Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal.
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love Wikimedia.
My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request was rejected.
And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and the frustration?
Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging toddlers by their full marathon times.
Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters professionalise.
I was wrong.
With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better spent helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again.
But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement heading. I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort.
I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable efforts will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and staffing. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead...
With Wiki-Love, Deryck
PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I want to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so that my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading.
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK funding discussions:
WMHK FDC proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime...
Responses: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/W... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime...
FDC round 2 results: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_rou...
Erik
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed upon them.
That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts?
Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those experiences less painful for all involved.
Honest hardworking non-profits deserve more taxpayer money. I am optimistic that future generations figure this out
On 28 April 2013 16:42, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed upon them.
That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts?
Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those experiences less painful for all involved.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Erik Moeller wrote:
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK funding discussions:
[...]
Thanks for the links.
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text.
""" We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. """
Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? The scope of both the FDC and these comments is unclear to me.
MZMcBride
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_members/Current_round [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Decision-making [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=5440314
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with consensus.
From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.
Anders Secretary of FDC
Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of the FDC.
I would read three main important weaknesses:
a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a feeling and gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the incompatibilities the best solution is to agree in a matrix of criteria and to evaluate the submissions mainly with these criteria, the personal opinion should be reduced a lot b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC) c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies
I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot to solve conflicts.
It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about "peer review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter.
Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make clearer that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like the European chapters.
Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review" evaluating it with European parameters!
Regards
On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote:
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with consensus.
From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.
Anders Secretary of FDC
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
The beauty of the process, is in my mind, that is set up so that each member can have their personal preferences on criteria to be used. This ensues that as many perspectives as possible is up on the table during the deliberation, and certainly not only what is in the staff assessment.
And culture context is central for most of us and it is fascinating the broad understanding of cultural context, country specifics and specific chapters operations there exist among the group of us
Anders
Ilario Valdelli skrev 2013-04-29 10:07:
Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of the FDC.
I would read three main important weaknesses:
a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to evaluate the projects. It seems to me that someone has a feeling and gives their *personal* opinion. To solve the incompatibilities the best solution is to agree in a matrix of criteria and to evaluate the submissions mainly with these criteria, the personal opinion should be reduced a lot b) with the point a) is associated the point b. The knowledge of these criteria helps the chapters to submit a plan leaving any bad point and it means less wasting of time for both (chapter and FDC) c) It seems to me that the evaluation of the FDC doesn't consider the context. Hong Kong is a town and is a small chapter, probably the support/empower/encourage of volunteers may not work for Hong Kong because they don't have a potential number of volunteers but they have opportunities because Hong Kong is the seat of relevant companies
I think that the study of the context of each country may help a lot to solve conflicts.
It's for the same reason that I have fear of people speaking about "peer review" and people speaking about a single model of chapter.
Speaking with no-European chapters their main request is to make clearer that they have different needs and cannot be evaluated like the European chapters.
Imagine what happens if an European chapter will do a "peer review" evaluating it with European parameters!
Regards
On 29.04.2013 09:25, Anders Wennersten wrote:
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with consensus.
From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.
Anders Secretary of FDC
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Le Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:16 +0200, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se a écrit:
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation these seven figures are presented and they can differ very much, even that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide, we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a level of convergence in recommended funding figures. In some cases there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia. I myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an agreement with consensus.
So, are there public minutes of the discussions or a public comprehensive text about pros and cons of the FDC decision?
From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff should not be seen to replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.
I’m not familiar with the case, but I cannot understand, in case of a contradictory debate, how the outcome of this debate could be "absolutely no money", no even a similar amount than the last year (and the same for WMCZ), with simple arguments as "concerns about […] internal governance, financial management capacity, and capacity of volunteers to manage a plan of this [too big] size" and "not sufficiently demonstrate a […] high impact".
As Deryck stated, if volunteers are exhausted with the current workload, they obviously cannot do more in these fields, and their proposal of an accountant and ED could help improving the situation and by the way free time to volunteers to do programmatic activities. By receiving no money, they will have to do the administrative stuff themselves (so less time for program), find themselves money or support to do programmatic activities [by comparison all big chapters have a dedicated staff with this task], and if they have time and energy, do some programmatic activities. In other words there is probably little chance they will have a professionnal system next year as the FDC wants.
So I fully understand Deryck’s decision. When volunteers work hard to try to do good job and they are granted nothing, they leave.
Sébastien
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK funding discussions:
WMHK FDC proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime...
Responses: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/W... https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime...
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib... might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
FDC round 2 results: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_rou...
Erik
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib... might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime... shows WMHK to still be an eligible entity.
Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
--- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was it discovered they were not? Obviously, putting together an FDC application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib...
might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the paid WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime... WMHK to still be an eligible entity.
Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 29 April 2013 12:32, Craig Franklin cfranklin@halonetwork.net wrote:
I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible (which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was it discovered they were not?
When the FDC recommendations were published. (see my reply to THO)
Obviously, putting together an FDC application is a tremendous amount of work for a chapter, and if the effort was futile from the start, then the time that Deryck and WMHK put into this could have been better spent on useful programme work instead.
Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants because the FDC results will change everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this is a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us.
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib...
might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
paid
WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime... to still be an eligible entity.
Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hey
So while I really regret your decision and hope that you will reconsider I would like to ask you something.
Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants because the FDC results will change everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this is a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us.
But you say "we" … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own? I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is governance…
Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website after the meeting of the 16th of March… I wanted to go through it, but could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under documentation?) Can you point me to it?
And again: the FDC stated more reasons to turn down the request,not just the fact that WMHK was not in compliance, they obviously spent a significant amount of time discussing this...
Jan-Bart
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib...
might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
paid
WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime... to still be an eligible entity.
Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 29 April 2013 21:10, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey
So while I really regret your decision and hope that you will reconsider I would like to ask you something.
Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants because the FDC results will
change
everything anyway. Ironically the WMF and FDC became convinced that this
is
a valid reason to retrospectively disqualify us.
But you say "we" … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own?
I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any
organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is governance…
From my reply to THO (also on this thread): "We have replied multiple times
that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania."
Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website after the meeting of the 16th of March… I wanted to go through it, but could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under documentation?) Can you point me to it?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Hong_Kong_2011-12_Annual_Repo... (or scroll halfway down the proposal page)
And again: the FDC stated more reasons to turn down the request,not just the fact that WMHK was not in compliance, they obviously spent a significant amount of time discussing this...
Jan-Bart
Cheers, Craig Franklin
On 29 April 2013 17:25, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com
wrote:
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Lib...
might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?
Indeed, yet it looks like there has been no (public) follow up by the
paid
WMF grants staff for over a month. In addition,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikime... still be an eligible entity.
Winifred/Asaf, please can you clarify whether WMHK is still an eligible entity and what follow up was done after that message a month ago?
Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hey Deryck,
On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hk wrote:
But you say "we" … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own?
I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any
organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is governance…
From my reply to THO (also on this thread): "We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania."
Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating "we want", that is not that same as "together with the grant giver we agreed"… I cannot overstate the importance of the difference between the two…
(and again: this is not the only issue with the WMHK request that the FDC pointed out).
Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website after the meeting of the 16th of March… I wanted to go through it, but could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under documentation?) Can you point me to it?
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Hong_Kong_2011-12_Annual_Repo... (or scroll halfway down the proposal page)
Thanks!
Jan-Bart
On 30 April 2013 09:48, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating "we want", that is not that same as "together with the grant giver we agreed"… I cannot overstate the importance of the difference between the two…
People don't instantly agree on everything. There is always something the
WMF grants team can disagree with anyone, if they so choose to. I'm referring to the sequence of events here (grant report accepted, then eligibility announced, then suddenly disqualification happened because the settlement of remaining funds hasn't been agreed to), not the nature. We all agree that the leftover grant funds eventually need to be settled by an agreement between WMF and WMHK.
Deryck Chan, 29/04/2013 00:52:
[...] At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. [...]
Thanks Deryck for your commitment. I'm very sorry that you invested so much energy in serving as guinea pig for the FDC process, and I sympathise with your decision: as volunteers, we must focus on what lets us achieve more.
It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at. On the bright side, experienced and valuable movement members like you and WMHK can always find a way to use their intelligence and have an impact within Wikimedia, despite external obstacles, *if* you don't rely on a blocker/bottleneck outside your wiki/project/chapter/group (it's the wiki way). Applying to FDC proved a mistake but now you and your fellow chapter members can support each other in reassessing priorities and finding a new motivation.
Nemo
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone and weren't going to listen any more.
Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.
- d.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:16 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone and weren't going to listen any more.
Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.
That is interesting. And I think it is related to some questions I made during the FDC meeting during the Wikimedia Conference. [1]
* (Tom - WMF) How will FDC find a balance between the money that will go to organizations from the Global South (GS) and Global North (GN) in the mid to the long term? It is well known the bad distribution of formal groups in these two places, having a bigger concentration in the GN. [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]
*(Tom - WMF) Measure of success: feedback to be parked. How to distinguish the measure of success when it comes to different backgrounds? Sometimes a small language Wikipedia can have a completly different measure than the English version, for instance. How to handle that? [TO BE ANSWERED LATER]
And the second question for me is really important for me based on my experience working for almost 1,5 year for the catalyst program in Brazil.
These questions were going to be answered on Sunday and after would be added on meta.
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
[1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process
Tom
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing."
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
Agreed, I am not on Internal either…
Jan-Bart
[1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process
Tom
-- Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom) "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing."
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On 4/29/13 12:59 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
Agreed, I am not on Internal either...
Jan-Bart
Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the movement, as to why it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here, there, and else where - so it's kind of null anymore...(IMHO!)
-Sarah
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the movement, as to why it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here, there, and else where - so it's kind of null anymore...(IMHO!)
It's pretty much inactive and closing it has been proposed.
- d.
David Gerard, 29/04/2013 11:16:
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
It's not clear this was a design criterion. It was, however, obvious that this was what would occur. When the chapters screamed blue murder about it on internal-l, Sue and Erik decided they didn't like the tone and weren't going to listen any more.
Unfortunately, this doesn't make an actual problem go away.
I think Erik may have unsubscribed well before that, but luckily I got off the list years ago so I don't know the details. ;-) But yes, this is my point: as someone noted in the thread on internal wiki, "no place to work together" is the current default for WMF. If you're strong enough in your "market" or area of expertise, you can negotiate a partnership with WMF on some matters or programs (going from the simplest, e.g. a joint blog post, to the hardest, e.g. a FDC grant), and have some communication and joint work between you and (part of) the WMF. But in general, IMHO, it's better for one's own health to recognise that WMF is an external entity more or less as much as Apple, the EU or an oil company would be: first you develop your own strengths and then you go to the negotiations if you need to and have something to gain.
Nemo
Dear Deryck,
I am also sorry to read this. Thank you for sharing your reflections, they are always welcome.
The FDC is an experiment in peer review, one that I think holds promise. It was designed in part to avoid 'mainstream charity bureaucracy'. But this is its first year, and there will be rough spots along the way. Your feedback will improve the process.
This public list is a fine place for the discussion. An ombudsperson and a complaint process are part of the design, both public: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommen...
Nathan writes:
Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like
Christophe writes:
[We need] a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC proposal or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :)
Both practical ideas. Support for the first stages of growth should be handled differently from later infrastructure support.
Also: - More continuous feedback is needed. - Eligibility should be simple and unchanging throughout the process. - Whether or not a proposal is approved, there should be follow-up support to help applicants figure out next steps.
Regards, SJ
Deryck,
it makes me sad to read your leaving message, as I have got to know you as a very constructive and engaged person, and I think your input and contributions are very valuable to the movement.
It seems to me that we all kind of agree there's a gap between GAC and FDC funding when it comes to professionalization, esp. setting up an office and first staff. Also, there's the possibility of losing all the funding. That, IMHO, is a very dangerous situation for an organisation. Maybe it would help to have a process to "up-" or "downgrade" a funding proposal from GAC to FDC and vice versa, so in case a FDC proposal is not approved at all, there's still a fallback option.
Also, I think we should offer some guidance through the process based on the experience we made so far. As has been stated before, the step from zero to three employees is a big one. Maybe an early assessment of the proposal might have lead to other options and better success in funding. Personally, I am no expert in FDC funding, but can we not get a group of people together who are willing to help with such an assessment?
