, it is quite expected that they will try to influence you. Perhaps will it be light, or perhaps will it be much heavier. Perhaps big thank yous on the website, perhaps pushing so that the board accepts as its treasurer someone of big donnor staff, perhaps asking for exclusive use of our trademarks, perhaps asking that "annoying" board members be removed from the board, perhaps suggesting certain partnerships rather than others. Loss of independance would be a terrible thing to happen. Much more dangerous than advertisement actually, because it may not be reversible at all.
I am not *presenting* you with a *decision* of non-radical transparency. I am telling you that we can not provide radical transparency anymore. As for the good old regular transparency, I wish there was more willingness to provide it.
Ant
The problem is the slippery slope one. It is assumed that if there is advertising we would go whole hog. A limited program could raise enough money, but not overdo it. For example, the Foundation could accept advertising from selected non-profits and charities.
Fred
Thanks for explaining all of that Florence.
Re ads, I think showing the amount needed to keep the projects going in the fundraising banner would have helped greatly, as a motivator. Surely, if the banner showed that the amount raised so far was below that needed, then this would encourage more donations. As it is, no one has any idea, from the banner, that the amount raised so far falls well short. But I guess this has already been discussed.
Re 'radical transparency', I understand each of your points, but I do not accept that it is literally impossible ("I am not *presenting* you with a *decision* of non-radical transparency. I am telling you that we can not provide radical transparency anymore."). I think that a person's perception of possibility of something depends on how much they want it. As I say, 'radical transparency' fits perfectly with the radical collaboration model of these projects.
Also, you say the board dictates the general strategy of the Foundation. To me, this kind of decision simply *must* be made by the community as a whole, given that the projects are the product of the community.
I could go on (and on), but I think I've said enough in this thread now, so I'd better stop!
Derrick Farnell
On Dec 29, 2007 6:33 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
For example, I assume it is not the case that
the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
Derrick Farnell
It is a good question.
Probably best to mention right now that the WMF board has not decided to add advertisements :-)
But, I think the Wikimedia Foundation staff has technically the power to introduce ads. Then the Wikimedia Foundation board has the power to request that ads be removed. If the board decides not to remove the ads placed, the community has the power to elect new members in may, and then vote the ads to be removed. Or the community can decide to shame so much the board members that they will resign in disgust and be replaced by new community members, who can then vote the ads to be removed.
"Power" is a complex notion. It is different if approached from a legal perspective, from a technical perspective or from an ethical perspective.
I am against putting advertisements on the articles. This has been my position since 2002, when I joined the projects. I will never agree to this.
Now, it may be, this year, or next year perhaps, that we will realize that in spite of our efforts, only relying on altruistic gifts will not be sufficient. I do not know if you realize, but our current revenue is quite significantly below what we will need this year. And in front of such a situation, we probably have three paths (other paths exist, but require investments, additional human resources or will take too much time).
Path 1 is diet. As in "serious diet". Diet will mean that the websites which have been working very smoothly for the past 18 months or so, will not work so well. Sluggish, perhaps even down sometimes. A sluggish site will automatically lose audience, which will lighten the pressure. Diet will also mean losing some staff. I am not quite sure which one we can really afford losing right now.
Path 2 is business deals. Such as advertisements. If ads on articles is too controversial, perhaps a consensus position will be to put ads on the search pages.
Path 3 is relying on big donors. But big donors have a serious drawback, which is called "loss of independence". There is no mystery, when a donor give you 25% of your annual revenue, it is quite expected that they will try to influence you. Perhaps will it be light, or perhaps will it be much heavier. Perhaps big thank yous on the website, perhaps pushing so that the board accepts as its treasurer someone of big donnor staff, perhaps asking for exclusive use of our trademarks, perhaps asking that "annoying" board members be removed from the board, perhaps suggesting certain partnerships rather than others. Loss of independance would be a terrible thing to happen. Much more dangerous than advertisement actually, because it may not be reversible at all.
I am not *presenting* you with a *decision* of non-radical transparency. I am telling you that we can not provide radical transparency anymore. As for the good old regular transparency, I wish there was more willingness to provide it.
