Hey folks,
I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it would make sense for us to use volunteer "clerks" as support for the FDC (Funds Dissemination Committee), and I'm wondering if anyone can point me towards any documentation of the role -- a description of how it's typically used, either inside Wikimedia or outside. I have the gist, but am curious to learn more, if anyone's got links they could point me towards.
Thanks, Sue
-- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
The English Wikipedia ArbCom's clerks are described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks
On 1 May 2012 20:00, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it would make sense for us to use volunteer "clerks" as support for the FDC (Funds Dissemination Committee), and I'm wondering if anyone can point me towards any documentation of the role -- a description of how it's typically used, either inside Wikimedia or outside. I have the gist, but am curious to learn more, if anyone's got links they could point me towards.
Thanks, Sue
-- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
And the SPI (Sockpuppet Investigations) clerks are described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#... .
On 1 May 2012 20:03, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia ArbCom's clerks are described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks
On 1 May 2012 20:00, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it would make sense for us to use volunteer "clerks" as support for the FDC (Funds Dissemination Committee), and I'm wondering if anyone can point me towards any documentation of the role -- a description of how it's typically used, either inside Wikimedia or outside. I have the gist, but am curious to learn more, if anyone's got links they could point me towards.
Thanks, Sue
-- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
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 Tue, 1 May 2012 12:00:23 -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
Hey folks,
I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it would make sense for us to use volunteer "clerks" as support for the FDC (Funds Dissemination Committee), and I'm wondering if anyone can point me towards any documentation of the role -- a description of how it's typically used, either inside Wikimedia or outside. I have the gist, but am curious to learn more, if anyone's got links they could point me towards.
Thanks, Sue
I am not a native speaker, and this is what I get from Oxford Dictionary
a person employed in an office or bank to keep records and accounts and to undertake other routine administrative duties: a bank clerk an official in charge of the records of a local council or court: a clerk to the court a lay officer of a cathedral, parish church, college chapel, etc.: a chapter clerk
2 (also desk clerk) a receptionist in a hotel. an assistant in a store; a salesclerk.
3 (also clerk in holy orders) formal a member of the clergy.
Based on this definition, I would not like to be called a clerk. May be an Arbcom clerk is ok, because they are supposed to keep records and undertake routine administrative duties, but not for FDC, whise members are expected to advise.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Based on this definition, I would not like to be called a clerk. May be an Arbcom clerk is ok, because they are supposed to keep records and undertake routine administrative duties, but not for FDC, whise members are expected to advise.
The advisory group would not be clerks. The question is whether it is helpful to also have clerks, to handle record-keeping and routine administration to support the work of the FDC + advisors.
SJ
On Tue, 1 May 2012 15:18:24 -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Based on this definition, I would not like to be called a clerk. May be an Arbcom clerk is ok, because they are supposed to keep records and undertake routine administrative duties, but not for FDC, whise members are expected to advise.
The advisory group would not be clerks. The question is whether it is helpful to also have clerks, to handle record-keeping and routine administration to support the work of the FDC + advisors.
SJ
Then I probably misunderstood Sue's question. I was under impression she was asking about smth else.
These clerks probably would then have a role similar to Arbcom clerks.
Cheers Yaroslav
On 1 May 2012 15:00, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it would make sense for us to use volunteer "clerks" as support for the FDC (Funds Dissemination Committee), and I'm wondering if anyone can point me towards any documentation of the role -- a description of how it's typically used, either inside Wikimedia or outside. I have the gist, but am curious to learn more, if anyone's got links they could point me towards.
I'd suggest that before giving any thought to whether or not the FDC process would benefit from clerking, it would be better to determine what that process actually is, and whether or not the members of the FDC think that clerking would be useful. In other words, this decision is at least a few months down the pike.
Risker/Anne
On 5/1/2012 12:37 PM, Risker wrote:
On 1 May 2012 15:00, Sue Gardnersgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it would make sense for us to use volunteer "clerks" as support for the FDC (Funds Dissemination Committee), and I'm wondering if anyone can point me towards any documentation of the role -- a description of how it's typically used, either inside Wikimedia or outside. I have the gist, but am curious to learn more, if anyone's got links they could point me towards.
I'd suggest that before giving any thought to whether or not the FDC process would benefit from clerking, it would be better to determine what that process actually is, and whether or not the members of the FDC think that clerking would be useful. In other words, this decision is at least a few months down the pike.
