In response to Anthony and other related posts:
Someone is needed to bootstrap the organization ... I think it's important to make it clear that this isn't a permanent position, though. In part, because it's dangerous to assign such a position when you really have no clue what the position is
One thing I think is important though is the interim CEO should be made aware that a big part of eir job is going to be explaining eir actions to the entire membership
So far the CEO / COO / Director *interim* position can be summarised as follows:
"We need help real fast. We don't know what help we need and would like you to tell us. Please don't ruffle any feathers. Don't do anything without telling everyone in the community. We'll get back to you about what we decide."
So, appointing an *interim* CEO / COO / Director will have a result equivalent to not appointing an *interim* CEO / COO / Director. The core problem: "We don't know what to do next and we need help deciding what to do," won't have been solved and can't be solved until the board and community decide.
You've given your own suggestions above, but what is the board going to do, say "hey, Gavin Chait said this is how we should do it, so lets go with it"? I don't think it's going to happen.
Why not? I have 15 years experience in South Africa developing and running non-profit organisations in fields as diverse as HIV / AIDS, education and small business development. I've worked with student-run, university-based organisations, corporate funded ones, and institutional versions. I have fund-raised, written proposals, developed ideas and implemented them. Some of my ideas even work.
I'm probably not the only person with this sort of experience on this list but I do have some idea of what it takes to run a self-sustaining non-profit social benefit organisation.
So why not listen to my suggestions? They are my opinions, based on my experiences. They are freely and honestly given. I don't have all the answers but I may be able to save you some bother.
On 6/3/06, Gavin Chait gchait@gmx.net wrote:
In response to Anthony and other related posts:
Someone is needed to bootstrap the organization ... I think it's important to make it clear that this isn't a permanent position, though. In part, because it's dangerous to assign such a position when you really have no clue what the position is
One thing I think is important though is the interim CEO should be made aware that a big part of eir job is going to be explaining eir actions to the entire membership
So far the CEO / COO / Director *interim* position can be summarised as follows:
"We need help real fast. We don't know what help we need and would like you to tell us. Please don't ruffle any feathers. Don't do anything without telling everyone in the community. We'll get back to you about what we decide."
So, appointing an *interim* CEO / COO / Director will have a result equivalent to not appointing an *interim* CEO / COO / Director. The core problem: "We don't know what to do next and we need help deciding what to do," won't have been solved and can't be solved until the board and community decide.
I don't see how appointing an interim CEO/COO/Director doesn't solve that problem. My presumption is that such a person would know what to do next, and would be able to convince the board and most of the community that she's right about it.
You've given your own suggestions above, but what is the board going to do, say "hey, Gavin Chait said this is how we should do it, so lets go with it"? I don't think it's going to happen.
Why not? I have 15 years experience in South Africa developing and running non-profit organisations in fields as diverse as HIV / AIDS, education and small business development. I've worked with student-run, university-based organisations, corporate funded ones, and institutional versions. I have fund-raised, written proposals, developed ideas and implemented them. Some of my ideas even work.
I'm probably not the only person with this sort of experience on this list but I do have some idea of what it takes to run a self-sustaining non-profit social benefit organisation.
So why not listen to my suggestions? They are my opinions, based on my experiences. They are freely and honestly given. I don't have all the answers but I may be able to save you some bother.
Well, I'm personally a big believer that there needs to be a competent central figure during this process. Maybe you agree with me, and maybe you don't. I'm also a big believer that Jimbo, the only current candidate, is *not* competent at such a task.
So hey, if you could convince the board that you have what it takes, I'd say hire *you* as interim CEO. Unlike some others I don't think the interim CEO has to have a tremendous resume as a top leader of huge organizations - someone with the experience you describe would probably be good enough, and probably a *lot* cheaper.
Maybe you'd even be willing to take on such a role for free. If so, even better.
As an alternative it'd be nice to get someone with your type of experience on the board. Preferably as an additional member, but if Jimbo's control issues won't allow the board to expand then maybe Ant or Angela would be willing to step down (we could give her some sort of new title like "Volunteer advocate" and an advisory position).
Of course, all of this is dependent on you being 1) willing, and 2) able to demonstrate your ability to handle the task. And it goes equally well for anyone on this list who can convince Jimbo that ey can do it.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
You've given your own suggestions above, but what is the board going to do, say "hey, Gavin Chait said this is how we should do it, so lets go with it"? I don't think it's going to happen.
Why not? I have 15 years experience in South Africa developing and running non-profit organisations in fields as diverse as HIV / AIDS, education and small business development. I've worked with student-run, university-based organisations, corporate funded ones, and institutional versions. I have fund-raised, written proposals, developed ideas and implemented them. Some of my ideas even work.