Best, Markus
Hi Markus,
I am not sure but I have the feeling that WMHK is free to apply for a Grant once they are in compliance with the terms of the earlier grant? But I am out of my depth here, probably someone like Asaf could inform us better…
And I was happy that the chapters are setting up peer review amongst themselves, I think its great and heard enthusiasm for the idea in Milan
Jan-Bart
On Apr 29, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Markus Glaser markus.glaser@wikimedia.de wrote:
Deryck,
it makes me sad to read your leaving message, as I have got to know you as a very constructive and engaged person, and I think your input and contributions are very valuable to the movement.
It seems to me that we all kind of agree there's a gap between GAC and FDC funding when it comes to professionalization, esp. setting up an office and first staff. Also, there's the possibility of losing all the funding. That, IMHO, is a very dangerous situation for an organisation. Maybe it would help to have a process to "up-" or "downgrade" a funding proposal from GAC to FDC and vice versa, so in case a FDC proposal is not approved at all, there's still a fallback option.
Also, I think we should offer some guidance through the process based on the experience we made so far. As has been stated before, the step from zero to three employees is a big one. Maybe an early assessment of the proposal might have lead to other options and better success in funding. Personally, I am no expert in FDC funding, but can we not get a group of people together who are willing to help with such an assessment?
Best, Markus
-- Markus Glaser WCA Council Member (WMDE) Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hkwrote:
Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal.
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
Deryck! I'm also sorry to read this message, and sorry that it has been so frustrating for you and the rest of the HK team.
It sounds like it was tough to communicate what was going on with the other grant, and there is disagreement and confusion about whether the end of that grant was appropriately communicated to WMF. Perhaps this is a good time for the ombudsperson to step in and take a look at what happened.
I'd also say that this is an area of FDC process we need to shore up and clarify (eligible entities should expect to stay eligible, or know clearly that they might become ineligible under certain circumstances).
I can't wait to attend Wikimania, and visit Hong Kong for the first time. I know that planning the conference is incredibly stressful on top of everything else. Hang in there,
-- Phoebe
I hope a few remarks are valid.
As a chapter volunteer responsible for leading the local application during round 2, I recognize much of the frustration from WMKH.
The process is not on its right track, as things are. The WMF is understandably under legitimate scrutiny over the use of donations and other funds. Legislation and general ethics call for a thorough application process.
However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed funding process, and the resources available in a chapter with 0 employees, is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed: Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers, another is the under-utilization of critical resources.
The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased, until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the USA or in national language "markets" overseas. For any global organisation, this imbalance is not optimal. The FCA initiative is a reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than in the rest of the world combined?
One major problem then, is that countries attracting millions of dollars in donations, have insufficient organisational resources to make full use of that local enthusiasm. We must not forget how few volunteers really are, and how valuable their energy is to the projects rather than applied in planning and book-keeping. What it the WMF tried to post some foundation resources more evenly between regions and time zones, to assist chapters and community processes more directly in the region. Serving Eastern Europe or the Middle East time zones from San Fransisco is next to impossible, for obvious reasons. Assistance presently restricts itselves to reporting, planning and spread-sheet scrutiny, as apart from a more directly supportive approach.
To just illustrate the point, we have existed for five years as a chapter in Norway, supporting a high project production, but with a modest population. Denmark, Finland, and the Baltic states are in more or less the same situation. During the three years I have served at the chapter board, I have never heard of any initiative from the WMF staff to neither visit, meet, inspect, or support directly the projects and activities that are taking place locally. There are no regular or even sporadic support visits, campaign or outreach efforts from WMF in the region. Valuable but complicated campaign initiatives that often require substantial administrative effort, are totally left to the efforts of volunteers, with an increasing gap towards the growing resources in the other and of the organisational chain. "Translate this press brief, and try to get on local tv". One result will be an even more unevenly distributed outreach and campaigning power between some professionalised hubs (Germany, India, UK, Switzerland, Israel), and totally amateur hubs (Hong Kong, Egypt, Japan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Denmark, Norway, etc).
Normally, organisational resources would be dispersed to reach out to the most promising "markets" (for example, chinese or arabic language communities) and adjust for local "market failure" in reaching that goal. Instead, WMF resources are presently dispersed to the chapters and communities that coincidently did fundraising before a certain date, or reach through with their FDC submissions. Among them are hardly any arab-speaking or chinese-speaking chapters, representing the two billion people of those immensely large cultures.
This is in no way an effort to deny the hard work, entrepreneurship and creativity of successful chapters. The problem lies not in London and Berlin, but in Cairo and Lahore. Countries with hundreds of millions of inhabitants are devoid of even the slightest organizational resource to mobilize. This is too important to leave to an application process. The WMF will eventually have to disperse resources more directly to overseas, regional centras covering important time-zones. The WCA initiative and the failure of WMHK to establish an outreach hub for its 1,3 billion strong language-community, should be a powerful wake-up-call to start parting up some of the resource at least for occasional focused efforts. India was a good start.
Personally, it took the grants and funding processes to realizehow critical this is. For many amateur chapters, the reporting regime inherent in such processes is simply too much. In stead of draining lcal organizational resources towards San Fransisco (by way of applications), turn the table and start distributing some headquarter resources directly outwards, to the chapters.
I am probably mistaken in much of the above, please excuse that, but I hope for some common reflection and effort as a result of all this.
Kind regards Erlend Bjørtvedt WMNO
2013/4/29 phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk
wrote:
Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received
an
overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal.
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
Deryck! I'm also sorry to read this message, and sorry that it has been so frustrating for you and the rest of the HK team.
It sounds like it was tough to communicate what was going on with the other grant, and there is disagreement and confusion about whether the end of that grant was appropriately communicated to WMF. Perhaps this is a good time for the ombudsperson to step in and take a look at what happened.
I'd also say that this is an area of FDC process we need to shore up and clarify (eligible entities should expect to stay eligible, or know clearly that they might become ineligible under certain circumstances).
