cross-posting to foundation-l & internal-l from India Community list; apologies if you've read this already.
hisham
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia India Program Trust Date: November 11, 2011 9:55:00 AM GMT+05:30 To: Wikimedia India Community list wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Folks, I'm writing to share an update with you on certain developments of relevance to the Wikimedia movement in India.
Announcement of Wikimedia India Program Trust For some time, efforts have gone into creating an organization that would provide an appropriate structure to support Wikimedia program activities in India. Aspects such as the current regulatory framework (regarding funding, taxation, etc.) as well as the legal protection for the India team have been considered to determine this structure. In this context, a host of options (e.g. subsidiary, branch, Section 25) were evaluated and a determination was made towards an independent non-profit public trust. Legal advice has been taken at every stage in this decision.
A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has now been formed and registered (in Delhi.) This will be the organization that will eventually drive India programs and house the team in India.
Why an Independent Public Trust? The Trust will provide an effective vehicle within India to marshal resources to support programs and partner with local institutions. The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various projects with an India focus. It is important to understand that the Trust will not have any editorial control over content on any of the Wikimedia projects. The Trust is a not for profit organization.
Introduction of Trustees Trustees have been identified based upon their support for Wikimedia movement's principles and plans in addition to having reputations for good governance and management.
Sunil Abraham and Rahul Matthan have been requested to be the initial Trustees. Both are friends of Wikipedia and have extensive experience.
Sunil is Executive Director of the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), is a long term advocate of free software and IP reform and has been supporting the Wikimedia community and movement for some time now.
Rahul is a partner and heads the technology practice at Trilegal. He brings deep expertise and relationships that will be valuable for the Trust.
These initial Trustees will serve for a term of three years at the maximum. All additional or subsequent Trustees will serve on rotation in accordance with a trustee selection plan that will be prepared.
Trustees will not be compensated for their services.
Governance, Funding, Financial Standards & Communications of the Trust The Trust will be governed by Trustees who will provide oversight and guidance regarding the operations and governance of the Trust.
Since the Trust is an independent organization, it will require funding for its operations which is in compliance with the legal and regulatory framework in India. It will seek funding from private donors within India as well as external sources.
The Trust has the support of the Wikimedia Foundation which is a United States based non-profit foundation. However, in India all non-profit organizations need to be in existence for 3 years before they can receive funding from sources outside India. In the interim, they can apply for prior-permission under the FCRA regulations to help expedite the process. As a result, the Trust will shortly be applying for approval to receive funds from the Wikimedia Foundation in the future.
As a Trust, we are required to have an independent external auditor. We have appointed KPMG. KPMG is experienced in auditing non-profit companies and are also auditors for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Annually, the Trust will publicly disclose it's independently audited financial statements.
The Trust will publish a monthly newsletter outlining its current activities and future plans. This will commence in December 2011.
Operations of the Trust The trust deed under which the Trust must operate clearly states that the purpose of the Trust is to independently promote the growth of volunteer activities within India in support of effective and unrestricted dissemination of free knowledge to the public.
I will serve as the Executive Director of the Trust. Once it is possible, additional employees will be brought on to the Trust
The Trust will eventually have an office in Delhi.
In the interim, I have personally secured temporary office space to facilitate establishing the Trust and its mission. It is located at Top Floor, G-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. It's a couple of minutes walk away from IIT Flyover and Hauz Khas Metro. Do drop in! It's a small but cozy place and we'd love to have you over!
Conclusion We continue to make progress in setting up program activities to support the growth of Wikimedia in India. We have a long way to go, but are glad that we are starting to build a solid foundation.
The following link is for FAQs on this (and related) topics: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ_India_Programs/FAQ_Wikimedia_India_Progra...
As always, do reach out if you have any comments or questions.
Warm Regards,
hisham
Hi Hisham, Interesting development :-)
My question is with regards to the relationship of the new trust to the existing India Chapter. The purpose of the trust (as defined as "The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various projects with an India focus.") seems synonymous with the purpose of a Chapter, and you now also have trustees which is synonymous with a Chapter's board. One difference I can see is that you don't have Members.
Can you elaborate on the legal and practical differences between the new India Trust and the India Chapter?
