daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
I don't understand this email. For one thing, there are many different
"ends," "goals," "objectives," or what have you.
I do understand your email generally, but I must say I do not understand
that sentence.
Rather than picking a random
number--four in this case--you might want to consider
identifying numerous "ends"
and prioritizing them.
*I* am not picking up 4 ends (ends is different than goals). I am
suggesting people to brainstorm and come up with a few ones.
What I hope to do is to collect a list of ends, put them on a page on
meta, have them refined by editors. I have a list already on my wiki,
some defined, some less defined. Some from the board retreat, some from
the last board meeting, but whilst we have a list, I think it is a good
idea to see if editors might not have other ideas that make sense, or
approaches different but more interesting than the ones we have.
Mostly, I do think that the board is there to listen to what editors
want the foundation to be. I could do that alone, I prefer asking them.
Then, when a list is available, what I hope is to let it open for
editors to somehow express what they feel is a priority. A sort of poll.
Then go to the board with that list (I hope they will have participated
in creating it !) and have a final list retained and officially approved.
For instance, in a worst-case scenario that there is
only limited funds to
adequately cover server costs/bandwidth or wikimania, it remains for the board
to decide whether it should forego one, or alternately, split costs and do a
half-assed job with both.
By the way, this isn't so far from the truth. If
there are multiple ends, some, while important, will
always have to be put
aside because of other pressing needs. It is not just ends, but priorities.
I think you should read the model description again (Carver one if you
did not understand my mail). Allow me to tell it boldly. The board is
the boss of the ED. As such, the board tells the ED "the website must be
in working order" and "there must be a Wikimania".
When we say that, we are not defining priorities. We are not telling him
"if you have time, and if you feel like it, could you do one or the
other. And if you are really successful, we could appreciate if you
could do both, but of course, it is up to you, we are just telling your
about our sense of what should be your priorities".
When we say that, we say "your job is to have a website running and to
organise Wikimania. You fail ? You are fired".
That said, I would say that the foremost
"end" is financial sustainability.
How much money is needed for minimal operations? Is that coming in? Are the
sources dependable? Are there alternatives if a source is cut off? What new,
untapped sources are there?
Next I would look at the legal requirements. How are we in securing our
assets? What else needs to be done? How are we at compliance with government
regulations for not for profits? What can be improved?
All this is interesting, but not an End as defined in this model. The
purpose of the Ends is to list a collection of things we want the ED (or
the staff in absence of an ED) to take care of. So, what we should
create is not a list of questions, but a list of what must happen.
One "legal" end for example, might be that all trademarks of our
projects must be secured in countries xx.
The way to do it is not to ask "Are all of our tms registered in
countries xxx ?", but rather to tell the executive, here is YOUR job.
You have 6 months, and this should be done. Period. You are in charge of
organising yourself the way you want, but have it done.
Finally, one last question--all of the things you
raise, Florence, were
discussed at the Board-Chapter retreat in Frankfurt this autumn. A series of
recommendations was made. Why are you reinventing the wheel? Was that retreat an
(expensive) exercise in futility? I just don't understand.
Actually, I was looking at the list just 3 days ago, and thought that
many of the items listed then for the BOARD to do, had been indeed done.
One of the few items left for the board is "reorganisation", and that is
what I am currently trying to do.
Many of the executive items have not been done. They certainly will be
there.
Anthere
Danny
In a message dated 4/16/2007 6:41:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Anthere9(a)yahoo.com writes:
Dear all,
In the past few days, I have explored more systematically the policy
governance model, and how it could be implemented.By the way, I found a
short article about it on the english wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Governance
One of the things the board has to design is what is called the ENDS.
In each ends, the board defines which needs are to be met, for whom, and
at what cost.
Let me give you two examples of ends.
*******************************
The WMF is the host provider of several websites, referred to as
Wikimedia project. Wikimedia websites must be up and running
efficiently, 24/24 hours, 7 days a week. That is the priority of WMF.
Needs to be met ?
Information must be accessible anytime.
For whom ?
Any person with internet access
At what cost ?
Well, within limits reasonable with the revenue we have. If we had
figures to mention, we could say max 1 million per year.
*******************************
Another example
The WMF is the organiser of an annual conference, Wikimania.
Needs to be met ?
Both a scientific conference and a community event, Wikimania brings
together members of various Wikimedia projects in order to exchange
ideas, build relationships, and report on research and project efforts.
It also provides an opportunity for Wikimedians and the general public
alike to meet and share ideas about free and open source software, free
knowledge initiatives, and wiki projects worldwide.
For whom ?
Primarily for Wikimedians. Secondarily for the general public
At what cost ?
No cost. WMF should find sponsors to cover Wikimania costs by large.
*******************************
Now, these are two easy ends to define.
What I would like to ask you help on, is to define more ends, which
describe what you think the WMF is about. The two ends I mentionned
above a "long term" ends, they would be listed this year, and then next
year and probably the year after. Not all ends are this way. We could
also have an end valid only one year, or only 3 months.
Let us say we want a BIG technical meeting around Mediawiki to occur in
the next 6 months, it would be one END.
Or we want to produce a DVD of the english high quality content, it
could be another END.
Actually, hiring an ED could also be an end :-)
Now, before you tell me "eh, we elected you guys to think of that for
us", my answer will be "no, you elected us to represent your dreams
about WMF, and to make sure your dreams happen".
So, what I am currently asking you is
"What do you want Wikimedia Foundation to focus its attention on in the
next few months, few years or more".
Whether you are members on the "paper" (bylaws) or not, morally, you are
the owners of the organization. I do not think the editors represent the
only owners, but the editors definitly are part of the owners. So, I ask
you your opinion as owners.
What do you think we should achieve ? If you had 5 points to list, what
would they be ?
ant
************************************** See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.