I'm probably not the only person with this sort of experience on this list but I do have some idea of what it takes to run a self-sustaining non-profit social benefit organisation.
So why not listen to my suggestions? They are my opinions, based on my experiences. They are freely and honestly given. I don't have all the answers but I may be able to save you some bother.
Well, I'm personally a big believer that there needs to be a competent central figure during this process. Maybe you agree with me, and maybe you don't. I'm also a big believer that Jimbo, the only current candidate, is *not* competent at such a task.
So hey, if you could convince the board that you have what it takes, I'd say hire *you* as interim CEO. Unlike some others I don't think the interim CEO has to have a tremendous resume as a top leader of huge organizations - someone with the experience you describe would probably be good enough, and probably a *lot* cheaper.
I'd say that right now, we need a CEO who understands plainly what our troubles are. It is not the case of Gavin right at the moment. I can't speak of the future :-)
Maybe you'd even be willing to take on such a role for free. If so, even better.
As an alternative it'd be nice to get someone with your type of experience on the board. Preferably as an additional member, but if Jimbo's control issues won't allow the board to expand then maybe Ant or Angela would be willing to step down (we could give her some sort of new title like "Volunteer advocate" and an advisory position).
It is nice to see how quickly you would like to get rid of the community representatives :-) Don't worry, there is a chance that happen.
Perhaps... I must clarify something here. I think that legally speaking, the decision to expand the board is not in the sole hands of Jimbo. It is a decision which should be made by the board. In short, if 4 members vote expanding the board and Jimbo votes against, expansion will occur.
Current problem is to define whether board members should be appointed and/or elected, as well as the proportionality of community members versus external members. External should be appointed, but the question was whether community members should be appointed only, elected only or a mix of the two. Note that in case of election only, Gavin probably has no chance to be on the board as a community representative. We could possibly imagine a solution such as 2 community members elected every year for 2 years. Plus 5 appointed.
Of course, all of this is dependent on you being 1) willing, and 2) able to demonstrate your ability to handle the task. And it goes equally well for anyone on this list who can convince Jimbo that ey can do it.
If Jimbo is the only one to decide who to appoint, yes.
Anthony
Ant
On 6/3/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Well, I'm personally a big believer that there needs to be a competent central figure during this process. Maybe you agree with me, and maybe you don't. I'm also a big believer that Jimbo, the only current candidate, is *not* competent at such a task.
So hey, if you could convince the board that you have what it takes, I'd say hire *you* [referring to Gavin] as interim CEO. Unlike some others I don't think the interim CEO has to have a tremendous resume as a top leader of huge organizations - someone with the experience you describe would probably be good enough, and probably a *lot* cheaper.
I'd say that right now, we need a CEO who understands plainly what our troubles are. It is not the case of Gavin right at the moment. I can't speak of the future :-)
I don't think it would be hard to explain to Gavin what Wikimedia's troubles are. Now that I look back on what he said of them: "We don't know what to do next and we need help deciding what to do", I see how that could be taken one of two ways. One way, that the Wikimedia board is unclear on its mission, is quite plainly false. The other interpretation, that the Wikimedia board has no clue how best to organize itself so as to accomplish that mission, seems to hit the nail right on the head.
If you have a different opinion as to what the main trouble is, I for one would like to hear it. Maybe you've already said it though, and I missed it. I know you were complaining before about lack of help, but I don't think there actually is a lack of help, just a lack of the organization needed to match the help up with the work that needs to be done.
Maybe you'd even be willing to take on such a role for free. If so, even better.
As an alternative it'd be nice to get someone with your type of experience on the board. Preferably as an additional member, but if Jimbo's control issues won't allow the board to expand then maybe Ant or Angela would be willing to step down (we could give her some sort of new title like "Volunteer advocate" and an advisory position).
It is nice to see how quickly you would like to get rid of the community representatives :-) Don't worry, there is a chance that happen.
Umm, no, I wasn't suggesting getting rid of the community representatives, I was suggesting that Gavin *be* one of the community representatives. Of course I was basing this on the fact that the board seems to be admitting that it doesn't know what its doing. Maybe this isn't the case, in which case I wonder what's the need to hire a CEO.
Perhaps... I must clarify something here. I think that legally speaking, the decision to expand the board is not in the sole hands of Jimbo. It is a decision which should be made by the board. In short, if 4 members vote expanding the board and Jimbo votes against, expansion will occur.