-Liam
On 11 November 2011 05:11, Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org wrote:
cross-posting to foundation-l & internal-l from India Community list; apologies if you've read this already.
hisham
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia India Program Trust Date: November 11, 2011 9:55:00 AM GMT+05:30 To: Wikimedia India Community list <wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Folks, I'm writing to share an update with you on certain developments of
relevance to the Wikimedia movement in India.
Announcement of Wikimedia India Program Trust For some time, efforts have gone into creating an organization that
would provide an appropriate structure to support Wikimedia program activities in India. Aspects such as the current regulatory framework (regarding funding, taxation, etc.) as well as the legal protection for the India team have been considered to determine this structure. In this context, a host of options (e.g. subsidiary, branch, Section 25) were evaluated and a determination was made towards an independent non-profit public trust. Legal advice has been taken at every stage in this decision.
A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has now been formed
and registered (in Delhi.) This will be the organization that will eventually drive India programs and house the team in India.
Why an Independent Public Trust? The Trust will provide an effective vehicle within India to marshal
resources to support programs and partner with local institutions. The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various projects with an India focus. It is important to understand that the Trust will not have any editorial control over content on any of the Wikimedia projects. The Trust is a not for profit organization.
Introduction of Trustees Trustees have been identified based upon their support for Wikimedia
movement's principles and plans in addition to having reputations for good governance and management.
Sunil Abraham and Rahul Matthan have been requested to be the initial
Trustees. Both are friends of Wikipedia and have extensive experience.
Sunil is Executive Director of the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS),
is a long term advocate of free software and IP reform and has been supporting the Wikimedia community and movement for some time now.
Rahul is a partner and heads the technology practice at Trilegal. He
brings deep expertise and relationships that will be valuable for the Trust.
These initial Trustees will serve for a term of three years at the
maximum. All additional or subsequent Trustees will serve on rotation in accordance with a trustee selection plan that will be prepared.
Trustees will not be compensated for their services.
Governance, Funding, Financial Standards & Communications of the Trust The Trust will be governed by Trustees who will provide oversight and
guidance regarding the operations and governance of the Trust.
Since the Trust is an independent organization, it will require funding
for its operations which is in compliance with the legal and regulatory framework in India. It will seek funding from private donors within India as well as external sources.
The Trust has the support of the Wikimedia Foundation which is a United
States based non-profit foundation. However, in India all non-profit organizations need to be in existence for 3 years before they can receive funding from sources outside India. In the interim, they can apply for prior-permission under the FCRA regulations to help expedite the process. As a result, the Trust will shortly be applying for approval to receive funds from the Wikimedia Foundation in the future.
As a Trust, we are required to have an independent external auditor. We
have appointed KPMG. KPMG is experienced in auditing non-profit companies and are also auditors for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Annually, the Trust will publicly disclose it's independently audited
financial statements.
The Trust will publish a monthly newsletter outlining its current
activities and future plans. This will commence in December 2011.
Operations of the Trust The trust deed under which the Trust must operate clearly states that
the purpose of the Trust is to independently promote the growth of volunteer activities within India in support of effective and unrestricted dissemination of free knowledge to the public.
I will serve as the Executive Director of the Trust. Once it is
possible, additional employees will be brought on to the Trust
The Trust will eventually have an office in Delhi.
In the interim, I have personally secured temporary office space to
facilitate establishing the Trust and its mission. It is located at Top Floor, G-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. It's a couple of minutes walk away from IIT Flyover and Hauz Khas Metro. Do drop in! It's a small but cozy place and we'd love to have you over!
Conclusion We continue to make progress in setting up program activities to support
the growth of Wikimedia in India. We have a long way to go, but are glad that we are starting to build a solid foundation.
The following link is for FAQs on this (and related) topics:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ_India_Programs/FAQ_Wikimedia_India_Progra...
As always, do reach out if you have any comments or questions.
Warm Regards,
hisham
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Can you elaborate on the legal and practical differences between the new India Trust and the India Chapter?
Dear Liam,
Since I run a non-profit in India in my other life, I'll pitch in on one part of this: the legal differences between the India trust and the India chapter.