I can't wait to attend Wikimania, and visit Hong Kong for the first time. I know that planning the conference is incredibly stressful on top of everything else. Hang in there,
-- Phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
The WMF is not the only source of fundraising for Wikimedia chapters or other movement partners. Many chapters have successfully partnered with other organizations to accomplish great things in outreach and programming. Every chapter has the opportunity to raise money to achieve meaningful results in their area, even without a single penny from the FDC or GAC. It's clearly worthwhile to adjust the FDC process to protect against misunderstandings, confusion and hurt feelings. But we should acknowledge that such problems are both a symptom of growing pains in the FDC allocation process and utterly innate to any rationally devised method for selectively and judiciously granting funds.
In the specific example of WMHK, it is beyond dispute that the FDC reasonably criticized the plan to leap from zero to sixty in a single budget cycle. The chapter understandably faces major obstacles in engaging with institutions of civil society to further its goals; China is not a free society, and the mission of Wikimedia does not align well with the goals of government. It is, then, reasonable to seek some support from the wider movement - particularly given the importance of the chapters intended audience. But that support can and should be one of gradually building the chapter on a slope that parallels its activity and volunteer engagement.
It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. Supporting chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown. It would be a poor use of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure.
Nathan
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
The WMF is not the only source of fundraising for Wikimedia chapters or other movement partners. Many chapters have successfully partnered with other organizations to accomplish great things in outreach and programming. Every chapter has the opportunity to raise money to achieve meaningful results in their area, even without a single penny from the FDC or GAC. It's clearly worthwhile to adjust the FDC process to protect against misunderstandings, confusion and hurt feelings. But we should acknowledge that such problems are both a symptom of growing pains in the FDC allocation process and utterly innate to any rationally devised method for selectively and judiciously granting funds.
In the specific example of WMHK, it is beyond dispute that the FDC reasonably criticized the plan to leap from zero to sixty in a single budget cycle. The chapter understandably faces major obstacles in engaging with institutions of civil society to further its goals; China is not a free society, and the mission of Wikimedia does not align well with the goals of government. It is, then, reasonable to seek some support from the wider movement - particularly given the importance of the chapters intended audience. But that support can and should be one of gradually building the chapter on a slope that parallels its activity and volunteer engagement.
It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
Supporting
chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this.
Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)
It would be a poor use
of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure.
I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones).
In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy.
We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.
Florence
Nathan
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.
In any case, it's fictional from a legal perspective that the funds belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most.
Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself, not to another large organization with its own duties.
To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized administrative staff, I would choose the former.
Dear Nathan, I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to "send funds" away to weak chapters. The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the hands of the reporting and planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong. That is disastreous.
To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east Asians aswell from there.
Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco without really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious task for the WMF.
Kind regards,
Erlend Bjørtvedt WMNO
2013/4/30 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com
Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.
In any case, it's fictional from a legal perspective that the funds belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most.
Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself, not to another large organization with its own duties.
To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized administrative staff, I would choose the former.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erlend@wikimedia.nowrote:
Dear Nathan, I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to "send funds" away to weak chapters. The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the hands of the reporting and planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong. That is disastreous.
To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east Asians aswell from there.
Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco without really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious task for the WMF.
Kind regards,
Erlend Bjørtvedt WMNO
This is getting off-track of the start of the thread. But one quick note: as a long-time volunteer in the San Francisco region, I promise you that the WMF does not do anything special to support the volunteers here :) We occasionally use the WMF offices for local developer community meetings and editathons -- that is, if a staff person is also volunteering with the group and can open it up -- but that's the main privilege that the volunteer community here has versus the volunteer community in any other part of the world. Pretty much all of the outreach and events that have happened in SF and in California specifically, like talks at universities and community meetups and our Wikipedia 10 conference and the like, have happened because of volunteers, not because of the WMF -- just like anywhere else.
-- phoebe
But if you do not help the Wikimedia Movement in California, then why are you all posted there?
;-) Erlend, WMNO
2013/4/30 phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt <erlend@wikimedia.no
wrote:
Dear Nathan, I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to "send funds" away to weak chapters. The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in
the
hands of the reporting and planning skills of volunteers in Hong Kong.
That
is disastreous.
To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in
Hong
Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east Asians aswell from there.
Your point that the WMF is best suited to support the volunteers, can hardly be correct if the Foundation staff clusters in San Fransisco
without
really supporting people on the ground anywhere else. It is indeed worth celebrating that WMHK volunteers take great efforts to organize the Wikimania, but it is probably not what their resources should be best utilised for. In may eyes, organized that massive event is an obvious
task
for the WMF.
Kind regards,
Erlend Bjørtvedt WMNO
This is getting off-track of the start of the thread. But one quick note: as a long-time volunteer in the San Francisco region, I promise you that the WMF does not do anything special to support the volunteers here :) We occasionally use the WMF offices for local developer community meetings and editathons -- that is, if a staff person is also volunteering with the group and can open it up -- but that's the main privilege that the volunteer community here has versus the volunteer community in any other part of the world. Pretty much all of the outreach and events that have happened in SF and in California specifically, like talks at universities and community meetups and our Wikipedia 10 conference and the like, have happened because of volunteers, not because of the WMF -- just like anywhere else.
-- phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erlend@wikimedia.no wrote:
To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east Asians aswell from there.
India, anyone?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.
In any case, it's fictional from a legal perspective that the funds belong to the movement and not the WMF. Whoever they feel obligated to serve, the trustees of the WMF retain all of the duties and obligations to disburse the money in the way most congruent with the articles of the WMF and the laws of Florida, California and the United States. I'm sure you know this as well or better than most.
Finally, you're of course right that the WMF in its early days was lax in many respects - mostly predictable ways for a new organization without a good model. On the other hand, it was lax with money it raised itself. As a result, its duties were to the law and to itself, not to another large organization with its own duties.
To repeat my earlier point, any chapter has the full capacity to raise its own funds. A self-funded chapter is a good analog to the WMF; it can grow at its own pace, and only has to assure the movement that it is not misusing the trademarks or acting in a way to bring the movement into disrepute. The obsessive focus with greater and greater funding of chapters is misplaced; between a smaller overall budget for the entire movement, and a global effort to hire wildly decentralized administrative staff, I would choose the former.
