Hi,
I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place.
I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those.
I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here.
Lodewijk Gelauff (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email entirely in a personal capacity)
2014-02-11 14:36 GMT+01:00 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org:
Dear Frederic,
On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:
On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
Hi Phoebe,
thanks for your answer !
It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization. However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group actually got there should have no influence on the result.
Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to
do
stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they
will
stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove
that
they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm
concerned).
What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".
What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic track record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic organization".
How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?
I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track record is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation.
I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not
endorsed
by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?
I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever amount of discussion we have) and not before.
Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there is now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic organisation, which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance responsibility.
For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were really the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which were provided by the Affcom and FDC).
<SNIP>
thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us
know.
We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us
all
on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.
The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get exceptions.
Hmmm.... I would say that
- We made a decision in which we took several factors into account
- We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have
taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this is the case.
would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback about the decision's impact in specific cases.
I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing ("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it is bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of the movement ?")
I really think that the FAQ gives a pretty good indication. What concerns me (and other board members) is the fact that there is a natural tendency to incorporate a group of volunteers into a chapter or thematic organisation even if there is no real track record or a good reason to want to do so (especially since the revised trademark policy gives user groups much more freedom to make use of the trademarks). Chapters and Thematic organisations are an essential part of the movement and we would like each and every one to succeed in furthering the goals of the movement as a whole. Asking these groups to be a user group for the first two years while doing programmatic work really gives a good indication of the ability of the "future chapter/thematic organisation" to succeed.
We also reference the strategic planning which is due to start this summer. One of the things we really have to solve is the roles/responsibilities/privileges of each player in the movement. The basic answer to the questions:
- What are our long term goals
- Who is best positioned to achieve these goals
should lead to a "who does what" picture of the movement (and maybe just as important "who will stop doing what"), and it is on the basis of this picture and the underlying goals that we should create and fund different players in the movement. I would argue that at this time the picture is not as clear as it should be before committing the resources we currently commit to it.
(just as a small note: when I talk about movement I mean the range from the individual volunteer to the Wikimedia Foundation itself)
As a side note, this is the only point that I will keep from Rupert's email: this decision completely ignores international cultural differences in terms of funding, fundraising and organization in general. Indeed, in a quote above, you talk about "good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws"; this reinforces the incorrect premise your decision is based on: that incorporation is a complicated and bureaucratic process that should be avoided. And this is something that can not be decided globally.
This is true. But to be clear, its not the possible "bureaucratic" aspect which concerns us greatly (as I mentioned above).
Frédéric
Regards
Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect.
It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents.
Fae
On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place.
I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those.
I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here.
Lodewijk Gelauff (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email entirely in a personal capacity)
Per Fae, a short response in bullet points:
* I'm sorry. I take your criticisms seriously. * How we got to this point, as I see it*: I think the Board felt we had gotten input from AffCom because we saw their responses to the proposal to change to a usergroup-first approval model, which was presented by a staff member. However, it seems AffCom didn't realize that the Board might take up this proposal. This unclarity is the fault of the board.
-- phoebe
* speaking for myself, not all trustees may agree.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect.
It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents.
Fae
On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with
them
on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with)
and
because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come
with a
more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but
after
this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the
Affiliation
Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took
place.
I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy
changing
decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and
the
board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those.
I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again
after
a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here.
Lodewijk Gelauff (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email
entirely
in a personal capacity)
-- faewik@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Phoebe,
Thanks for the swift reply. Please note that the proposal sent to AffCom by the staff was /not/ the same proposal considered by the board. The arguments presented with it, were not even close to the ones presented now - it is unrealistic to expect AffCom to be able to provide any helpful input to that. Also, please note this has been communicated to the board before, and that you still chose to paint this unfair and unjust image. Disappointing again.
But even /if/ affcom would have been consulted properly (which it wasn't), then still you didn't consult the other stakeholders: affiliates, candidate affiliates and the community at large.
Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that.
However, dwindling in the past processes is only of limited use. What I hope for is that the board members will finally commit to actually ask input to all stakeholders before taking major decisions like this, and not just the staff (and the committee if you really had that illusion).