There are three common ways of legally incorporating a non-profit in India: trust, society, section 25 company.
The chapter is registered as a society, traditionally considered a more open incorporation structure, with members, elections etc. All these are specified in its by-laws.
The program office is registered as a trust, which requires a minimum of two trustees to function. A trust does not usually have members; trustees can be appointed or elected (as per what's specified as the method on the trust deed).
Check out the table at the bottom of the attachment [1] to get more details on this.
Cheers Bishakha
On Nov 11, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
My question is with regards to the relationship of the new trust to the existing India Chapter. The purpose of the trust (as defined as "The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various projects with an India focus.") seems synonymous with the purpose of a Chapter, and you now also have trustees which is synonymous with a Chapter's board. One difference I can see is that you don't have Members.
Can you elaborate on the legal and practical differences between the new India Trust and the India Chapter?
I notice Bishakha's email clarifying the legal differences between the Trust and a society (which is what the Chapter is) - so I'll address the practical differences. The genesis of the Trust was the plan for a catalyst project that was planned for in India. A "boots on the ground" team in India was proposed for this. The Trust is the organisation that will eventually house the team of consultants who are currently working on India Programs, and other team members planned or as may be required.
The Trust will work closely with the community and the Chapter and, as I mentioned in the FAQs link, we will provide support in areas where there isn't either (currently) enough capacity.
To illustrate, there is already a monthly call with the India Chapter Executive Committee where we share updates and plans. There's a meeting that's scheduled on the sidelines of the upcoming WikiConference (next week) where we intend to identify specific initiative(s) where the Chapter and the Trust will work together.
The Trust is also not a membership-based entity - so there'll be no membership drive for it.
I would also add that the larger picture to this is that the opportunity in India is so massive that there is enough and more for all to do. We are and will continue communicating and co-ordinating to make sure that everyone's efforts deliver the maximum results.
hisham
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 09:28, Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Nov 11, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
My question is with regards to the relationship of the new trust to the existing India Chapter. The purpose of the trust (as defined as "The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various
projects
with an India focus.") seems synonymous with the purpose of a Chapter,
and
you now also have trustees which is synonymous with a Chapter's board.
One
difference I can see is that you don't have Members.
Can you elaborate on the legal and practical differences between the new India Trust and the India Chapter?
I notice Bishakha's email clarifying the legal differences between the Trust and a society (which is what the Chapter is) - so I'll address the practical differences. The genesis of the Trust was the plan for a catalyst project that was planned for in India. A "boots on the ground" team in India was proposed for this. The Trust is the organisation that will eventually house the team of consultants who are currently working on India Programs, and other team members planned or as may be required.
The Trust will work closely with the community and the Chapter and, as I mentioned in the FAQs link, we will provide support in areas where there isn't either (currently) enough capacity.
To illustrate, there is already a monthly call with the India Chapter Executive Committee where we share updates and plans. There's a meeting that's scheduled on the sidelines of the upcoming WikiConference (next week) where we intend to identify specific initiative(s) where the Chapter and the Trust will work together.
The Trust is also not a membership-based entity - so there'll be no membership drive for it.
I would also add that the larger picture to this is that the opportunity in India is so massive that there is enough and more for all to do. We are and will continue communicating and co-ordinating to make sure that everyone's efforts deliver the maximum results.
hisham, why are you not integrating into / helping the indian chapter as one would expect? if you see page on wikipedia which is not so good, you edit it, but you do not create another page, isn't it?
rupert
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Can you elaborate on the legal and practical differences between the new India Trust and the India Chapter?
To add to what Bishakha has said - another reason for such a choice could very well be a difference in the methods of execution, where the Chapter depends on volunteers and members to help scale, and primary objectives, where the Chapter is also a collective voice for members.
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust and Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or on the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will Wikimedia India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that country I could imagine them to have a say in it.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention that there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia? Will they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if they dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will the chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
Lodewijk
No dia 11 de Novembro de 2011 09:29, Gautam John gkjohn@gmail.comescreveu:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Can you elaborate on the legal and practical differences between the new India Trust and the India Chapter?