Ant
The problem is the slippery slope one. It is assumed that if there is advertising we would go whole hog. A limited program could raise enough money, but not overdo it. For example, the Foundation could accept advertising from selected non-profits and charities.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Derrick Farnell wrote:
Thanks for explaining all of that Florence.
Re ads, I think showing the amount needed to keep the projects going in the fundraising banner would have helped greatly, as a motivator. Surely, if the banner showed that the amount raised so far was below that needed, then this would encourage more donations. As it is, no one has any idea, from the banner, that the amount raised so far falls well short. But I guess this has already been discussed.
Yes. It has been discussed and the staff was willing to find new paths, new approaches to the previous fundraisers.
Some of the changes were very good: for example, the bar at the top was much more graphic than the previous ones, and the new fundraising page looks so much more professional than before. The blog was, overall, a good idea as well and a couple of blogs very interesting.
Other decisions were not so convincing or just plain wrong: the bar representing people rather than money was, in retrospect, not a good decision. Many people complained about the reference to africans, and decided not to give to their favorite project, in fear that funds will be used for projects they would not support. For the website, it would probably have been best to keep the message on "servers". The message mostly carved for an english-speaking audience was not in the international spirit of our projects (blog in english only for example, and only displayed on english speaking projects).
In short, there were good points and not so good points. We'll learn from it :-)
This said, I do think the fundraiser was not so bad given the global financial context. Remember, over 50% of our funds are in dollars. And in the USA, the mood is not very much to giving.
Re 'radical transparency', I understand each of your points, but I do not accept that it is literally impossible ("I am not *presenting* you with a *decision* of non-radical transparency. I am telling you that we can not provide radical transparency anymore."). I think that a person's perception of possibility of something depends on how much they want it. As I say, 'radical transparency' fits perfectly with the radical collaboration model of these projects.
Also, you say the board dictates the general strategy of the Foundation. To me, this kind of decision simply *must* be made by the community as a whole, given that the projects are the product of the community.
There is no black and white answer here Derrick.
When it comes to opening a new project, both board and community must make the decision (as we learned the hard way a few years ago), because the entire community is concerned and the Foundation supporting the project is concerned as well.
When it comes to changing a license, both board and community must be involved in the decision.
When it comes to choosing our stewards, both board and community must be involved.
However, when it comes to closing a project because it is a huge copyright violation and threat of a huge lawsuit, then no vote of a community will make a difference.
Or when it comes to hiring an accountant because we can not reasonably run a 5 million dollars organization with no accountant, then it is Foundation job to make that decision. Not the community.
Or when it comes to decide to open a new hosting location, it would also be unreasonable to expect us to put that to vote to the community.
So, the answer is "that depends".
In many cases, I wish we could get more feedback from the community. But given the totally amorphous caracter of the community, it is really hard to get. Hence the wikicouncil necessity.
Incidentally, I posted the minutes of the last irl board meeting here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/October_6-7%2C_2007
Beyond the usual complains about our financial statements, can you answer to:
* Does that help identify what our daily activity is about ? * Does that appear threatening ? * In which areas would you like to be more informed ? * In which areas would you like to be more involved ?
Ant
I could go on (and on), but I think I've said enough in this thread now, so I'd better stop!
Derrick Farnell
On Dec 29, 2007 6:33 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
For example, I assume it is not the case that
the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
Derrick Farnell
It is a good question.
Probably best to mention right now that the WMF board has not decided to add advertisements :-)
But, I think the Wikimedia Foundation staff has technically the power to introduce ads. Then the Wikimedia Foundation board has the power to request that ads be removed. If the board decides not to remove the ads placed, the community has the power to elect new members in may, and then vote the ads to be removed. Or the community can decide to shame so much the board members that they will resign in disgust and be replaced by new community members, who can then vote the ads to be removed.
"Power" is a complex notion. It is different if approached from a legal perspective, from a technical perspective or from an ethical perspective.
I am against putting advertisements on the articles. This has been my position since 2002, when I joined the projects. I will never agree to this.