Sure, but it is my understanding that it's unlikely to convince Michael Davis and Tim Shell to vote for expansion of the board unless Jimbo agrees to it. Maybe I'm wrong. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Current problem is to define whether board members should be appointed and/or elected, as well as the proportionality of community members versus external members. External should be appointed, but the question was whether community members should be appointed only, elected only or a mix of the two. Note that in case of election only, Gavin probably has no chance to be on the board as a community representative. We could possibly imagine a solution such as 2 community members elected every year for 2 years. Plus 5 appointed.
"Should a Trustee resign, become incapacitated or otherwise be unable to serve the remaining Trustees shall appoint an interim representative if such Trustee was a Member Representative until such time as a new election can be held to fill such office at the next annual election." So if the board agreed, I guess it depends whether or not Gavin could manage to do his magic before the next annual election. Of course, I see no reason why Gavin would have no chance to be elected as a community representative, especially if he had already performed well as an interim community representative.
Of course, all of this is dependent on you being 1) willing, and 2) able to demonstrate your ability to handle the task. And it goes equally well for anyone on this list who can convince Jimbo that ey can do it.
If Jimbo is the only one to decide who to appoint, yes.
Is there an archive somewhere of all the historical board votes? I'd be interested in seeing it.
Overall, it's really hard to find information about what it is the board and its members have been doing.
On 6/4/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is there an archive somewhere of all the historical board votes? I'd be interested in seeing it.
Overall, it's really hard to find information about what it is the board and its members have been doing.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
Watching that wiki, and reading Wikizine ( http://cur.wikizine.org/ ) are two good ways of keeping up with the Board's actions. Suggestions on how to improve communications are very welcome.
Angela
Angela wrote:
On 6/4/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is there an archive somewhere of all the historical board votes? I'd be interested in seeing it.
Overall, it's really hard to find information about what it is the board and its members have been doing.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
Watching that wiki, and reading Wikizine ( http://cur.wikizine.org/ ) are two good ways of keeping up with the Board's actions. Suggestions on how to improve communications are very welcome.
Angela
For those who wonder if we did nothing at all before january, I'll clarify that the resolution system was adopted in january 2006, precisely because the previous system did not always allowed to clearly track decisions taken.
ant
On 6/4/06, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
For those who wonder if we did nothing at all before january, I'll clarify that the resolution system was adopted in january 2006, precisely because the previous system did not always allowed to clearly track decisions taken.
And also because prior to that decisions were made in meetings rather than by resolutions on a wiki. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings for details prior to January.
Angela.
On 6/3/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is there an archive somewhere of all the historical board votes? I'd be interested in seeing it.
Overall, it's really hard to find information about what it is the board and its members have been doing.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
Watching that wiki, and reading Wikizine ( http://cur.wikizine.org/ ) are two good ways of keeping up with the Board's actions. Suggestions on how to improve communications are very welcome.
Angela
I'm trying to think of a major thing that I can suggest, rather than nitpicking minor details. Overall, wikimediafoundation.org is very outdated. Even just looking at the front page the quarterly reports contain nothing from the current year (5 months into it), the projects section starts with a red link, the second feature talks about the Quarto which is a project which was abandoned over a year ago.
One of the higher pageranked pages is http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings, which contains no information about meetings in 2006. One of the meetings I stubled across, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/October_22%2C_2004, talks about changing membership from opt-out to opt-in. This doesn't seem to have been implemented, and I'm not actually sure whether or not I'm even a member. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws points to http://wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf, which seems to be the original bylaws from 2003 (which have apparently changed). http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws is another version, which seems to have been updated, but it doesn't seem to have taken all resolutions into account (besides the opt-in/opt-out one, I remember reading from you or Ant that the notion of "Member Representative to the Board of Trustees" had been dropped). (Interestingly, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/About_Wikimedia points to *both* versions.)
Anyway, thanks for the links. I guess my "suggestions" were somewhat nitpicky. But I do think it's pretty important that people know a) whether or not they're actually a member of Wikimedia and b) what the bylaws of the foundation are.
Anthony
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I'm trying to think of a major thing that I can suggest, rather than nitpicking minor details. Overall, wikimediafoundation.org is very outdated. Even just looking at the front page the quarterly reports contain nothing from the current year (5 months into it), the projects section starts with a red link, the second feature talks about the Quarto which is a project which was abandoned over a year ago.
I just removed some older links. New reports are definitely overdue. It is true the content of the wmf wiki needs tending and updating; and description pages should be rewritten so that the datable content is easier to catch and update as numbers and statistics change. Perhaps the communications committee can help keep the site better updated now that it has been tasked with keeping up with requests for accounts to edit the site.
One of the higher pageranked pages is http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings, which contains no information about meetings in 2006. One of the meetings I stubled across, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/October_22%2C_2004, talks about changing membership from opt-out to opt-in. This doesn't
Tracking the current status of various foundation initiatives, including bylaws and membership updates, is a good idea and not a nitpick. There are some significant projects that get very little mention on the wmf site.