Still, you need to have local staff to do local work. I guess educational program, including school talks and visiting, and all other outreaching activities do not require time (speaking on day-time! 9-5); and maybe they could be done via Skype or after day-off. Wait, kids go home after school.
WMF had asked us to help their wikipedia educational program in a college last fall. Maybe flying a WMF staff from SF to Hong Kong is a much better solution. Then our volunteer may didn't have to skip his class.
Ok. Now we see opportunities but no volunteers and time to execute them, so we ask for staff support in operation. Or maybe nothing could happen.
Thank you.
-- Simon Shek Council secretary Wikimedia Hong Kong
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.comwrote:
What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
I think this exact point is often overlooked. I actually have a fairly trivial way to look at the whole thing.
I think that people want to(, and) donate to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't properly exist. So they donate to the people hosting the content of Wikipedia, and which cleverly entitled itself as the only entity capable to use the sitenotice for fundraising. As the sistenotice is probably the most visible place in the web (beside Google search page and Facebook blue bar), it was enough to get 90% (or maybe more) of donations from Wikipedia users. The WMF said that they deserved that right and took it. Every other WM entity was then to ask permission to them.
The problem, to me, is that we are not and they are not Wikipedia. So either everyone (asking community) has the right to use the sitenotice or neither of us.
Aubrey
Hey Florence
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.
Supporting
chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this.
I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.
Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)
True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.
It would be a poor use
of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure.
I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones).
Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance)
In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy.
True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.
We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not
Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either.
And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance.
Jan-Bart
In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could use in parallel if FDC assessment.
But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply to the FDC as a preliminary step.
I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the appropriate grant process :-)
Charles
Le 30 avr. 2013 à 11:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org a écrit :
Hey Florence
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.
Supporting
chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this.
I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.
Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)
True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.
It would be a poor use
of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure.
I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones).
Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance)
In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy.
True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.
We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not
Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either.
And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance.
Jan-Bart
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
2013/4/30 Charles Andres charles.andres.wmch@gmail.com:
In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could use in parallel if FDC assessment.
But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply to the FDC as a preliminary step.
I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the appropriate grant process :-)
Hi Charles! That would be really helpful.
I'd also like to remind that the process for next year's proposals includes a Letter of Intent as first step, which will allow the both the FDC and the applicants to work on the proposals four months in advance to the presentation deadline and hopefully helping to improve the applications and/or help to decide which should be the choice of grant process. I hope some concerns expressed in this thread will be addressed with this change in the process. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125199.html for more details.
Patricio
-- Patricio Lorente Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente
On 30 April 2013 10:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Florence
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the
Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.
Supporting
chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement
efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role.
But we may agree to disagree on this.
I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.
Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current
stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)
True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.
It would be a poor use
of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure.
I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions
(=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones).
Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance)
In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What
I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy.
True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.
We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk
about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one.
And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing
Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not
Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more
respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either.
And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance.
Last time I've checked, GAC explicitly disallow proposals for full-time permanent staffing and administrative costs, stating that FDC is the only place we can get funding for that.
Having project funding alone wouldn't help - it is precisely because the grants team disallows the use of project grants for administrative purposes that WMHK ended up in its current awkward situation.
Le 4/30/13 11:22 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede a écrit :
Hey Florence
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes.
No worry there. I know the board is largely (or unanimously ?) supporting the concept of FDC. My question was definitly to Nathan...
Supporting
chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this.
I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others.
Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :)
True, but just because things used to be "bad" is no reason that they should be "bad" now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of "creativity" when not absolutely necessary.
True. But I would argue that's in good part because we had so little that things were operated in a "bad" way. And it is not because WMF was so tight on money for its first 3-4 years of operations that we should somehow make it so that all organizations should also go through such pains.
It would be a poor use
of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure.
I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones).
Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance)
In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy.
True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of "make or break" and thereby put themselves at risk.
Yup :) Which is why I stepped down at last year elections on WM FR board. I am really glad I did it. I knew this year was going to be really tough. And it is not deceiving me.... annus horribilis :(
We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in "chapter members") decrease as well.
I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the "big bureaucratic body of the WMF" for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)...
I do not think WMF bureaucracy is to blame in this case.
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
I would never characterise it that way, but I would also not
Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
I do trust them for organising Wikimania (its looking to be great!) , but I think that their FDC proposal was too optimistic in growth and share the other criticism of the FDC and the community on the talk page. The two are not isolated, but they are not the same either.
And to be clear: I think that WMHK should reapply to the GAC (because I do think we need to fund them as a movement) with a modest proposal (and reading Asaf's long mail it seems to me that this is a much better place for their proposal… I just wonder how we can ensure that affiliates apply to the right funding the first time around. Of course a condition to any funding is being in compliance.
Yeah, but the rules of the GAC probably need to be refreshed so that it can cover administrative costs which would not be directly related to a specific project but would be more general support to an organization (this organization would still need to show decent programming of course). Admin stuff is probably what is right now toughest for most organizations.
I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.). Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term hired secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members). In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership fees. Oftenly, the city or the region offers a free-of-charge office corner in a public building. With only one full time or 50% time secretary knowing all details of the association, the members of these associations do miracles because they are relieved of the burden of doing paperworks, renting spaces, giving phone calls, sending general assemblies invitation, sending receipt, cashing checks and doing doodles to organize meetings. In most cases where I have seen this secretary position missing, the association is suffering because members get stuck in simple paperwork stuff. That's sad. Just a stable position of the sort can change things dramatically and balance the turnover of members.
But this recipe which I think is generally a good practice amongst such associations is not possible for our organizations through the GAC system and pushes them toward the FDC at a much too early stage of development.
Compliance or lack there-of is a different issue.
Flo
Jan-Bart
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Florence Devouard wrote:
I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.). Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term hired secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members).
Yes, this kind of association is also somewhat common in the United States as well. I agree that it might serve as a very good model for a healthy number of Wikimedia chapters.
In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership fees.
The Wikimedia Foundation seems to be in a good place to ensure that this need is met for chapters in need of a full-time staff person. A little seed money. What needs to happen in order to ensure requests like this are met if membership fees and sponsorships aren't sufficient?
MZMcBride
On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.
Florence
My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization.