Best, Lodewijk (I write this email entirely in a personal capacity)
2014-02-11 19:27 GMT+01:00 phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com:
Per Fae, a short response in bullet points:
- I'm sorry. I take your criticisms seriously.
- How we got to this point, as I see it*: I think the Board felt we had
gotten input from AffCom because we saw their responses to the proposal to change to a usergroup-first approval model, which was presented by a staff member. However, it seems AffCom didn't realize that the Board might take up this proposal. This unclarity is the fault of the board.
-- phoebe
- speaking for myself, not all trustees may agree.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton wool and glib praise, that it looses any effect.
It would be great for a WMF to respond to the failures your email identifies without writing about issues or successes that were not mentioned, and without garnishing with lengthy caveats or tangents.
Fae
On 11 February 2014 17:58, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with
them
on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with)
and
because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because
the
board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving
the
stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come
with a
more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but
after
this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the
Affiliation
Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board
is
painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took
place.
I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting
with
the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy
changing
decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of
course
not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all
without
proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and
the
board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those.
I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again
after
a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation
will
not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here.
Lodewijk Gelauff (While a member of the Affiliations Committee - I write this email
entirely
in a personal capacity)
-- faewik@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
- I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at>
gmail.com * _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lodewijk, 11/02/2014 19:36:
Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that.
To me it seems rather obvious. The board (together with the WMF executives?) is worried about more organisations asking money through the processes the board itself set up, adding to complications on how to limit spending growth etc. Instead of fixing the process, they chose to take a shortcut and limit the pool of eligible requestors. It's a clear pattern, because we have two precedents: the initial FDC resolution which identified 4 special chapters; the out of process letter in which they refused recognition to a prospective Wikimedia entity in order to prevent AffCom and the grants programs to even start considering its requests.
Nemo
���� ����maor_x@outlook.com
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:22:52 +0100 From: nemowiki@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Consultation & decision making (was: Board decisions on movement funding and approval issues)
Lodewijk, 11/02/2014 19:36:
Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that.
To me it seems rather obvious. The board (together with the WMF executives?) is worried about more organisations asking money through the processes the board itself set up, adding to complications on how to limit spending growth etc. Instead of fixing the process, they chose to take a shortcut and limit the pool of eligible requestors. It's a clear pattern, because we have two precedents: the initial FDC resolution which identified 4 special chapters; the out of process letter in which they refused recognition to a prospective Wikimedia entity in order to prevent AffCom and the grants programs to even start considering its requests.
And all of this on a rush "before a new ED is hired" -or rather "before the current ED leaves"...
M.
Nemo
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all,
On 11 Feb 2014, at 17:58, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving the stakeholders properly. The Affiliations Committee will probably come with a more elaborate (and perhaps nuanced) reply as a committee later, but after this email from Jan-Bart, I feel the need to emphasize that the Affiliation Committee was not consulted by the board on this topic - despite the suggestions being made now. Affcom was consulted on a different (but related) proposal by a staff member, with very different arguments from those that the board used in their discussion. In my feeling the board is painting an unjust and unfair picture of the consultation that took place.
I'm strongly disappointed in /all/ board members for not consulting with the stakeholders (Affcom, FDC, the existing affiliated, the candidate affiliates and of course the community at large) on these strategy changing decisions. From the votes it is clear that these decisions were of course not unanimous, but the sole fact that a decision was taken at all without proper consultation (in favor or not) strikes me as almost offensive towards the volunteers involved. I feel this as a slap in the face and the board becomes an unreliable body making unpredictable course changes without allowing stakeholders to influence those.
I want to +1 on everything that Lodewijk says here.
The WMF board has done a really bad job here with involving its stakeholders. Both of these decisions should really have been prefaced with online discussion with the community, and also in-person discussion at the Wikimedia Conference in a couple of months time. Additionally, these two decisions relate specifically to topics that the WMF board has committees for - as such, ideally it should have asked the committees for clear recommendations about what could be done in both of these issues. That none of these took place is very disappointing.
I hope that the board will return on this decision, and take it again after a proper consultation. But even more so, I hope that this situation will not repeat itself. I have brought this up before on the topic of bylaw changes, but similar arguments are of course valid here.
I share that hope.
Thanks, Mike (As per Lodewijk, this is sent in my personal capacity, although I am a member of the FDC.)
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org