To add to what Bishakha has said - another reason for such a choice could very well be a difference in the methods of execution, where the Chapter depends on volunteers and members to help scale, and primary objectives, where the Chapter is also a collective voice for members.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
hisham
On Nov 11, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi,
I'm taking the liberty of speaking for both the Trust and the Chapter in some of my response here - so India Chapter, please do correct me if I'm not accurately reflecting your position anywhere.
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust and Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or on the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will Wikimedia India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that country I could imagine them to have a say in it.
We (the Trust) will be preparing a trustee selection plan that will outline this.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention that there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
I think the Trust and the Chapter both bring unique strengths (as outlined by Gautam) which I see as complimentary. I would think that cooperation is the default - and this is something that we (Chapter & Trust) will actively work towards. The points I made in my earlier note about communication are an important first step in that - but not the only step. The joint initiative that we (Chapter & Trust) are working at identifying and working together on is another step. I am sure there will be others.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia? Will they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if they dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will the chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think different situations will require different approaches - often times determined by the requirements or circumstances of the partnering institution. If I can illustrate, the partnership point of contact for something like the WikiConference is the Chapter. For something else, it might well be the Trust.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is so much to be done - including just on partnerships alone - that there will be very little case or cause for competition.
If as you illustrate, someone does not get the answer they want from either the Chapter or the Trust, we (Chapter & Trust) will make sure we communicate with each other so that both of us are fully in the know and can act appropriately.
Best
hisham
Hi all,
This thread has brought up several points of interest to Wikimedia India. First let me take this opportunity to thank the Foundation Grants team for all the help for our bootstrapping work, be it Legal consultant or Documentation for FCRA etc. We have been interacting regularly with India programs, it was limited to sharing of the plan and progress on each other's initiatives and some collaboration, as Hisham and myself are on the advisory board of Wiki Conference India 2011.
Responses to specific feedback from Hisham is given in line.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org wrote:
hisham
On Nov 11, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
Hi,
I'm taking the liberty of speaking for both the Trust and the Chapter in some of my response here - so India Chapter, please do correct me if I'm not accurately reflecting your position anywhere.
While the chapter has opened the relationship discussion from the beginning of our first meeting with Barry and Hisham, we are yet to clearly define the focus areas of each despite several face to face meetings or conference calls. Chapter and Foundation have been functioning independently so far and it is important that we define the role and responsibility of each clearly with a good understanding the strengths and limitations of each. We think all the stakeholders have a right to the clarity.
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust and Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or
on
the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
Wikimedia
India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
country I
could imagine them to have a say in it.
We (the Trust) will be preparing a trustee selection plan that will outline this.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention
that
there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
I think the Trust and the Chapter both bring unique strengths (as outlined by Gautam) which I see as complimentary. I would think that cooperation is the default - and this is something that we (Chapter & Trust) will actively work towards. The points I made in my earlier note about communication are an important first step in that - but not the only step. The joint initiative that we (Chapter & Trust) are working at identifying and working together on is another step. I am sure there will be others.
While Chapter has so far been occupied in trying to operationalize itself, it did offer to get involved in the foundation activities that could impact the Chapter like recruitment of staff for example. Foundation has not signaled its willingness due to its own reasons. We are hoping that it will change as we continue to engage.
Chapter is keenly interested in identifying programs that can be done jointly leveraging the strengths of each and this is scheduled for discussion in the upcoming face to face meeting during Wiki Conference.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia?
Will
they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if they dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will
the
chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think different situations will require different approaches - often times determined by the requirements or circumstances of the partnering institution. If I can illustrate, the partnership point of contact for something like the WikiConference is the Chapter. For something else, it might well be the Trust.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is so much to be done - including just on partnerships alone - that there will be very little case or cause for competition.
If as you illustrate, someone does not get the answer they want from either the Chapter or the Trust, we (Chapter & Trust) will make sure we communicate with each other so that both of us are fully in the know and can act appropriately.
Chapter came to know about the name of the trust through this email only,
while we have been hearing of the trust formation for quite some time. We have concern with the naming of the trust. As Wikimedia India is authorized for use by chapter as per Chapter agrement, naming the trust with the same prefix is a sure way of causing more confusion to all stakeholders. We would like suggest to use the prefix "Wikimedia Foundation".