I don't know, is it actually that hard to make a determination that creating this kind of support role is useful? We may not have worked out all the details of the process, but it seems clear that the process will have a certain "weight" appropriate to the importance people are placing on this issue. That could make it quite natural to need clerks, even if we don't know yet exactly what the clerks will do. If people like SJ and Sue are anticipating a possible need, that's a decent indicator that we might as well have the conversation and not simply postpone it.
If some kind of clerk position is created, I expect it can evolve fairly naturally as the funds dissemination process itself gets more developed. It's not that different from arbitration clerks, who have picked up various tasks over time as it was deemed practical and helpful for them to do so.
--Michael Snow
On 1 May 2012 16:47, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 5/1/2012 12:37 PM, Risker wrote:
On 1 May 2012 15:00, Sue Gardner<sgardner@wikimedia.org**> wrote:
Hey folks,
I had a 90-second conversation the other day with SJ about whether it would make sense for us to use volunteer "clerks" as support for the FDC (Funds Dissemination Committee), and I'm wondering if anyone can point me towards any documentation of the role -- a description of how it's typically used, either inside Wikimedia or outside. I have the gist, but am curious to learn more, if anyone's got links they could point me towards.
I'd suggest that before giving any thought to whether or not the FDC process would benefit from clerking, it would be better to determine what that process actually is, and whether or not the members of the FDC think that clerking would be useful. In other words, this decision is at least a few months down the pike.
I don't know, is it actually that hard to make a determination that creating this kind of support role is useful? We may not have worked out all the details of the process, but it seems clear that the process will have a certain "weight" appropriate to the importance people are placing on this issue. That could make it quite natural to need clerks, even if we don't know yet exactly what the clerks will do. If people like SJ and Sue are anticipating a possible need, that's a decent indicator that we might as well have the conversation and not simply postpone it.
If some kind of clerk position is created, I expect it can evolve fairly naturally as the funds dissemination process itself gets more developed. It's not that different from arbitration clerks, who have picked up various tasks over time as it was deemed practical and helpful for them to do so.
Really? As best I can tell (given the paucity of information available at this point), it won't be any more complex than the Grants Advisory Group; that certainly doesn't need clerking. I am actually quite concerned that there is consideration to create a bureaucracy to support a committee whose responsibilities haven't even been delineated; doing so would set the course for the committee before the FDC Advisory Group even gets its teeth into the question.
More particularly, since Sue has asked about "job descriptions", the two "clerk" areas on English Wikipedia are sockpuppet investigations and arbitration committee pages. The former is quite active in the process itself, including blocking of suspected sockpuppets; in many cases, they act as "checkusers without the tool". Arbcom clerk responsibilities are more oriented to keeping cases together, properly formatted, and tracking voting. English Wikipedia has repeatedly refused to permit the development of any other recognized "clerking" roles within the project, usually with good reason.
Risker/Anne
On 1 May 2012 22:02, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
More particularly, since Sue has asked about "job descriptions", the two "clerk" areas on English Wikipedia are sockpuppet investigations and arbitration committee pages. The former is quite active in the process itself, including blocking of suspected sockpuppets; in many cases, they act as "checkusers without the tool". Arbcom clerk responsibilities are more oriented to keeping cases together, properly formatted, and tracking voting. English Wikipedia has repeatedly refused to permit the development of any other recognized "clerking" roles within the project, usually with good reason.
Yes. The arbcom "clerking" role evolved from the tedious paperwork of arbitration getting annoying. Best not put a bureaucracy in place until it's absolutely needed. We have enough of a tendency to instruction creep without planning it in advance ...
- d.
On 1 May 2012 21:47, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
I don't know, is it actually that hard to make a determination that creating this kind of support role is useful? We may not have worked out all the details of the process, but it seems clear that the process will have a certain "weight" appropriate to the importance people are placing on this issue. That could make it quite natural to need clerks, even if we don't know yet exactly what the clerks will do. If people like SJ and Sue are anticipating a possible need, that's a decent indicator that we might as well have the conversation and not simply postpone it.
I think it is fairly obvious that the FDC will need some kind of administrative support. The only question is whether that should come from volunteer clerks or WMF staff. There are pros and cons to both, so it's a conversation worth having.