Cheers Yaroslav
I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could use a new thread!
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.
Florence
My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization.
Cheers Yaroslav
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Le 4/30/13 12:52 PM, Richard Symonds a écrit :
I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could use a new thread!
Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process, but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his effort and involvement.
And boy... is that sad :(
Flo
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote:
Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania
plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as "infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals" whose funding would be "at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources".
Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do.
And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement.
Florence
My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization.
Cheers Yaroslav
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Florence Devouard anthere9@yahoo.comwrote:
Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process, but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his effort and involvement.
And boy... is that sad :(
Flo
Agreed, and I'll say it: to Yaroslav and everyone else who slaves away to make Wikimania work... thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
pb
___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
On 30/04/2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization.
I would just like to point out that there's no Program Committee for 2014 as the jury decision on host haven't even been made yet, and for 2013 there were an open invitation for people to volunteer to serve on the Programmes Commitee and Scholarship Committee - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-October/004375.html. Yes, as a movement in general we need to get better at showing apperication for others hard work, but let's not generalise.
Regards,
KTC
On 30.04.2013 13:23, Katie Chan wrote:
On 30/04/2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like "not needed anymore", and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization.
I would just like to point out that there's no Program Committee for 2014 as the jury decision on host haven't even been made yet, and for 2013 there were an open invitation for people to volunteer to serve on the Programmes Commitee and Scholarship Committee - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-October/004375.html. Yes, as a movement in general we need to get better at showing apperication for others hard work, but let's not generalise.
Regards,
KTC
As I said, this is my personal experience, and not a generalization. I unsubscribed from wikimania-l I believe in 2010, and now I will not do it again even if personally approached. I am fine with doing community service, but I am not really fine with being insulted for doing community service because people do not care to figure out who is doing what and insult the first person who approaches them.
Cheers Yaroslav
hi Erlend,
I want to shortly comment on your letter, which raises legitimate concerns, in my view, and I would like to address them.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erlend@wikimedia.nowrote:
However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed funding process, and the resources available in a chapter with 0 employees, is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed: Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers, another is the under-utilization of critical resources.
In the FDC we recognize the obvious fact that small chapters have different resources and abilities than the large ones.
In my own view (not discussed with other FDC members), there are 3 categories of applicants: *
a) the small chapters in incubation phase (typically below 100,000 USD),
b) medium sized mature chapters,
c) large organizations (above 1.000,000 USD).
We should expect from the large organizations to meet the highest standards of budgeting, planning, and strategy. We should also be definitely more lenient and supporting for the small chapters, as well as recognize their limited resources. However, the FDC process is focused mainly on organizations, which want to professionalize and focus on structural growth. I think that bureaucratization should not be an aim in itself and that all applications, irrespective of the size of the organization, should have a clear mission-driven component, and basically aim at making some impact in line with our movement philosophy. And this is something that not all chapters agree on - it would seem that sometimes the administrative growth may be perceived as valuable on its own.
*
The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased, until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the USA or in national language "markets" overseas. For any global organisation, this imbalance is not optimal. The FCA initiative is a reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than in the rest of the world combined?
Among seven FDC members there is no-one from California, and only one is American.
best,
Dariusz ("pundit")
Hello everyone again.
Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate.
I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't comment any more on this matter.
Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive measures for local volunteers.
Deryck
On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hk wrote:
Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal.
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love Wikimedia.
My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request was rejected.
And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and the frustration?
Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging toddlers by their full marathon times.
Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters professionalise.
I was wrong.
With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better spent helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again.
But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement heading. I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort.
I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable efforts will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and staffing. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead...
With Wiki-Love, Deryck
PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I want to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so that my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading.
Hi, Deryck.
Thank you. Apology accepted. I look forward to working with WMHK on a suitable plan for development (even right now, though I'm guessing WMHK has its hands full till after Wikimania).
Cheers,
Asaf
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hkwrote:
Hello everyone again.
Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate.
I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't comment any more on this matter.
Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive measures for local volunteers.
Deryck
On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hk wrote:
Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received
an
overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal.
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time,
and
of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional
staff
to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running
Wikimedia
chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love Wikimedia.
My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of
staff
manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been
vocal
about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our
request
for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do
with
the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped
to
professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request was rejected.
And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and the frustration?
Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much
more
traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement
entity
as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging toddlers by their full marathon times.
Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters
professionalise.
I was wrong.
With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better
spent
helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again.
But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement
heading.
I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort.
I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable
efforts
will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and staffing.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead...
With Wiki-Love, Deryck
PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I
want
to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so
that
my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Dear Deryck,
many thanks for your letter. It is a relief to know that you're not assuming bad faith. I really hope that your enthusiasm for Wikimedia will not die out completely.
One remark: I think that you may need to file a complaint not in your personal capacity, but representing the chapter (it would be logical if only the organizations, which are dissatisfied with the results related to them, could complain). The deadline is also quite short, 7 days from the day the recommendations were published.
best,
dariusz
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hk wrote:
Hello everyone again.
Thank you those of you who replied to me either on this thread or privately. I've already replied to them off-list where appropriate.
I apologise that my intentionally harsh words in the original mail and subsequent public replies may have been construed as bad-faith personal attacks against certain members of WMF staff and the FDC. In particular, I recognise that my anecdotal use of the words "foul play" may have hurt people's feelings; I apologise and retract this remark. I have already filed a formal complaint in my personal capacity to the FDC ombudsmen. I'm determined to step away from Wikimedia administration matters, so I won't comment any more on this matter.
Thanks for reading and I'm glad to see some positive suggestions coming out of this thread. I urge the WMF and FDC to implement the proposed supportive measures for local volunteers.
Deryck
On 28 April 2013 23:52, Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hk wrote:
Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received
an
overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal.
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time,
and
of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional
staff
to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running
Wikimedia
chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love Wikimedia.
My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of
staff
manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been
vocal
about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our
request
for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do
with
the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped
to
professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request was rejected.
And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and the frustration?
Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much
more
traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement
entity
as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging toddlers by their full marathon times.
Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters
professionalise.
I was wrong.
With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better
spent
helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again.
But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement
heading.
I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort.