[[Our projects]] focuses on statistics and links, and does not include much of the well-written text in the Wikipedia articles about the projects; each project is perhaps central enough to the foundation's work to have its own page on the foundation site. Ditto for major subprojects such as Wikijunior.
The effort to produce a board manual (on meta) was a good start at organizing other useful content that could be on the foundation site.
(Interestingly, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/About_Wikimedia points to *both* versions.)
The [[w:Wikimedia]], [[meta:Wikimedia]] and [[foundation:About Wikimedia]] pages should share much more content than they currently do.
nitpicky. But I do think it's pretty important that people know a) whether or not they're actually a member of Wikimedia and b) what the bylaws of the foundation are.
Right. The former requires some definition of terms that I'm not sure yet exists. Setting up opt-in membership would be a fine idea, and could be done without requiring payment for same..
SJ
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/3/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Is there an archive somewhere of all the historical board votes? I'd be interested in seeing it.
Overall, it's really hard to find information about what it is the board and its members have been doing.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions
Watching that wiki, and reading Wikizine ( http://cur.wikizine.org/ ) are two good ways of keeping up with the Board's actions. Suggestions on how to improve communications are very welcome.
Angela
I'm trying to think of a major thing that I can suggest, rather than nitpicking minor details. Overall, wikimediafoundation.org is very outdated. Even just looking at the front page the quarterly reports contain nothing from the current year (5 months into it), the projects section starts with a red link, the second feature talks about the Quarto which is a project which was abandoned over a year ago.
One of the higher pageranked pages is http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings, which contains no information about meetings in 2006. One of the meetings I stubled across, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings/October_22%2C_2004, talks about changing membership from opt-out to opt-in. This doesn't seem to have been implemented, and I'm not actually sure whether or not I'm even a member. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws points to http://wikimediafoundation.org/bylaws.pdf, which seems to be the original bylaws from 2003 (which have apparently changed). http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws is another version, which seems to have been updated, but it doesn't seem to have taken all resolutions into account (besides the opt-in/opt-out one, I remember reading from you or Ant that the notion of "Member Representative to the Board of Trustees" had been dropped). (Interestingly, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/About_Wikimedia points to *both* versions.)
Anyway, thanks for the links. I guess my "suggestions" were somewhat nitpicky. But I do think it's pretty important that people know a) whether or not they're actually a member of Wikimedia and b) what the bylaws of the foundation are.
Anthony
Vaccum.
A new version of the bylaws were written about 2 months ago. This new version entirely remove the notion of membership (so the notions of opt-in and opt-out disappear). However, the new text recognises the input and importance of the community (it was not the case before).
From a "board election" point of view, the existence of members or not, does not have impact. There are still community representatives on the board. However, there is an-ongoing discussion on the election/appointement modes.
As of today, I am unable to answer to your question (am I a member or not ?). If the new bylaws were to be adopted, the answer would be "no".
As for whether the bylaws will be adopted or not, I posted a resolution regarding the first three parts of the bylaws (including the membership part) on the board wiki 5 weeks ago. As of today, none of the board members have voted on the resolution, nor really made any comment (so I have no idea if the lack of voting is due to opposition, lack of interest, lack of time or whatever).
ant
PS : note that it is not possible to oblige people to vote.
Anthere wrote:
It is nice to see how quickly you would like to get rid of the community representatives :-) Don't worry, there is a chance that happen.
I am not sure what Anthere was trying to say, but I would say "Don't worry, there is NO chance that will happen."
Perhaps... I must clarify something here. I think that legally speaking, the decision to expand the board is not in the sole hands of Jimbo. It is a decision which should be made by the board. In short, if 4 members vote expanding the board and Jimbo votes against, expansion will occur.
But of course, I have been a long and loud advocate for board expansion.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Preferably as an additional member, but if Jimbo's control issues won't allow the board to expand then maybe Ant or Angela would be willing to step down (we could give her some sort of new title like "Volunteer advocate" and an advisory position).
Anthony, please stop trolling. I am at the forefront of advocating board expansion, so you have a hell of a nerve accusing me of "control issues".
--Jimbo
On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Preferably as an additional member, but if Jimbo's control issues won't allow the board to expand then maybe Ant or Angela would be willing to step down (we could give her some sort of new title like "Volunteer advocate" and an advisory position).
Anthony, please stop trolling. I am at the forefront of advocating board expansion, so you have a hell of a nerve accusing me of "control issues".