On 1 May 2012 17:06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 May 2012 21:47, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
I don't know, is it actually that hard to make a determination that
creating
this kind of support role is useful? We may not have worked out all the details of the process, but it seems clear that the process will have a certain "weight" appropriate to the importance people are placing on this issue. That could make it quite natural to need clerks, even if we don't know yet exactly what the clerks will do. If people like SJ and Sue are anticipating a possible need, that's a decent indicator that we might as well have the conversation and not simply postpone it.
I think it is fairly obvious that the FDC will need some kind of administrative support. The only question is whether that should come from volunteer clerks or WMF staff. There are pros and cons to both, so it's a conversation worth having.
I agree that it is likely they'll need some kind of support. The type of support they will need is mostly dependent on what their scope and responsibilities are, though. This is very much cart-before-the-horse in my mind, kind of like hiring the cafeteria staff before you decide whether or not you're going to have a cafeteria.
Risker/Anne
On 1 May 2012 22:11, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that it is likely they'll need some kind of support. The type of support they will need is mostly dependent on what their scope and responsibilities are, though. This is very much cart-before-the-horse in my mind, kind of like hiring the cafeteria staff before you decide whether or not you're going to have a cafeteria.
All Sue has done so far is ask for some information in order to inform a discussion. We're a long way from actually appointing any clerks.
I'd advise against clerks, honestly. The term "clerk" can mean anything you want it to mean. As Yaroslav pointed out, in a legal setting judicial and court clerks can be quite influential. In government administration, at least in the U.S., a clerk is often an elected position with responsibilities delineated by statute. Because there's no commonly understood role, it's subject to creep. And filling the role with a volunteer has a lot of potential pitfalls.
I agree with Thomas and Risker that it's likely administrative support for the FDC will be necessary... but I think it makes more sense to have it be professional, paid administrative support of a limited capacity. Scheduling, note-taking, travel arrangements, etc. If there is a concern about having a WMF paid staff member closely involved with the FDC, allocate the FDC a specific budget (including other costs, such as travel) and allow the committee to do the hiring.
Unlike Risker, I think a lot of what the FDC will do is already fairly well known. Nothing is set in stone, but to me it sounds like the unknowns revolve around the composition of the committee and how it will decide to distribute funds. We know it will be a committee of people, with meetings both in person and virtual, that makes funding decisions for Wikimedia; as such, its administrative needs really aren't that opaque. It should be roughly similar to what the board of trustees needs now.
Nathan
On 1 May 2012 17:13, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 May 2012 22:11, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that it is likely they'll need some kind of support. The type of support they will need is mostly dependent on what their scope and responsibilities are, though. This is very much cart-before-the-horse in my mind, kind of like hiring the cafeteria staff before you decide
whether
or not you're going to have a cafeteria.
All Sue has done so far is ask for some information in order to inform a discussion. We're a long way from actually appointing any clerks.
Yes, which is why I provided the information about the roles of the English Wikipedia clerks. Having said that, the FDC Advisory Committee is having its first meeting today, according to the Meta page (I note that the names of the Board members and outside members aren't included on the list yet). I'm just making it clear from my perspective that I find it concerning that there are discussions about the infrastructure to support the FDC when we are at the very beginning of the discussion about what the FDC should actually be doing, and that there are some considerably more disparate views about "what they will do" than meets the eye.
Risker/Anne
On 1 May 2012 22:31, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just making it clear from my perspective that I find it concerning that there are discussions about the infrastructure to support the FDC when we are at the very beginning of the discussion about what the FDC should actually be doing, and that there are some considerably more disparate views about "what they will do" than meets the eye.
I don't think we are at the beginning of that discussion. The WMF board's resolution instructing Sue to sort out the creation of the FDC (which followed on from lengthy discussions on meta, and had a great deal of consensus) is pretty clear about what the FDC will be doing. There are plenty of details to be finalised, but the basic idea of what the FDC is there to do is already decided.
David Gerard wrote:
The arbcom "clerking" role evolved from the tedious paperwork of arbitration getting annoying. Best not put a bureaucracy in place until it's absolutely needed. We have enough of a tendency to instruction creep without planning it in advance ...
Thomas Dalton wote:
I don't think we are at the beginning of that discussion. The WMF board's resolution instructing Sue to sort out the creation of the FDC (which followed on from lengthy discussions on meta, and had a great deal of consensus) is pretty clear about what the FDC will be doing. There are plenty of details to be finalised, but the basic idea of what the FDC is there to do is already decided.