I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable
efforts
will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and staffing.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead...
With Wiki-Love, Deryck
PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I
want
to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so
that
my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Everyone
There may be no reason for me to post a Blocking Notification to the mail list, but this thing will absolutely let you feel shocked which I think it's necessary to reveal what kind of people working with us, and even making important decision.
User:Shujenchang, as know as User:ZH979433, who announced to quit the Chinese Wikipedia after local CheckUsers were elected. But coincidentally, the person who was strongly against the the ZHWP has local CheckUser, was checked and blocked for his disgusting and abominable behavior.
User:Shujenchang stole his ex-boyfriend's Wikipedia account and vandalize Wikipedia because of the broken relationship. By considering his announcement that forever quit ZHWP, User:BenMQ only blocked him in one month to warning. People will lose control in sometimes, it might be too unfriendly if presuming his moral quality only by this. When we thought User: Shujenchang will leave ZHWP and things turn to good, another crazy thing happened.
User:Shujenchang post personal attacks on his ex-boyfriend by using the account of User:Ltdccba when Ltdccba went to the restroom and left his laptop. By using others' trust, User:Shujenchang framed the person who took him as friend. Was checked twice, I finally understand why User:Shujenchang tried to stop the election of local CheckUser.
His account was blocked right now by User:BenMQ. But this "friend" still try to do something on Wikimedia. Please be aware of this thing, who knows who is next EX or next Ltdccba.
The first Blocking Notification: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shujenchang#Blocking_Notification_o... Meta User Page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Shujenchang Voting Members of the Wikimania 2014 Jury: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_jury Blocking information on zhwp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:%E5%B0%81%E7%A6%81%E7%94%A8%E6%88%B7/ZH... User:Ltdccba's explanation: https://zh.wikipedia.org/?oldid=26580664#.E8.AF.B7.E4.B8.8D.E8.A6.81.E4.BB.B...
Sorry if disturbing!
Best Wishes!
Addis Wang
Hi Addis,
I'm not sure what you try to do with this e-mail, because this behavior seems to be zh wiki only and not a foundation wide problem. This seems to be like trowing dirt.
Secondly you say that the user "stole" the computer from a user and then used a closed browser to vandalize Wikipedia. This is because the user says his computer was stolen. But there is no way in earth to proof that this was the case. (NO checkuser will be able to confirm that the user you are blaming used somebody elses his computer to edit as a IP number).
As last you say that he / she stole the account of the ex boyfriend and used it to vandalize Wikipedia. Why do you think it was her? Its good possible that the ex used his account in her house or WiFi or a place where they both come oftenly and then vandalize Wikipedia. Did a CU confirmed that it was her computer?
The fact that the blocking user is also a CU it would be very easy to frame somebody like this. And you don't really give any proof. So please be careful before you destroy people's names.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 8:30 PM, AddisWang addiswang94@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone
There may be no reason for me to post a Blocking Notification to the mail list, but this thing will absolutely let you feel shocked which I think it's necessary to reveal what kind of people working with us, and even making important decision.
User:Shujenchang, as know as User:ZH979433, who announced to quit the Chinese Wikipedia after local CheckUsers were elected. But coincidentally, the person who was strongly against the the ZHWP has local CheckUser, was checked and blocked for his disgusting and abominable behavior.
User:Shujenchang stole his ex-boyfriend's Wikipedia account and vandalize Wikipedia because of the broken relationship. By considering his announcement that forever quit ZHWP, User:BenMQ only blocked him in one month to warning. People will lose control in sometimes, it might be too unfriendly if presuming his moral quality only by this. When we thought User: Shujenchang will leave ZHWP and things turn to good, another crazy thing happened.
User:Shujenchang post personal attacks on his ex-boyfriend by using the account of User:Ltdccba when Ltdccba went to the restroom and left his laptop. By using others' trust, User:Shujenchang framed the person who took him as friend. Was checked twice, I finally understand why User:Shujenchang tried to stop the election of local CheckUser.
His account was blocked right now by User:BenMQ. But this "friend" still try to do something on Wikimedia. Please be aware of this thing, who knows who is next EX or next Ltdccba.
The first Blocking Notification: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shujenchang#Blocking_Notification_o... Meta User Page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Shujenchang Voting Members of the Wikimania 2014 Jury: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_jury Blocking information on zhwp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:%E5%B0%81%E7%A6%81%E7%94%A8%E6%88%B7/ZH... User:Ltdccba's explanation: https://zh.wikipedia.org/?oldid=26580664#.E8.AF.B7.E4.B8.8D.E8.A6.81.E4.BB.B...
Sorry if disturbing!
Best Wishes!
Addis Wang _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hi Huib
Thanks for your remind at first!
I understand, but that's not how things should be concluded. "This guy from zh wiki, this thing happened in zh wiki, so it's your zh wiki stuff". I'm not talking about the problem of a project or some projects or "foundation wide problem". I'm taking about a person.
It seems I never using the word stole in "computer things". It's might be my limited writing skills let you misunderstand, but please "be careful". And he posted "personal attacks" not the "vandalism". And I believe User:Shujenchang is a male.
Stealing the account? He admitted.
Addis
在 2013-5-19，上午2:56，Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com 写道：
Hi Addis,
I'm not sure what you try to do with this e-mail, because this behavior seems to be zh wiki only and not a foundation wide problem. This seems to be like trowing dirt.
Secondly you say that the user "stole" the computer from a user and then used a closed browser to vandalize Wikipedia. This is because the user says his computer was stolen. But there is no way in earth to proof that this was the case. (NO checkuser will be able to confirm that the user you are blaming used somebody elses his computer to edit as a IP number).
As last you say that he / she stole the account of the ex boyfriend and used it to vandalize Wikipedia. Why do you think it was her? Its good possible that the ex used his account in her house or WiFi or a place where they both come oftenly and then vandalize Wikipedia. Did a CU confirmed that it was her computer?
The fact that the blocking user is also a CU it would be very easy to frame somebody like this. And you don't really give any proof. So please be careful before you destroy people's names.
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 8:30 PM, AddisWang addiswang94@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone
There may be no reason for me to post a Blocking Notification to the mail list, but this thing will absolutely let you feel shocked which I think it's necessary to reveal what kind of people working with us, and even making important decision.