--Jimbo
You're the one who set up the board such that you and your Bomis partners permanently control 3/5 of the votes. If you're at the forefront of advocating board expansion, you certainly haven't been doing so very loudly. And I wonder who it is that's against it.
Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions, "failed to gain Board support". I wonder: Who proposed that resolution? Who voted for it? Who voted against it?
Since this is such a "transparent organization", I suppose I won't wonder these things too long.
Anthony
Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions, "failed to gain Board support". I wonder: Who proposed that resolution? Who voted for it? Who voted against it?
This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions, "failed to gain Board support". I wonder: Who proposed that resolution? Who voted for it? Who voted against it?
This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.
Angela.
The Dexia resolution was a bit in the same situation originally (if you remember), since not all members had voted on it. Jimbo feared it would go pending forever, since we have no procedure to close a resolution after it is proposed. I remember a complex discussion about this and I think the conclusion was that any resolution not approved should be considered failed.
I currently have the same problem with three resolutions, which fail to receive votes, so fail to receive support presumably... The bylaws changes resolution (which I proposed) The fair use and non commercial resolutions (which were proposed by an outside party).
Problem is... should I conclude that my resolution is rejected or should I wait for several more weeks for board members to vote on it ? As for resolutions proposed by outside parties, should I tell them it was approved, rejected, neglected, or what ?
Sorry guys for this purely bureaucratic debate :-)
ant
On Sun, June 4, 2006 02:56, Anthere wrote: since we have no procedure to close a resolution
after it is proposed. I remember a complex discussion about this and I think the conclusion was that any resolution not approved should be considered failed.
Clearly a motion which fails to get a majority of vites falls, however the present situation permits that, by this methodology of not requiring/demanding a vote (yay or nay) from every board member that there is a quite effective "hidden fillbuster" option available. It would be a great improvement to require that all Board members *must* vote within a set perdio (14 days should be more than sufficient) and that For, Against and Abstain ballots are each counted and recorded.
Alison Wheeler
On 6/3/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions, "failed to gain Board support". I wonder: Who proposed that resolution? Who voted for it? Who voted against it?
This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.
Angela.
It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
Jimbo, stop trolling.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/3/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions, "failed to gain Board support". I wonder: Who proposed that resolution? Who voted for it? Who voted against it?
This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.
Angela.
It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
I rest my case. Anthony is not being serious here, he is trolling.
There is a legitimate question as to what to call a resolution which was never voted upon, because no one ever made a motion that it be voted on, because it was in preliminary drafting stages. Was it rejected? Was it never really proposed? That is what Angela is talking about.
Spinning this into some kind of lack of transparency is just... well, it is Anthony. Nonsense.
--Jimbo
On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
I rest my case. Anthony is not being serious here, he is trolling.
As usual when someone criticises you you call them a troll. And you even privately threatened to ban me from the list.
Banning people from the list for criticising the God-King. That's also really transparent. I hope such a thing is seen for what it is.
And no, I won't stop my criticism of you on the list unless I have people *other than you* who are bothered by it.
So as I said in private. Ban me from the list. I dare you.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
I rest my case. Anthony is not being serious here, he is trolling.
As usual when someone criticises you you call them a troll. And you even privately threatened to ban me from the list.
Banning people from the list for criticising the God-King. That's also really transparent. I hope such a thing is seen for what it is.
And no, I won't stop my criticism of you on the list unless I have people *other than you* who are bothered by it.
Oh, Anthony, do be a dear and shut up, please. It's not amusing, it's /certainly/ not mature, and it's becoming increasingly irritating for you to continue to post to the lists in the current fashion.
Feel free to count me as someone "other than [Jimbo]" who is bothered by it. Half the time you provide constructive criticism - and that is of course welcomed - but, well, really... If you can't tell when you cross the line into massive assumptions of bad faith, seemingly-deliberate poor assumptions, and, essentially, "trolling", then maybe it would be for the best if you were no longer to post here.
Note: In normal circumstances, this would of course be sent privately in order to avoid the blushes of the recipient. However, in this situation all that would lead to is Anthony making veiled comments about such a missive, ones that wouldn't exactly ring true with what I had said.
Yours sincerely, -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
I rest my case. Anthony is not being serious here, he is trolling.
As usual when someone criticises you you call them a troll. And you even privately threatened to ban me from the list.
Not at all. I welcome criticism, of me, of the project, of the board. But criticisms should be thoughtful and well-reasoned, not completely random and wild-eyed.
In this thread, I can single out both Erik Zachte and Delirium for posting thoughtful dissent about various things, and that is very much welcomed. (They are not the only two, of course.)