Now, it may be, this year, or next year perhaps, that we will realize that in spite of our efforts, only relying on altruistic gifts will not be sufficient. I do not know if you realize, but our current revenue is quite significantly below what we will need this year. And in front of such a situation, we probably have three paths (other paths exist, but require investments, additional human resources or will take too much time).
Path 1 is diet. As in "serious diet". Diet will mean that the websites which have been working very smoothly for the past 18 months or so, will not work so well. Sluggish, perhaps even down sometimes. A sluggish site will automatically lose audience, which will lighten the pressure. Diet will also mean losing some staff. I am not quite sure which one we can really afford losing right now.
Path 2 is business deals. Such as advertisements. If ads on articles is too controversial, perhaps a consensus position will be to put ads on the search pages.
Path 3 is relying on big donors. But big donors have a serious drawback, which is called "loss of independence". There is no mystery, when a donor give you 25% of your annual revenue, it is quite expected that they will try to influence you. Perhaps will it be light, or perhaps will it be much heavier. Perhaps big thank yous on the website, perhaps pushing so that the board accepts as its treasurer someone of big donnor staff, perhaps asking for exclusive use of our trademarks, perhaps asking that "annoying" board members be removed from the board, perhaps suggesting certain partnerships rather than others. Loss of independance would be a terrible thing to happen. Much more dangerous than advertisement actually, because it may not be reversible at all.
I am not *presenting* you with a *decision* of non-radical transparency. I am telling you that we can not provide radical transparency anymore. As for the good old regular transparency, I wish there was more willingness to provide it.
Ant
The problem is the slippery slope one. It is assumed that if there is advertising we would go whole hog. A limited program could raise enough money, but not overdo it. For example, the Foundation could accept advertising from selected non-profits and charities.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 12/29/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
For example, I assume it is not the case that
the board has the power to introduce adds without any consultation?
Derrick Farnell
It is a good question.
Probably best to mention right now that the WMF board has not decided to add advertisements :-)
But, I think the Wikimedia Foundation staff has technically the power to introduce ads. Then the Wikimedia Foundation board has the power to request that ads be removed. If the board decides not to remove the ads placed, the community has the power to elect new members in may, and then vote the ads to be removed. Or the community can decide to shame so much the board members that they will resign in disgust and be replaced by new community members, who can then vote the ads to be removed.
"Power" is a complex notion. It is different if approached from a legal perspective, from a technical perspective or from an ethical perspective.
I am against putting advertisements on the articles. This has been my position since 2002, when I joined the projects. I will never agree to this.
Now, it may be, this year, or next year perhaps, that we will realize that in spite of our efforts, only relying on altruistic gifts will not be sufficient. I do not know if you realize, but our current revenue is quite significantly below what we will need this year. And in front of such a situation, we probably have three paths (other paths exist, but require investments, additional human resources or will take too much time).
Path 1 is diet. As in "serious diet". Diet will mean that the websites which have been working very smoothly for the past 18 months or so, will not work so well. Sluggish, perhaps even down sometimes. A sluggish site will automatically lose audience, which will lighten the pressure. Diet will also mean losing some staff. I am not quite sure which one we can really afford losing right now.
Path 2 is business deals. Such as advertisements. If ads on articles is too controversial, perhaps a consensus position will be to put ads on the search pages.
Path 3 is relying on big donors. But big donors have a serious drawback, which is called "loss of independence". There is no mystery, when a donor give you 25% of your annual revenue, it is quite expected that they will try to influence you. Perhaps will it be light, or perhaps will it be much heavier. Perhaps big thank yous on the website, perhaps pushing so that the board accepts as its treasurer someone of big donnor staff, perhaps asking for exclusive use of our trademarks, perhaps asking that "annoying" board members be removed from the board, perhaps suggesting certain partnerships rather than others. Loss of independance would be a terrible thing to happen. Much more dangerous than advertisement actually, because it may not be reversible at all.
I am not *presenting* you with a *decision* of non-radical transparency. I am telling you that we can not provide radical transparency anymore. As for the good old regular transparency, I wish there was more willingness to provide it.
Ant
The problem is the slippery slope one. It is assumed that if there is advertising we would go whole hog. A limited program could raise enough money, but not overdo it. For example, the Foundation could accept advertising from selected non-profits and charities.