The most significant block of work that was done ad-hoc last year which would presumably be done by the FDC this year, was requesting and reviewing annual plan and budget deatils from chapters that needed infrastructure grants. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Plans_2011-2012
That was reportedly a difficult process, in which some parties felt paperwork was tedious and annoying or underspecified and inconsistent. It would be good to preempt that this year.
SJ
On 1 May 2012 18:13, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
The arbcom "clerking" role evolved from the tedious paperwork of arbitration getting annoying. Best not put a bureaucracy in place until it's absolutely needed. We have enough of a tendency to instruction creep without planning it in advance ...
Thomas Dalton wote:
I don't think we are at the beginning of that discussion. The WMF board's resolution instructing Sue to sort out the creation of the FDC (which followed on from lengthy discussions on meta, and had a great deal of consensus) is pretty clear about what the FDC will be doing. There are plenty of details to be finalised, but the basic idea of what the FDC is there to do is already decided.
The most significant block of work that was done ad-hoc last year which would presumably be done by the FDC this year, was requesting and reviewing annual plan and budget deatils from chapters that needed infrastructure grants. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Plans_2011-2012
That was reportedly a difficult process, in which some parties felt paperwork was tedious and annoying or underspecified and inconsistent. It would be good to preempt that this year.
I don't see how having a clerking staff would make this process any less challenging; the chapters and partner groups would *still* have to come up with the budget, justify it, explain what it was going to be used for, and all the clerking in the world isn't going to change that.
Risker
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 May 2012 18:13, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
The arbcom "clerking" role evolved from the tedious paperwork of arbitration getting annoying. Best not put a bureaucracy in place until it's absolutely needed. We have enough of a tendency to instruction creep without planning it in advance ...
Thomas Dalton wote:
I don't think we are at the beginning of that discussion. The WMF board's resolution instructing Sue to sort out the creation of the FDC (which followed on from lengthy discussions on meta, and had a great deal of consensus) is pretty clear about what the FDC will be doing. There are plenty of details to be finalised, but the basic idea of what the FDC is there to do is already decided.
The most significant block of work that was done ad-hoc last year which would presumably be done by the FDC this year, was requesting and reviewing annual plan and budget deatils from chapters that needed infrastructure grants. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Plans_2011-2012
That was reportedly a difficult process, in which some parties felt paperwork was tedious and annoying or underspecified and inconsistent. It would be good to preempt that this year.
I don't see how having a clerking staff would make this process any less challenging; the chapters and partner groups would *still* have to come up with the budget, justify it, explain what it was going to be used for, and all the clerking in the world isn't going to change that.
Risker
I don't have a strong opinion about clerks vs paid administrative help, or both. But I think what SJ is getting at is, like any large budgeting or grantmaking process, there will be a fair amount of paperwork that will have to be done by someone. Things like:
* Request tracking: when were requests received, were they acknowledged, what stage of the review process are they in? * What format do budget requests of various types go in? Are requests in that format? Are templates made, and provided? * Is guidance for making proposals easily accessible and clear? Is it up to date? * Are questions to the FDC answered? The OTRS queue or other address monitored? Who do people write if they have general or specific questions? * Is there missing information in the proposals? Anything easily corrected that needs to be added? Is something unclear? Do translations need to be made? Are monetary amounts converted to a standard? Are different accounting practices explained and reconciled? * Are other aspects of global budgeting (via the WMF, the chapters, etc) and other necessary information for the FDC made available? * Are questions from the FDC (to the Board, WMF, etc.) tracked? Did answers make it back to the FDC? * Are reminders sent about the timeline? Are all interested parties communicated with about annual deadlines? * When is the FDC meeting? Are members supported for meetings (scheduling, travel, etc?) Are minutes taken and posted in a timely manner? * Are decisions communicated to the community? Translated? Is there an FAQ, and who writes the answers? * When members are elected/appointed/whatever, is the election/appointment process clear, fair and done well?
etc. etc. etc. And that's just off the top of my head.
None of this has to do with the substance of "is xyz program/annual budget clear, thoughtful and impactful, and something someone in Wikimedia should be doing" -- which hopefully is the kind of analysis the FDC will be providing -- but it is a substantial amount of work!
-- phoebe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org