The bit acccusing Angela of not even knowing whether a resolution had be rejected or not was just wildly over the top. And you know it.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/3/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions, "failed to gain Board support". I wonder: Who proposed that resolution? Who voted for it? Who voted against it?
This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.
Angela.
It's cute calling an organization "transparent" when even the board members don't even know whether a resolution has been rejected.
I rest my case. Anthony is not being serious here, he is trolling.
There is a legitimate question as to what to call a resolution which was never voted upon, because no one ever made a motion that it be voted on, because it was in preliminary drafting stages. Was it rejected? Was it never really proposed? That is what Angela is talking about.
Spinning this into some kind of lack of transparency is just... well, it is Anthony. Nonsense.
--Jimbo
Jimbo, only percieved trolls with little standing to lose with the powers that be within our "communities" are going to tell the Emperor he has no clothes.
I have wasted more time than I care to remember wandering around meta and various mailing lists looking for agendas, results of votes, minutes, budgets, audit reports, expenditures, etc. All the typical data that an organization should routinely produce and publish in a timely manner to operate efficiently.
Little to none of it is published in an organized meaningful manner for the simple fundamental reason that we have a stacked Board and what matters is what Jimbo decides. In organizations where meaningul delegation is the rule the data gets produced because everybody needs it! Nobody needs it at the Wikimedia Foundation because only Jimbo's opinion or stated position has any final standing on anything. So it does not get routinely produced and posted publicly.
Your committees and people participating in the process are to a large extent hand picked from the select group are known to get along with you on the mailing lists.
People like me who have had conflicts in the past are not likely to send private emails requesting information from insiders who are unlikely to provide it as a result of past personal conflicts.
I understand that many initiatives have been attempted in the past and are currently underway but it does not change the fact that few volunteers want to hang around breathlessly all the time waiting for you to make decisions.
When those volunteers get interested in a topic and go looking for the information and cannot find it without querying a wide range of poorly organized sources the organization does indeed look "opaque".
The best way for you to fix the growing problems of the Wikimedia Foundation is to unstack the Board. Hold an immediate election for the two appointed trustee positions. Hang onto your personal position by fiat if you cannot trust the community to vote you onto the Board. Four to one looks a lot more honest than three to two but (paraphrasing to make my point) ..... "I will almost always not oppose the two electees ... honest."
When your "Interim Director" tells you the same thing or something similar, remember you heard it first, or at least before, from a "troll".
regards, mirwin, lazyquasar
Michael R. Irwin schrieb:
I have wasted more time than I care to remember wandering around meta and various mailing lists looking for agendas, results of votes, minutes, budgets, audit reports, expenditures, etc. All the typical data that an organization should routinely produce and publish in a timely manner to operate efficiently.
Little to none of it is published in an organized meaningful manner for the simple fundamental reason that we have a stacked Board and what matters is what Jimbo decides. In organizations where meaningul delegation is the rule the data gets produced because everybody needs it! Nobody needs it at the Wikimedia Foundation because only Jimbo's opinion or stated position has any final standing on anything. So it does not get routinely produced and posted publicly.
Sorry, this is nonsense. The data is not produced because we rely almost entirely on volunteers and reporting is not an especially fascinating or rewarding activity.
I admire for example how Walter produces a wikizine edition week after week so reliably - but how many people are willing to pick such a task? Look at the english signpost which consists now mostly of regular columns filled automatically ("Seven users were granted admin status last week") instead of original news reports.
Your committees and people participating in the process are to a large extent hand picked from the select group are known to get along with you on the mailing lists.
Yes, they are hand picked - as soon as I have found someone suitable and volunteering for a task, I grab him and don't let him go anymore ;-) Most other people in the foundation act similarly (Anthere dragged Delphine into the Wikimania organization team when she was just three weeks with Wikipedia)
When those volunteers get interested in a topic and go looking for the information and cannot find it without querying a wide range of poorly organized sources the organization does indeed look "opaque".
I agree but this is hardly the board's fault. Did I hear you volunteering for the task of cleaning up Meta?
greetings, elian
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
Michael R. Irwin schrieb:
When those volunteers get interested in a topic and go looking for the information and cannot find it without querying a wide range of poorly organized sources the organization does indeed look "opaque".
I agree but this is hardly the board's fault. Did I hear you volunteering for the task of cleaning up Meta?
It is precisely the Board's fault. If critical functions cannot be met by motivating volunteers then budgets need to be established to pay for those critical functions to be met, workforces hired and trained, etc. etc.
Regarding your desire that I snap to and perform tasks you desire completed at meta ... forget it. I contribute when and where I please, often anonymously to avoid hassles. Feel free to delete the obsolete business planning that "24" and I attempted to initiate at meta. If meta had been used as advertised initially instead of merely diverting volunteers from management issues the Foundation would not be in its current mess nor would there be a mess to clean up at meta.