Fred
Two things I would add to what Fred and Florence said above.
First, if the money were to be raised by adding adverts to search functionality, a good part of the raised money would have to be allocated specifically to making wikipedias search more functional.
Currently wikipedias search is its greatest (non-content) achilles heel. Adding adverts to it without making search functionality itself better would be little short of disastrous, though conceivably it would lead more people to use other search engines to search wikipedia, which is of course possible even today. But if that were the result; it would certainly take pressure off from the servers, but simultaneously reduce the financial gain, as people wouldn't be using it.
The problems with search are lack of wildcards, logical operatives etc. as well as evaluating significance of relusts contextually.
The second thing is that though the psychological impact of advertisements could be ameliorated by strictly limiting the advertisers on a non-rofit, charitable and or ethical good standing framework, the brunt of the impact would be at the place which least needs it, and specific consultation ought to be made with those quarters, to find out what specific things can be done to ensure they recieve a greater proportion of the added usable revenue.
I am talking specifically about the smaller projects, which are only beginning to grow. It is conceivable that small projects growth might be critically stunted through the perception problem that we are no longer charitable with advertisements. One thing which might help is education about what non-profit means. Another would be ear-marking ad-revenue specifically to aid beginning projects.
The project from which the majority of the revenue likely would be engendered, namely the english language wikipedia, would also be the one least vulnerable. This is very clear to my mind. If anything, it might be arguable that the concommittant slowing down of hte growth of the english wikipedia, due to people leaving in droves out of disgust, might benefit its adaptation due to not having to grow up its institutions in such a hurry to scale up.
But to emphasize and strenuously agree with Freds point, if we do start with adverts, the right way to go about it is to get the camels nose into the tent by way of strictly limiting the adverts to screened charities and non-profits.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Currently wikipedias search is its greatest (non-content) achilles heel.
[snip]
The problems with search are lack of wildcards, logical operatives
Actually both of these have been present for some time. Try them yourself:
wild*
wild OR tame
(wild OR tame) AND animal
Note that in my spot-checking, wildcards appear to have some problems when multiple namespaces are selected for search; we'll have to take a look at that.
etc. as well as evaluating significance of relusts contextually.
That's something that I believe Robert (who's been maintaining our Lucene-based search module) is working to improve.
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
On Jan 2, 2008 6:30 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Note that in my spot-checking, wildcards appear to have some problems when multiple namespaces are selected for search; we'll have to take a look at that.
The problem with multiple namespaces has been noted in bug 11313. I've fixed it on the devel branch.
That's something that I believe Robert (who's been maintaining our
Lucene-based search module) is working to improve.
I'm working actively on this and other issues like spell checking and ajax suggestions. Most of it is implemented, just needs more testing.. I hope to finish it and hopefully bring it online by the end of the january...
r.
Robert Stojnic wrote:
The problem with multiple namespaces has been noted in bug 11313. I've fixed it on the devel branch.
That's something that I believe Robert (who's been maintaining our Lucene-based search module) is working to improve.
I'm working actively on this and other issues like spell checking and ajax suggestions. Most of it is implemented, just needs more testing.. I hope to finish it and hopefully bring it online by the end of the january...
Awesome. :)
-- brion
Thank you.
Ilario
On Dec 22, 2007 10:43 AM, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Some organizations and networks, for example, Wikipedia, the GNU/Linux community and Indymedia, insist that not only the ordinary information of interest to the community is made freely available, but that all (or nearly all) meta-levels of organizing and decision-making are themselves also published. This is known as radical transparency.
Found the below interesting little piece about the Foundation on the web ( http://www.timshell.com/wikipedia/whyboard.html). I think it would help matters here if the current board stated whether it is still true today. As I stated earlier in this thread, I'm not just concerned about the demise of 'radical transparency', but also about the fact that the decision to kill it off was apparently made without consultation with the community.
Derrick Farnell
---------------------------
Why is there a Board?
The main reason there is a Board is so that the state of Florida will know who to throw into jail if the Foundation violates the law.