In summary, while the objectives of Wikimedia India and Wikimedia Foundation India programs are common, we really need to define the relationship to a sufficient level of clarity and continue to iterate the same based on experiences.
Thanks
Arjuna Rao Chavala President, Wikimedia India
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Arjuna Rao Chavala arjunaraoc@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
This thread has brought up several points of interest to Wikimedia India. First let me take this opportunity to thank the Foundation Grants team for all the help for our bootstrapping work, be it Legal consultant or Documentation for FCRA etc. We have been interacting regularly with India programs, it was limited to sharing of the plan and progress on each other's initiatives and some collaboration, as Hisham and myself are on the advisory board of Wiki Conference India 2011.
<snip>
In summary, while the objectives of Wikimedia India and Wikimedia Foundation India programs are common, we really need to define the relationship to a sufficient level of clarity and continue to iterate the same based on experiences.
I'd like to propose that the India chapter and the Program trust do a
joint review in Feb 2012 or so to generally take stock of what's working, what's not, what can be improved etc.
Suggesting Feb 2012 since it will be 12 months since Hisham would have started work, and about 13 months since the chapter would have been officially registered in India, so similar time spans.
Of course, it could be done later too - you'll can figure out the right time together...feel this might help, in addition to the monthly calls, informal interactions etc.
Best Bishakha
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or the Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust and Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or on the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will Wikimedia India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that country I could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are going to talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention that there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune
community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In fact, the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when Frank Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia? Will they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if they dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will the chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two entities operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are already very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally get a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF consultants have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in Western India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from WMF (the "international organization") than WMIN.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants with the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally, have paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects which support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time).
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have access to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning *real significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India Office began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be here for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick to its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no relevant background (with a couple of exceptions).
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Lodewijk
anirudh
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hallo Anirudh, Lodewijk,
While I think that this discussion is very useful, it has been happening for some time - I know that Anirudh has raised these questions before, for instance. In that sense, I'm not sure how the registration of a trust changes the situation at all; I think that for anyone involved with the Wikimedia movement in India, the relationship between the Foundation entity in India and the India chapter has been perceived as an interesting, evolving - and highly experimental - situation, at least since the strategic plan was concluded.
To repeat, I think this discussion is very useful, but I think it's important to remember that the situation is neither new nor unexpected. Having said that:
On Friday 11 November 2011 10:09 AM, Anirudh Bhati wrote:
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or the Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
I'd be interested in understanding what the India chapter and the WikiConference India organising committee (to name one formal community grouping outside either the chapter or foundation) think of the Foundation's presence in India. In my own personal experience, there have been large periods of time when the India chapter was not as active as it is now; there have also been (as can be expected) many differences of opinion between community groupings in India. To that extent, and assuming good faith, have the presence of several entities (formal and informal) helped balance out periods of inactivity or dysfunction among all involved?
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijklodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust and Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or on the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will Wikimedia India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that country I could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are going to talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
There appears to be a strong sense of exclusion you are expressing here, which I think it's important to bring up. I'm curious to understand if it's a more widespread feeling - are there others who were consulted? Or weren't but felt they should be? My own understanding of the program is that the India Education Program involved people who elected to get involved - as a community member, I, for instance, know very little about it because I feel I have nothing to contribute there. More importantly, does the chapter feel it was inadequately consulted? And does it feel like it was in a position to contribute more? I think this would be very interesting to probe a little further.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention that there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune
community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In fact, the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when Frank Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia? Will they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if they dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will the chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two entities operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are already very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally get a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF consultants have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in Western India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from WMF (the "international organization") than WMIN.
