Movement representation vs WMF board reform

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of...

Open letter: Issues needing...

Brion Vibber

28 Feb 2016 28 Feb '16

3:53 p.m.

I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of the last few days: Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like, saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement leadership or community representation. Not because they think it shouldn't happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board of Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill. I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should think about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details like board reform. Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens to have specialized in those roles. This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to coordinate and represent and look forward. And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a mismatch in hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very important we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might be needed. Dream big. Act with passion. Talk with thought. Don't run with scissors. -- brion

Show replies by date

Lodewijk

28 Feb 28 Feb

5:15 p.m.

Hi Brion, these signals indeed worry me a bit. The fact that they bring it up so directly, probably indicates they have struggled with it. If we indeed want some kind of overarching body for the movement as a whole, and the current board feels incapable to be that, there are I think a number of remedies, of which you mention one. Some are less likely (or desirable) to occur though: - select different board members who are capable of mixing the two (this only works if one believes that the board members are imagining boundaries that are not there) - Changing the WMF to change this dynamic (i.e. changing it to a membership organisation, changing the mission, etc.) - Creating an additional body inside the WMF that can take up this movement role better - Creating a non-legal entity (a council without any standing) - this would only work for some moral authority - creating a separate body that would become the umbrella (or creating another WMF, which will take over most activities from the current organisation, allowing the umbrella to hold the trademarks etc) The question is indeed what we're trying to accomplish. Some of these work well for community matters, but if I read the temperature well, it seems rather that people are looking for a way to impact what the WMF does. A representation without any actual powers would become quickly moot. But there is another side to community representation, and that is to ease communication. I have suggested before that some kind of council or body with community representatives (probably informal in a way) might make communication with the community in a constructive way easier. Maybe that would make it less likely that things are kept hidden, that the community is not consulted. Because having a channel that will actually have a conversation with you instead of shouting back no matter what you do (and that is definitely how it must have felt to some staff members in the past years) is no fun, and not a warm encouragement to involve the community early on. It is oh so easy to wait it out a bit, until you have solid numbers to proof your story. And before you know, it's basically too late to turn back. For this role, the WMF board is definitely unsuitable, if only because its members are very unrepresentative for the community (albeit they come /from/ the community for a big part) due to their international nature, and often they stopped editing altogether.. Lodewijk On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

Ad Huikeshoven

5:30 p.m.

2016-02-28 15:53 GMT+01:00 Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:

...

Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like, saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement leadership or community representation. Not because they think it shouldn't happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board of Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.

Thanks Brion for starting this conversation. "Our community is our biggest asset" do read the values.[1] How do you reconcile the statement of some board members with this stated value?

...

I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as members of the Wikimedia movement community.

The saying is "structure follows strategy". One goal, or strategy can be "As a movement we want healthy thriving communities". A) One way to achieve that could be to delegate the task explicitly to each individual community and help the members of that community to (self)organize. For example to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of people by active editors to accept certain representative roles, for example in two way communication between foundation and community about technology changes, but also to oversee processes to recruit new editors and onboard them. I imagine a (s)election process like the (s)election of community (s)elected BoT members, however with voters restricted to editors who are active in that community (that is per project wiki of which there are 900). B) Another way would be to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of people in a specific country by active editors in that country to accept certain representative roles, for example in two way communication between foundation and community about technology changes, but also to oversee processes to recruit new editors and onboard them. I imagine a (s)election process like the (s)election of community (s)elected BoT members, however with voters restricted to editors who are active in that country based on geo-ip. Maybe some countries are so big, that it would be wiser to do this at state level.

...

This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to coordinate and represent and look forward.

The failed attempts to WCA come to mind. That didn't work. An association of active editors legally separate from the WMF might be conceivable. Such an assocation could be compartementalized by A) and B). The B) structures might merge with existing chapters, I can imagine. (S)election of community members for the BoT of the WMF could shift to the association. That might end up outsourcing community support by the WMF to the association, something Dariusz opposes ;) Regards, Ad Huikeshoven [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values#Our_community_is_our_biggest_asset

Dariusz Jemielniak

5:45 p.m.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Ad Huikeshoven <ad(a)wikimedia.nl> wrote:

...

B) Another way would be to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of people in a specific country by active editors in that country to accept certain representative roles, for example in two way communication between foundation and community about technology changes, but also to oversee processes to recruit new editors and onboard them. I imagine a (s)election process like the (s)election of community (s)elected BoT members, however with voters restricted to editors who are active in that country based on geo-ip. Maybe some countries are so big, that it would be wiser to do this at state level.

yup, that's effectively the idea of volunteer community liaisons <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pundit/liaisons>, I've been trying to discuss for a while (in Mexico, Luis was quite receptive, but understandably in the following months the idea did not receive the highest priority). dj

Emmanuel Engelhart

6:43 p.m.

On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote:

...

Pharos

29 Feb 29 Feb

4 a.m.

Hi fellow Wikimedians, If we are seriously going to consider an expanded Community Council as an alternative to WMF BoT reform, we need to have a real discussion about what "devolution" would mean, and what specific responsibilities we think should be given up, and distributed to a broader community governance. For example: Should the WMF BoT devolve a non-core portion of the budget? How would the core portion be defined, and the non-core aspects? Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects of the approval or closing of sister sites? (Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikinews, a potential genealogy project) Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects related to Wikimania and related regional meetings? Thanks, Pharos On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Emmanuel Engelhart <kelson(a)kiwix.org> wrote:

...