The Board was not formed because it was determined this would be the best governance structure for the Foundation. It was formed because, when we went about creating the Foundation as a non-profit, the state of Florida informed us that a Board would be legally required.
Without this requirement, the Foundation would likely have adopted some other form of governance, one that is more in line with the nature of the Wikimedia projects and of the communities behind them.
The first priority of the Board is to insure compliance with all applicable laws.
The second priority, perhaps, should be to create in practice, to whatever extent possible, the sort of governance structure we would have adopted if the current structure had not been imposed upon us as a matter of law.
This would involve a very flat power structure, with decision making authority exercised by the community through a process of building consensus and establishing social norms. If decision-making need be centralized, this could be accomplished through the creation of decision-making nodes (committees, perhaps chapters) which would make decisions with only a limited scope of authority.
We may call this "community governance at the leave of the Board."
This model will never be perfectly achieved. Obviously, the need to insure legal compliance requires that the Board have the power to veto or rescind any action of the community. And there will be numerous cases where decisions must be made on a Board level, if only for reasons of expediency. But the goal in all things sould be to maximize community governance, and to minimize hierarchy and the concentration of decision-making authority.
On Dec 27, 2007 2:21 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you.
Ilario
On Dec 22, 2007 10:43 AM, Florence Devouard anthere@anthere.org wrote:
Some organizations and networks, for example, Wikipedia, the GNU/Linux community and Indymedia, insist that not only the ordinary information of interest to the community is made freely available, but that all (or nearly all) meta-levels of organizing and decision-making are themselves also published. This is known as radical transparency.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Personally I disagree with this vision (There is a board because legally an association requires to have a board), because there are some requirements by the management to have persons who can help them to have historical knowledge about the projets and to have an in depth knowledge of the communities. The management itself declare that.
IMHO the board *has got* this knowledge (and not a single person in the board) because the board is heterogeneous, come from the communities and all members seems to be (or to have been) wikipedians.
Without the board the management could take wrong ways.
The advantage of the board is that *the board change* with addition of new persons who can bring *new* visions and *new* relations and *new* experience.
Personally I disagree any action of the management towards communities *without* board's consultation: it could be a suicide.
Ilario
On Dec 28, 2007 12:44 PM, Derrick Farnell derrick.farnell@gmail.com wrote:
Found the below interesting little piece about the Foundation on the web ( http://www.timshell.com/wikipedia/whyboard.html). I think it would help matters here if the current board stated whether it is still true today. As I stated earlier in this thread, I'm not just concerned about the demise of 'radical transparency', but also about the fact that the decision to kill it off was apparently made without consultation with the community.
Derrick Farnell
there are some requirements by the management to have persons who can help them to have historical knowledge about the projets and to have an in depth knowledge of the communities.
The community can also provide such knowledge.
The advantage of the board is that *the board change* with addition of
new persons who can bring *new* visions and *new* relations and *new* experience.
The community can also provide all of that.
Personally I disagree any action of the management towards communities
*without* board's consultation: it could be a suicide.
I wasn't suggesting that management should make decisions without consultation - indeed, I was suggesting that they there should be more, not less, consultation, by consulting not just the board, but also the community as a whole.
Derrick Farnell
On Dec 28, 2007 12:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I disagree with this vision (There is a board because legally an association requires to have a board), because there are some requirements by the management to have persons who can help them to have historical knowledge about the projets and to have an in depth knowledge of the communities. The management itself declare that.
IMHO the board *has got* this knowledge (and not a single person in the board) because the board is heterogeneous, come from the communities and all members seems to be (or to have been) wikipedians.
Without the board the management could take wrong ways.
The advantage of the board is that *the board change* with addition of new persons who can bring *new* visions and *new* relations and *new* experience.
Personally I disagree any action of the management towards communities *without* board's consultation: it could be a suicide.
Ilario
On Dec 28, 2007 12:44 PM, Derrick Farnell derrick.farnell@gmail.com wrote:
Found the below interesting little piece about the Foundation on the web
(
http://www.timshell.com/wikipedia/whyboard.html). I think it would help matters here if the current board stated whether it is still true today.