Honestly, news reporters in India are confused about *everything* related to Wikipedia and Wikimedia :) Even a cursory analysis of news coverage will confirm that they routinely mix up what the movement is, what the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is, what the difference between a chapter member and a staff member is, etc. And as someone who has been following this from the outset, I can say with some confidence that this has nothing to do with the chapter and the Foundation in India, rather, just our own complicated terminology and insider-language, and a general laziness on the part of Indian news media to learn the details. Basically, we'd still get completely whacky press coverage even if there was no chapter and no Foundation entity.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants with the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally, have paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects which support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I think it's a little premature to say that WMIN has been made redundant. As someone who helped the chapter group, right from 2008, for the India chapter to be made redundant would mean that some 3+ years of work and involvement on my part is flushed down the toilet. If that's the case, or is ever made the case, I'll be shouting on the streets - but it isn't, and I'm not sure it's anyone's intention.
For instance, Anirudh, the fact that you are on the board of the India chapter, but don't live in India anymore (you live in Cambodia now, right?), leads me to believe that your involvement with India-based activities, or leading efforts on the ground, is necessarily at a minimum. Don't you think that overall, the effectiveness of the India chapter is a consequence of the involvement and productivity of its members? I recall a host of recent events - the WikiAcademy for librarians in Bangalore, a widely attended copyright seminar, the AGM, elections, regular newsletters - that are testament to the fact that the India chapter is not - and doesn't want to be - "redundant". But perhaps this is something the chapter can clarify more officially.
I'm not saying that there are no issues of overlap to sort out; I am saying that from my perspective it does not seem like there is anything close to the level of antagonism or redundancy you describe in your email.
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have access to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning *real significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India Office began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be here for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick to its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no relevant background (with a couple of exceptions).
Like you, I read of the India Education Program's work with some concern. While I think that serious analysis and introspection is in order, I think it's a little premature to jump on this incident and dismiss the entire scope of potential Foundation activity in India.
I share your concerns overall, but I think we can be concerned without launching an outright offensive against all Foundation staff, right? Think back to some of the tough moments the India chapter has had to face from Indian community groupings - the chapter was then placed in the position that the Foundation now finds itself in, i.e. being "the man" - and I don't think it would have helped anyone to run this kind of black/white, I'm good/ you're bad dialogue.
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Thank you too, for opening up the discussion.
Cheers, Achal
Lodewijk
anirudh
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11 November 2011 17:11, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, news reporters in India are confused about *everything* related to Wikipedia and Wikimedia :) Even a cursory analysis of news coverage will confirm that they routinely mix up what the movement is, what the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is, what the difference between a chapter member and a staff member is, etc. And as someone who has been following this from the outset, I can say with some confidence that this has nothing to do with the chapter and the Foundation in India, rather, just our own complicated terminology and insider-language, and a general laziness on the part of Indian news media to learn the details. Basically, we'd still get completely whacky press coverage even if there was no chapter and no Foundation entity.
FWIW, this is definitely not confined to India :-)
From a brand perspective, the Wikimedia movement is extremely
confusing to reporters: we have Wikimedia, Wikipedia, the sister projects, MediaWiki, the Wikimedia Foundation, chapter organizations, school clubs, and projects and activities of all types. And, media are continually befuddled about how we work: they are used to professional spokespeople, so they don't understand why X person in the Wikimedia movement isn't speaking on behalf of the whole movement.
When I joined the Wikimedia Foundation in 2007, I thought this was a problem that needed to be fixed. Over time though, I've begun to realize that it's pretty fundamental to our movement's values. We want to have a movement in which it's easy to participate; in which there are few barriers to entry; there is minimal rule-making and rule-enforcement, where people can flexibly wear different hats and take on different roles, etc.
So yes: I think we are confusing to journalists, and they often get the story wrong. That's too bad. But on the whole, I think it's a small price to pay in exchange for a vibrant, creative, productive movement, and the cure for it (real clarity, lots of rules) would be worse than the disease.
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!
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:40 PM, wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com wrote:
From personal experience with WCI 2011, we have benefited by having both the Chapter and the Foundation in the country.
Kind Regards,
Hi
In the interest of full-disclosure first, please have a look here.[1]
Both the organizers are on WMF India "Fellowship" while organizing the conference.
I think lodewijk and Anirudh might have an idea of my opinion on this. But I would like to respond later too.
Regards Theo
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Proposals/WikiConferenc... [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Proposals/WikiConferenc...