User:Shujenchang, as know as User:ZH979433, who announced to quit the Chinese Wikipedia after local CheckUsers were elected. But coincidentally, the person who was strongly against the the ZHWP has local CheckUser, was checked and blocked for his disgusting and abominable behavior.
User:Shujenchang stole his ex-boyfriend's Wikipedia account and vandalize Wikipedia because of the broken relationship. By considering his announcement that forever quit ZHWP, User:BenMQ only blocked him in one month to warning. People will lose control in sometimes, it might be too unfriendly if presuming his moral quality only by this. When we thought User: Shujenchang will leave ZHWP and things turn to good, another crazy thing happened.
User:Shujenchang post personal attacks on his ex-boyfriend by using the account of User:Ltdccba when Ltdccba went to the restroom and left his laptop. By using others' trust, User:Shujenchang framed the person who took him as friend. Was checked twice, I finally understand why User:Shujenchang tried to stop the election of local CheckUser.
His account was blocked right now by User:BenMQ. But this "friend" still try to do something on Wikimedia. Please be aware of this thing, who knows who is next EX or next Ltdccba.
The first Blocking Notification: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shujenchang#Blocking_Notification_o... Meta User Page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Shujenchang Voting Members of the Wikimania 2014 Jury: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_jury Blocking information on zhwp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:%E5%B0%81%E7%A6%81%E7%94%A8%E6%88%B7/ZH... User:Ltdccba's explanation: https://zh.wikipedia.org/?oldid=26580664#.E8.AF.B7.E4.B8.8D.E8.A6.81.E4.BB.B...
Sorry if disturbing!
Best Wishes!
Addis Wang _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Met vriendelijke groet,
Huib Laurens _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Addis: 从我来看，事情大概已经解决了，没必要小题大做。家丑不出外扬。在一个这么公开的环境里面谈论中文维基百科的小事，实在不适合。 翘仔
On 18 May 2013 19:30, AddisWang addiswang94@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone
There may be no reason for me to post a Blocking Notification to the mail list, but this thing will absolutely let you feel shocked which I think it's necessary to reveal what kind of people working with us, and even making important decision.
User:Shujenchang, as know as User:ZH979433, who announced to quit the Chinese Wikipedia after local CheckUsers were elected. But coincidentally, the person who was strongly against the the ZHWP has local CheckUser, was checked and blocked for his disgusting and abominable behavior.
User:Shujenchang stole his ex-boyfriend's Wikipedia account and vandalize Wikipedia because of the broken relationship. By considering his announcement that forever quit ZHWP, User:BenMQ only blocked him in one month to warning. People will lose control in sometimes, it might be too unfriendly if presuming his moral quality only by this. When we thought User: Shujenchang will leave ZHWP and things turn to good, another crazy thing happened.
User:Shujenchang post personal attacks on his ex-boyfriend by using the account of User:Ltdccba when Ltdccba went to the restroom and left his laptop. By using others' trust, User:Shujenchang framed the person who took him as friend. Was checked twice, I finally understand why User:Shujenchang tried to stop the election of local CheckUser.
His account was blocked right now by User:BenMQ. But this "friend" still try to do something on Wikimedia. Please be aware of this thing, who knows who is next EX or next Ltdccba.
The first Blocking Notification: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shujenchang#Blocking_Notification_o... Meta User Page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Shujenchang Voting Members of the Wikimania 2014 Jury: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_jury Blocking information on zhwp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:%E5%B0%81%E7%A6%81%E7%94%A8%E6%88%B7/ZH... User:Ltdccba's explanation: https://zh.wikipedia.org/?oldid=26580664#.E8.AF.B7.E4.B8.8D.E8.A6.81.E4.BB.B...
Sorry if disturbing!
Best Wishes!
Addis Wang _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Deryck
仅觉事虽源于中文维基，但实为其个人问题，而此人长期活跃在其他项目，恐不利。在下只顾借此提醒他人，未顾及中文维基之影响，做法的确欠妥。感谢提醒，之后会慎重。
Addis 在 2013-5-19，上午3:16，Deryck Chan deryckchan@wikimedia.hk 写道：
Addis: 从我来看，事情大概已经解决了，没必要小题大做。家丑不出外扬。在一个这么公开的环境里面谈论中文维基百科的小事，实在不适合。 翘仔
On 18 May 2013 19:30, AddisWang addiswang94@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone
There may be no reason for me to post a Blocking Notification to the mail list, but this thing will absolutely let you feel shocked which I think it's necessary to reveal what kind of people working with us, and even making important decision.
User:Shujenchang, as know as User:ZH979433, who announced to quit the Chinese Wikipedia after local CheckUsers were elected. But coincidentally, the person who was strongly against the the ZHWP has local CheckUser, was checked and blocked for his disgusting and abominable behavior.
User:Shujenchang stole his ex-boyfriend's Wikipedia account and vandalize Wikipedia because of the broken relationship. By considering his announcement that forever quit ZHWP, User:BenMQ only blocked him in one month to warning. People will lose control in sometimes, it might be too unfriendly if presuming his moral quality only by this. When we thought User: Shujenchang will leave ZHWP and things turn to good, another crazy thing happened.
User:Shujenchang post personal attacks on his ex-boyfriend by using the account of User:Ltdccba when Ltdccba went to the restroom and left his laptop. By using others' trust, User:Shujenchang framed the person who took him as friend. Was checked twice, I finally understand why User:Shujenchang tried to stop the election of local CheckUser.
His account was blocked right now by User:BenMQ. But this "friend" still try to do something on Wikimedia. Please be aware of this thing, who knows who is next EX or next Ltdccba.
The first Blocking Notification: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shujenchang#Blocking_Notification_o... Meta User Page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Shujenchang Voting Members of the Wikimania 2014 Jury: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014_jury Blocking information on zhwp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:%E5%B0%81%E7%A6%81%E7%94%A8%E6%88%B7/ZH... User:Ltdccba's explanation: https://zh.wikipedia.org/?oldid=26580664#.E8.AF.B7.E4.B8.8D.E8.A6.81.E4.BB.B...
Sorry if disturbing!
Best Wishes!
Addis Wang _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org