As
I stated earlier in this thread, I'm not just concerned about the demise
of
'radical transparency', but also about the fact that the decision to
kill it
off was apparently made without consultation with the community.
Derrick Farnell
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
on 12/28/07 12:55 PM, Derrick Farnell at derrick.farnell@gmail.com wrote:
there are some requirements by the management to have persons who can help them to have historical knowledge about the projets and to have an in depth knowledge of the communities.
The community can also provide such knowledge.
The advantage of the board is that *the board change* with addition of
new persons who can bring *new* visions and *new* relations and *new* experience.
The community can also provide all of that.
Personally I disagree any action of the management towards communities
*without* board's consultation: it could be a suicide.
I wasn't suggesting that management should make decisions without consultation - indeed, I was suggesting that they there should be more, not less, consultation, by consulting not just the board, but also the community as a whole.
Derrick Farnell
Derrick,
What mechanisms do we have in place where we could consult with the whole Community?
Marc Riddell
On Dec 28, 2007 12:49 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I disagree with this vision (There is a board because legally an association requires to have a board), because there are some requirements by the management to have persons who can help them to have historical knowledge about the projets and to have an in depth knowledge of the communities. The management itself declare that.
IMHO the board *has got* this knowledge (and not a single person in the board) because the board is heterogeneous, come from the communities and all members seems to be (or to have been) wikipedians.
Without the board the management could take wrong ways.
The advantage of the board is that *the board change* with addition of new persons who can bring *new* visions and *new* relations and *new* experience.
Personally I disagree any action of the management towards communities *without* board's consultation: it could be a suicide.
Ilario
On Dec 28, 2007 12:44 PM, Derrick Farnell derrick.farnell@gmail.com wrote:
Found the below interesting little piece about the Foundation on the web
(
http://www.timshell.com/wikipedia/whyboard.html). I think it would help matters here if the current board stated whether it is still true today.
As
I stated earlier in this thread, I'm not just concerned about the demise
of
'radical transparency', but also about the fact that the decision to
kill it
off was apparently made without consultation with the community.
Derrick Farnell
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What mechanisms do we have in place where we could consult with the whole Community?
None as far as I am aware - which is my complaint! :-)
But there are already mechanisms for the community to elect board members, and of course decide the content of projects, so why not also for every other decision? There could be an online location for such debates (the Foundation wiki?), which would be followed by a vote. Even if only a small percentage of the community takes part in such debates and vote, that would still be hugely more people than the 8(?) on the board - and the point is that any member can at least in theory get involved, and have a vote. I've been an anonymous contributor for years, but am new to this list - has the community actually every agreed to the board growing from merely being an unwelcome legal necessity , as described in the piece in my earlier post? As the author wrote:
The first priority of the Board is to insure compliance with all applicable laws.
The second priority, perhaps, should be to create in practice, to whatever extent possible, the sort of governance structure we would have adopted if the current structure had not been imposed upon us as a matter of law.
Did the community ever agree to abandon this aspiration?
Derrick Farnell
2007/12/28, Derrick Farnell derrick.farnell@gmail.com:
What mechanisms do we have in place where we could consult with the whole Community?
None as far as I am aware - which is my complaint! :-)
But there are already mechanisms for the community to elect board members, and of course decide the content of projects, so why not also for every other decision? There could be an online location for such debates (the Foundation wiki?), which would be followed by a vote. Even if only a small percentage of the community takes part in such debates and vote, that would still be hugely more people than the 8(?) on the board - and the point is that any member can at least in theory get involved, and have a vote. I've been an anonymous contributor for years, but am new to this list - has the community actually every agreed to the board growing from merely being an unwelcome legal necessity , as described in the piece in my earlier post? As the author wrote:
Making all or even vast majority of Foundation's decision by voting by general Wikimedia's projects community IMHO doesn't make sense. Foundation matters are mainly about the real-life issues - like methods of collecting money for maintaining servers, legal things - like changing bylaws or closing of a project because it contains large number of copyright violation etc. Bear in mind that if a decision made by voting would be against US law, Foundation's Board members should immediately resign - as the realization of illegal decision make them criminals in US. Bear in mind that Wikimedia's projects community is not a collection of registered citizens or at least members, but rather an amorphous group of project's accounts in vast majority completely or semi-anonymous. One can vote one day, and completely leave Wikimedia's projects next day. Moreover a system of voting of any decision could simply paralyze Foundation. What to do if a given decision has to be taken fast, for example overnight, and this decision might be crucial to survival of Foundation?