As far as I am concerned you can turn meta off entirely. In my view, it has done more harm to the projects and "communities" it was supposed to support than good.
Have fun.
regards, lazyquasar
On 6/13/06, Elisabeth Bauer elian@djini.de wrote:
Michael R. Irwin schrieb:
Little to none of it is published in an organized meaningful manner for the simple fundamental reason that we have a stacked Board and what matters is what Jimbo decides. In organizations where meaningul delegation is the rule the data gets produced because everybody needs it! Nobody needs it at the Wikimedia Foundation because only Jimbo's opinion or stated position has any final standing on anything. So it does not get routinely produced and posted publicly.
Sorry, this is nonsense. The data is not produced because we rely almost entirely on volunteers and reporting is not an especially fascinating or rewarding activity.
FWIW, I personally have never claimed that Wikimedia lacks transparency due to intentional deceipt. Personally I think it's probably more due to incompetence.
When those volunteers get interested in a topic and go looking for the information and cannot find it without querying a wide range of poorly organized sources the organization does indeed look "opaque".
I agree but this is hardly the board's fault. Did I hear you volunteering for the task of cleaning up Meta?
Providing information to the public is one of the main responsibilities of the board (if not to do directly, then to get someone else to do it). If it's not being done properly, it is the board's fault.
As for volunteering for the task of cleaning up Meta, that would rely on having the information in the first place. And meta isn't really what needs the most cleanup, the foundation wiki is.
Let me get specific. The latest finance report is from 2005. Same thing with the latest budget report. Even if I had access to the foundation wiki, which I don't, I couldn't resolve this, because I don't have access to Wikimedia's financial data.
Now that I look at it, it says at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_budget/2006/Q1 that the information was "Moved to the foundation's internal wiki for finalization". "00:58, 11 January 2006 Daniel Mayer deleted "Wikimedia budget/2006/Q1" (moving to internal wiki for finalization)" Is it there and I just can't find it? Looking at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Daniel_Mayer, it doesn't seem to be.
Maybe you could be more specific about what types of informaton cleanup someone currently out of the loop can do.
Anthony
On 6/14/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Now that I look at it, it says at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_budget/2006/Q1 that the information was "Moved to the foundation's internal wiki for finalization". "00:58, 11 January 2006 Daniel Mayer deleted "Wikimedia budget/2006/Q1" (moving to internal wiki for finalization)" Is it there and I just can't find it? Looking at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Daniel_Mayer, it doesn't seem to be.
Internal wiki refers to internal.wikimedia.org, where only genuine cabal members ;-) have access.
Erik
Angela wrote:
Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions, "failed to gain Board support". I wonder: Who proposed that resolution? Who voted for it? Who voted against it?
This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.
It was just a scratch pad sort of thing, and after some discussion we realized it was not needed.
It was proposed originally because in the TRON case in Germany, it was thought that the foundation might need to directly intervene in the case. This was ultimately not needed.
In order to intervene in the case, our German lawyer indicated that we would need to have a very clean set of documents showing that the lawyer was authorized to act on our behalf, including a clear resolution from the board about the responsibilities of the President. So we started drafting a resolution to help with that, and then it ended up that we did not need it after all.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Angela wrote:
Looking at the recent changes to the foundation wiki, I see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_President, affirming you as President and authorizing you to make certain decisions, "failed to gain Board support". I wonder: Who proposed that resolution? Who voted for it? Who voted against it?
This hasn't yet been voted on. It doesn't even have a Motion to Vote yet. I've no idea why it would be regarded as rejected.
It was just a scratch pad sort of thing, and after some discussion we realized it was not needed.
It's not a huge deal, but could this be somehow indicated on the Resolutions page? It'd be useful as a reader to be able to distinguish between resolutions that failed at a vote versus resolutions that "failed" due to never being voted on.
-mark
It's not a huge deal, but could this be somehow indicated on the Resolutions page? It'd be useful as a reader to be able to distinguish between resolutions that failed at a vote versus resolutions that "failed" due to never being voted on.
That is the case now. The not-voted-on ones are listed at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions#Inactive_resolutions rather than at failed resolutions. In some cases, these might still be voted on at some later date so have not necessarily failed, just stalled or been put aside for now.
Angela
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Gavin Chait wrote:
equivalent to not appointing an *interim* CEO / COO / Director. The core problem: "We don't know what to do next and we need help deciding what to do," won't have been solved and can't be solved until the board and community decide.