Clarification and Statutory Disclosure: Iv been working on WCI 2011 since April and have received a fellowship to do this since August. It was necessary for something to come into the bank while I have been working on the conference full time (Note that although Iv been working on this since April, Iv been compensated only August onwards).
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:49:36 +0530 From: de10011@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:40 PM, wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com wrote:
From personal experience with WCI 2011, we have benefited by having both the Chapter and the Foundation in the country.
Kind Regards,
Hi
In the interest of full-disclosure first, please have a look here.[1]
Both the organizers are on WMF India "Fellowship" while organizing the conference.
I think lodewijk and Anirudh might have an idea of my opinion on this. But I would like to respond later too.
Regards Theo
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Proposals/WikiConferenc... [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Proposals/WikiConferenc... _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
+1 on Achal's note. Thanks Achal.
Let me add that the relationship with the Wikimedia India chapter is evolving...and it is evolving in a good way. Hisham worked collaboratively with Arjuna in joint support of the Wikiconference India team. We work very closely with Tinu on communications (as we have since we first started working in India, before Tinu was on the chapter board). The work Naveen introduced recently for Wiki Academies is being funded via a grant from WMF and Hisham's team wants to be supportive of this. From the beginning of our involvement in India, we sought to have the chapter involved (when I traveled to India we funded the travel of chapter EC members - Anirudh and HP Nadig to join me and we provided a prominent role for the chapter in press discussions. We did the same funding Arun when Jimmy was in India). We have committed to providing the chapter with funding to support programs that they have in the works. In fact, I proactively suggested that the chapter prepare a grant request almost a year ago. We've also helped the chapter work through regulatory hurdles to getting funds including supporting a require for prior permission for FCRA. Arjuna was involved in the discussions at the formation of the Pune Pilot, but the chapter really didn't have the capacity in Pune to be heavily involved in it at the time. An argument that the trust is getting in the way or supplanting the chapter doesn't really hold water. My hope is that the relationship is and will continue to get closer...and I remain committed to an outcome where the chapter and trust become one as our collective capacity and work mature in India.
On the funding issue...this is a bit of a red herring. As of now, there is sufficient funds available to the chapter to build its organizational capacity and execute on the plans that it has laid out. We are working hard to overcome regulatory issues to the flow of funds that would provide more resources over time to support work of the chapter, the Trust and other groups in the community. The true focus of both the chapter, Trust and other interested community groups should be on building the capacity to do effective work that advances the mission. Money is not the limiting factor though Indian regulations to create some short term hassles)...it's ideas and capacity to get things done. That's what we all need to work on and do so, in good faith, with a shared commitment to the Wikimedia mission.
Look forward to joining all of our Indian colleagues at the Wikiconference India next week...and to continuing to work to achieve our shared vision in India...
Barry On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Hallo Anirudh, Lodewijk,
While I think that this discussion is very useful, it has been happening for some time - I know that Anirudh has raised these questions before, for instance. In that sense, I'm not sure how the registration of a trust changes the situation at all; I think that for anyone involved with the Wikimedia movement in India, the relationship between the Foundation entity in India and the India chapter has been perceived as an interesting, evolving - and highly experimental - situation, at least since the strategic plan was concluded.
To repeat, I think this discussion is very useful, but I think it's important to remember that the situation is neither new nor unexpected. Having said that:
On Friday 11 November 2011 10:09 AM, Anirudh Bhati wrote:
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or
the
Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
I'd be interested in understanding what the India chapter and the WikiConference India organising committee (to name one formal community grouping outside either the chapter or foundation) think of the Foundation's presence in India. In my own personal experience, there have been large periods of time when the India chapter was not as active as it is now; there have also been (as can be expected) many differences of opinion between community groupings in India. To that extent, and assuming good faith, have the presence of several entities (formal and informal) helped balance out periods of inactivity or dysfunction among all involved?
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk<lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust and Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or
on
the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
Wikimedia
India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
country I
could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are going
to
talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
There appears to be a strong sense of exclusion you are expressing here, which I think it's important to bring up. I'm curious to understand if it's a more widespread feeling - are there others who were consulted? Or weren't but felt they should be? My own understanding of the program is that the India Education Program involved people who elected to get involved - as a community member, I, for instance, know very little about it because I feel I have nothing to contribute there. More importantly, does the chapter feel it was inadequately consulted? And does it feel like it was in a position to contribute more? I think this would be very interesting to probe a little further.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention
that
there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune
community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In
fact,
the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when
Frank
Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia?