Foundation matters are mainly about the real-life issues - like methods of collecting money for maintaining servers, legal things - like changing bylaws or closing of a project because it contains large number of copyright violation etc.
I don't see why any of the above couldn't be done by community consensus. For example, wrt legal matters, we surely must have lawyers among the community who would be willing to volunteer, and advise the rest of the community, with the community as a whole then debating the issue, followed by a vote.
Bear in mind that if a decision made by voting would be against US law, Foundation's Board members should immediately resign - as the realization of illegal decision make them criminals in US.
This could be avoided by simply not giving the option to vote for something which would be illegal.
Bear in mind that Wikimedia's projects community is not a collection of registered citizens or at least members, but rather an amorphous group of project's accounts in vast majority completely or semi-anonymous. One can vote one day, and completely leave Wikimedia's projects next day.
I don't see why any of this is a problem - it's certainly not considered a problem wrt deciding on who should serve on the board, or of course on the content of the projects themselves.
Moreover a system of voting of any decision could simply paralyze Foundation. What to do if a given decision has to be taken fast, for example overnight, and this decision might be crucial to survival of Foundation?
I don't see why such a system would necessarily be any slower than the present system. There would be a time-limit on the debating and voting periods. As for decisions which need to be made quicker, I wouldn't have a problem with the board making such decisions, and then explaining their decision to the community afterwards. I wouldn't have thought such decisions would be required very often, and would think they would form a tiny fraction of the decisions made.
Derrick Farnell
on 12/28/07 5:32 PM, Derrick Farnell at derrick.farnell@gmail.com wrote:
Foundation matters are mainly about the real-life issues - like methods of collecting money for maintaining servers, legal things - like changing bylaws or closing of a project because it contains large number of copyright violation etc.
I don't see why any of the above couldn't be done by community consensus. For example, wrt legal matters, we surely must have lawyers among the community who would be willing to volunteer, and advise the rest of the community, with the community as a whole then debating the issue, followed by a vote.
Bear in mind that if a decision made by voting would be against US law, Foundation's Board members should immediately resign - as the realization of illegal decision make them criminals in US.
This could be avoided by simply not giving the option to vote for something which would be illegal.
Bear in mind that Wikimedia's projects community is not a collection of registered citizens or at least members, but rather an amorphous group of project's accounts in vast majority completely or semi-anonymous. One can vote one day, and completely leave Wikimedia's projects next day.
I don't see why any of this is a problem - it's certainly not considered a problem wrt deciding on who should serve on the board, or of course on the content of the projects themselves.
Moreover a system of voting of any decision could simply paralyze Foundation. What to do if a given decision has to be taken fast, for example overnight, and this decision might be crucial to survival of Foundation?
I don't see why such a system would necessarily be any slower than the present system. There would be a time-limit on the debating and voting periods. As for decisions which need to be made quicker, I wouldn't have a problem with the board making such decisions, and then explaining their decision to the community afterwards. I wouldn't have thought such decisions would be required very often, and would think they would form a tiny fraction of the decisions made.
Derrick Farnell
Derrick,
The issue of wider Community involvement in Project decision making has been, and I hope will continue to be, a subject of much discussion. Sooner or later a reasonable balance will be struck as the Community itself establishes, defines and refines its own identity here. I don't have the answers; just encouragement to keep asking the questions. Welcome to the Mailing List, Derrick.
Marc Riddell
Derrick Farnell wrote:
What mechanisms do we have in place where we could consult with the whole Community?