Right. Discussions about goals and priorities, and group introspection on the past and present, need to happen. Nothing will substitute for that.
fund-raised, written proposals, developed ideas and implemented them. Some of my ideas even work.
I'm probably not the only person with this sort of experience on this list but I do have some idea of what it takes to run a self-sustaining non-profit social benefit organisation.
I like the ideas and examples you've shared, though some may be less relevant to WMF than to other s-s n-p sbo's ... Wikipedia is an unusually self-defining, scaled, and vibrant project, and traditional rules of thumb each deserve a second look to see how they might apply.
IIRC, there are a number of people with relevant experience on this list. I hope many more of them will chime in.
SJ
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Gavin Chait wrote:
I like the ideas and examples you've shared, though some may be less relevant to WMF than to other s-s n-p sbo's ... Wikipedia is an unusually self-defining, scaled, and vibrant project, and traditional rules of thumb each deserve a second look to see how they might apply.
IIRC, there are a number of people with relevant experience on this list. I hope many more of them will chime in.
It might be worth keeping in mind that the current operation is not really yet quite the equivalent of a huge international non profit like the Red Cross or Habitat for Humanity. We may not actually need a "CEO".
We have a Board of five .... actually I guess they figure they have us. `8)
Some subcommittees .... call it another twenty five?
five to ten currently compensated staff
I saw a number of approximately 50 developers but AFAIK only one local pro ... Brion, at least five to ten others heavily involved with their own sites, rest are regular contributors on the developer's mailing list.
Between fifty to a hundred regular readers on this list interested in the "organizational" issues.
And thousands to tens of thousands of regular/occasional editors who need little to no supervision beyond propagating core policies to the projects approved for the Foundation's wiki/hard drive/bandwidth.
So we have about the equivalent of between 100 - 200 people who need to be productively "managed". Standards roles defined, basic standard procedures implemented, and some knowledgeable strategic planning and documentation and publication of the same after it is approved by the Board.
So we are looking for a low level executive or plant/office manager. Someone who knows how to setup and manage a small factory or a medium sized multi disciplinary professional office with special emphasis on IT and computer operations center.
Have we tried the Florida State Employment office, Kelly Temporary Services, or Monster.com yet?
Last time I checked there was no shortage of MBAs or business managers in the U.S. with some entrepreneurial startup experience. Florida has a lot of retirees. Maybe we could interest one in an "Interim Director" position/contract of three to six months. I would offer my uncle (retired Weyerhauser executive) but he has already accepted a shorterm contract starting up a sawmill in Alaska this summer/fall.
regards, lazyquasar
Gavin Chait wrote:
In response to Anthony and other related posts:
Someone is needed to bootstrap the organization ... I think it's important to make it clear that this isn't a permanent position, though. In part, because it's dangerous to assign such a position when you really have no clue what the position is
One thing I think is important though is the interim CEO should be made aware that a big part of eir job is going to be explaining eir actions to the entire membership
So far the CEO / COO / Director *interim* position can be summarised as follows:
"We need help real fast. We don't know what help we need and would like you to tell us. Please don't ruffle any feathers. Don't do anything without telling everyone in the community. We'll get back to you about what we decide."
So, appointing an *interim* CEO / COO / Director will have a result equivalent to not appointing an *interim* CEO / COO / Director. The core problem: "We don't know what to do next and we need help deciding what to do," won't have been solved and can't be solved until the board and community decide.
Gavin, I really love to read you. I find a lot of insight in what you say. I appreciate you share your experience with us. At the same time, I must tell you that if some of what you suggest is very much "to the point" and will certainly suggest some changes to bring, in other cases, you are just aside the point. You are sometimes holding some ideas which are so far from our daily reality that it is actually funny ;-) The "core" problem you are citing above is not the core problem.
You've given your own suggestions above, but what is the board going to do, say "hey, Gavin Chait said this is how we should do it, so lets go with it"? I don't think it's going to happen.
No :-)
Why not? I have 15 years experience in South Africa developing and running non-profit organisations in fields as diverse as HIV / AIDS, education and small business development. I've worked with student-run, university-based organisations, corporate funded ones, and institutional versions. I have fund-raised, written proposals, developed ideas and implemented them. Some of my ideas even work.
I am quite certain of that, but before us doing what you suggest doing, you will need to discover more about the internal life of the Foundation. Don't get me wrong : I am sure you have a lot to bring. But you may need to accept that what you are thinking as factual... is maybe not so factual.
I'm probably not the only person with this sort of experience on this list but I do have some idea of what it takes to run a self-sustaining non-profit social benefit organisation.
So why not listen to my suggestions? They are my opinions, based on my experiences. They are freely and honestly given. I don't have all the answers but I may be able to save you some bother.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org