On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote:

I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of the last few days: Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals

(like,

saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement leadership or community representation. Not because they think it

shouldn't

happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board of Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill. I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should think about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details like board reform. Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens

have specialized in those roles. This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to coordinate and represent and look forward. And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a mismatch

hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very important we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might

needed.

Delighting to read this. That said, the path to achieve this looks pretty challenging. Would the WMF be able to organize such a move and "give-up" parts of its duties/activities to better focus on core business? Emmanuel -- Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more * Web: http://www.kiwix.org * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline * more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Anthony Cole

4:42 a.m.

A link to Pharos's (and others') Community Council Compact: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact Your questions highlight the complexity of creating a new, representative corporation. It would be a lot simpler to just convert WMF into a membership organisation with members electing the majority of board members, and the board appointing expert trustees. The latter involves the acquiescence of the board, though. Without that, the former - an new, representative body - is all we're left with if we want the people who make and run the projects to control the purse strings, as opposed to the current situation where the techie tail wags the encyclopaedist dog. Anthony Cole On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote: > I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of

the

last few days: Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals

(like, > saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of

movement

leadership or community representation. Not because they think it

shouldn't > happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board

> Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill. > > I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as > members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should

think

> about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details

board reform. Perhaps we should explicitly accept WMF as a "first among equals" org within the movement, with specific roles like tech development and fundraising (or other emphases as well) while other orgs concentrate on different specific issues. Or even just "one among equals" that happens

to > have specialized in those roles. > > This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to > coordinate and represent and look forward. > > And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a

mismatch

in > hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in > communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very

important

we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might

needed.

business?

Emmanuel -- Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more * Web: http://www.kiwix.org * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline * more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Brion Vibber

9:04 a.m.

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Our current situation is that WMF centralizes most fundraising for the movement, distributes a portion of it to other movement organizations, and spends the rest itself to support movement goals such as the hosting and fundraising infrastructure, engineering support to improve the tools that movement contributors use, public communications, legal support, etc. In a multi-org world with national chapters like WMDE doing engineering projects and sister organizations like WEF doing editor coordination work, I think it's already incorrect to think of Wikimedia movement fundraising monies as belonging to WMF and a "non-core" portion of them potentially being devolved. Rather, WMF provides fundraising to the movement as a service. WMF should be only one of multiple orgs seeking disbursement of raised movement funds in an open, documented, and transparent process (FDC?)

...

Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects of the approval or closing of sister sites? (Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikinews, a potential genealogy project)

Almost certainly. WMF is a provider of engineering and hosting services to the movement; the BoT thereof provides oversight of its operations, but should possibly not be deciding what community members can and can't work on. It's the movement and its representatives who should decide what major projects to include under the collective umbrella, and WMF's job to host and support them. Should the WMF BoT devolve aspects related to Wikimania and related

...

regional meetings?

Yes. Most likely they should be operated by purpose-built institutions specializing in this, like many large conventions and conferences are. -- brion

...

Thanks, Pharos On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Emmanuel Engelhart <kelson(a)kiwix.org <javascript:;>> wrote:

On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote: > I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of

the

last few days: Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals

(like, > saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of

movement

leadership or community representation. Not because they think it

shouldn't > happen, but because structurally and legally and practically the board

> Wikimedia Foundation Inc has different roles to fill.

> I think we should consider what roles and structures we *do* want as > members of the Wikimedia movement community. And I think we should

think

> about that and talk about that carefully before rushing into details

to > have specialized in those roles.

> This probably means we should think about "umbrella" structures to > coordinate and represent and look forward.

> And that's something we should *definitely* not rush into. If a

mismatch

in > hopes for what the WMF BoT can and should do has been a factor in > communication and leadership issues in the past, then it's very

important

we not make the same kinds of mistakes in any new structures that might

needed.

business?

Emmanuel -- Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline & more * Web: http://www.kiwix.org * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline * more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>

?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> ?subject=unsubscribe>

Ziko van Dijk

10:25 a.m.

Dear Brion, thank you for starting this thread and for your caveats. Among the challenges when creating new movement entities, or organs, I think there are at least two which we have experienced in the past: a) A certain part of the Wikipedians has a very individualistic mind and may not want to be represented at all. Representation means to support someone who is speaking, partially/temporarily, on your behalf. It is easy to imagine that, in an emotional moment confronted with a "common enemy", e.g. a specific Wikipedia language version community elects representants. But that is not enough: on the long run those representants need the constant support of those they are supposed to represent, otherwise their position will be very weak. b) Building up an organ or structures in general needs skills and hard work. It is often difficult to find people who don't only want to cast a voice of protest but to attend meetings, write minutes, communicate with many different people, read a lot of documents, support a decision even if you don't agree for 100% etc. Kind regards Ziko 2016-02-28 15:53 GMT+01:00 Brion Vibber <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org>rg>:

...

2978

days inactive

2979

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

8 comments

8 participants

tags (0)

participants (8)

Ad Huikeshoven
Anthony Cole
Brion Vibber
Dariusz Jemielniak
Emmanuel Engelhart
Lodewijk
Pharos
Ziko van Dijk