None as far as I am aware - which is my complaint! :-)
But there are already mechanisms for the community to elect board members, and of course decide the content of projects, so why not also for every other decision? There could be an online location for such debates (the Foundation wiki?), which would be followed by a vote. Even if only a small percentage of the community takes part in such debates and vote, that would still be hugely more people than the 8(?) on the board -
5
and the point is
that any member can at least in theory get involved, and have a vote. I've been an anonymous contributor for years, but am new to this list - has the community actually every agreed to the board growing from merely being an unwelcome legal necessity , as described in the piece in my earlier post? As the author wrote:
The first priority of the Board is to insure compliance with all applicable laws.
The second priority, perhaps, should be to create in practice, to whatever extent possible, the sort of governance structure we would have adopted if the current structure had not been imposed upon us as a matter of law.
Did the community ever agree to abandon this aspiration?
Derrick Farnell
Little bit of history for you Derrick
When Jimbo decided to create the Foundation, he could have decided to make it a business. Instead, he wanted at that time, to allow the community to be involved in the future of the projects. So, rather than creating a simple business to make cash, he created a Foundation. At registration, he was informed a board should exist, of at least 3. He then asked Michael and Tim to be board members and decided that 2 more members from the community would join later on. The 2 other members were Angela and I, and we joined only 1 year after the creation of the Foundation.
I presume that the text from Tim you are pointing to, was written in the first year after the creation. Tim had a very healthy position with regards to hierarchy and willingness to create a flat structure.
In my view, the board has three roles (generally).
The first is to decide the general strategy that the Foundation should follow. Such as, should it only host wikimedia projects, or go beyond. Such as, should it rely on donations from individuals, or businessmen, or grants. Etc... All the strategic decisions should help us achieve our mission, such as given in the bylaws. All the strategic decisions should respect the values outlined in the mission. In *my* view, we have been roughly successful on this role. We could have done better, but given the extraordinary growth of our projects and the pressure subsequently applied, we managed rather well (at least, no disaster occured...) In *my* view, the strategy should be defined in accordance with the community, where I come from. And in my view, the current mechanisms to involve the community are not sufficient as of today. Please note that "strategy of the organization" is not 100% overlapping "strategy of the projects". There are many issues totally in the hands of the projects, and it should stay that way.
The second is to make sure that the organization has sufficient resources to implement the strategy. In particular, the board is the one hiring the executive director, who has the responsability of implementing the strategy. Well, the past year has been rough, but we now have Sue and she is doing a good job.
The third role of the board is to make sure that the activity of the Foundation is 1) toward the mission, 2) not toward other missions..., 3) compliant with US non-profit law. Note that the people (community) and the chapters are explicitely mentionned in the bylaws mission statement, which means that "not respecting and involving" those people and organization, is likely to be interpretated as "not toward the mission". Note that the controls should apply both to the staff (what they are implementing) and to the board itself (to make sure that what the board decide is fully within the mission and not impaired by various conflicts of interest).
I would summarize it as * define the overall strategy * delegate (to the staff) * control (board and staff activity)
Strategy, ihmo, not only can but should, involve the community.
Implementation is the job of the staff primarily, and of volunteers willing to help
Control is essentially the job of the board, even if stakeholders are very welcome to ask for reports and clarification, within reason.
ant
What is community? Do you mean the same community who loves to discuss and frequently to lose the aim of some votation or elections?
I agree, I am for a radical democracy but if all democracies use a representative body probably this happens because a full democracy can block any decision with a permanent indecision.
I have seen a "radical democracy" only in same cantons of Switzerland, where votants are so few persons that if you would call them by phone to have the vote, you require not so many hours to have a final result.
Ilario
On Dec 28, 2007 7:51 PM, Derrick Farnell derrick.farnell@gmail.com wrote:
None as far as I am aware - which is my complaint! :-)
But there are already mechanisms for the community to elect board members, and of course decide the content of projects, so why not also for every other decision? There could be an online location for such debates (the Foundation wiki?), which would be followed by a vote. Even if only a small percentage of the community takes part in such debates and vote, that would still be hugely more people than the 8(?) on the board - and the point is that any member can at least in theory get involved, and have a vote. I've been an anonymous contributor for years, but am new to this list - has the community actually every agreed to the board growing from merely being an unwelcome legal necessity , as described in the piece in my earlier post? As the author wrote:
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org