Will
they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if they dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will
the
chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two
entities
operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are already very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally
get
a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF consultants have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in Western India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from WMF (the "international organization") than WMIN.
Honestly, news reporters in India are confused about *everything* related to Wikipedia and Wikimedia :) Even a cursory analysis of news coverage will confirm that they routinely mix up what the movement is, what the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is, what the difference between a chapter member and a staff member is, etc. And as someone who has been following this from the outset, I can say with some confidence that this has nothing to do with the chapter and the Foundation in India, rather, just our own complicated terminology and insider-language, and a general laziness on the part of Indian news media to learn the details. Basically, we'd still get completely whacky press coverage even if there was no chapter and no Foundation entity.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will
theoretically
compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant
(something
that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I think it's a little premature to say that WMIN has been made redundant. As someone who helped the chapter group, right from 2008, for the India chapter to be made redundant would mean that some 3+ years of work and involvement on my part is flushed down the toilet. If that's the case, or is ever made the case, I'll be shouting on the streets - but it isn't, and I'm not sure it's anyone's intention.
For instance, Anirudh, the fact that you are on the board of the India chapter, but don't live in India anymore (you live in Cambodia now, right?), leads me to believe that your involvement with India-based activities, or leading efforts on the ground, is necessarily at a minimum. Don't you think that overall, the effectiveness of the India chapter is a consequence of the involvement and productivity of its members? I recall a host of recent events - the WikiAcademy for librarians in Bangalore, a widely attended copyright seminar, the AGM, elections, regular newsletters - that are testament to the fact that the India chapter is not - and doesn't want to be - "redundant". But perhaps this is something the chapter can clarify more officially.
I'm not saying that there are no issues of overlap to sort out; I am saying that from my perspective it does not seem like there is anything close to the level of antagonism or redundancy you describe in your email.
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have
access
to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning *real significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India Office began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be here for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick
to
its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no relevant background (with a couple of exceptions).
Like you, I read of the India Education Program's work with some concern. While I think that serious analysis and introspection is in order, I think it's a little premature to jump on this incident and dismiss the entire scope of potential Foundation activity in India.
I share your concerns overall, but I think we can be concerned without launching an outright offensive against all Foundation staff, right? Think back to some of the tough moments the India chapter has had to face from Indian community groupings - the chapter was then placed in the position that the Foundation now finds itself in, i.e. being "the man" - and I don't think it would have helped anyone to run this kind of black/white, I'm good/ you're bad dialogue.
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Thank you too, for opening up the discussion.
Cheers, Achal
Lodewijk
anirudh
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
inline.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:21:17 -0800 From: bnewstead@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
On the funding issue...this is a bit of a red herring. As of now, there is sufficient funds available to the chapter to build its organizational capacity and execute on the plans that it has laid out. We are working hard to overcome regulatory issues to the flow of funds that would provide more resources over time to support work of the chapter, the Trust and other groups in the community. The true focus of both the chapter, Trust and other interested community groups should be on building the capacity to do effective work that advances the mission. Money is not the limiting factor though Indian regulations to create some short term hassles)...it's ideas and capacity to get things done. That's what we all need to work on and do so, in good faith, with a shared commitment to the Wikimedia mission.
From WCI experience. Its not just regulations, its more than that. Iv had trouble getting funding where the route is clear - and the trouble roots with a particular bank that the foundation used, which I dont care to mention on a public list. Believe you me, these guys were playing around to their benefit at our cost, something which I find totally unacceptable.
Look forward to joining all of our Indian colleagues at the Wikiconference India next week...and to continuing to work to achieve our shared vision in India...
Barry _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:36 AM, wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com wrote:
inline.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:21:17 -0800 From: bnewstead@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
On the funding issue...this is a bit of a red herring. As of now, there
is
sufficient funds available to the chapter to build its organizational capacity and execute on the plans that it has laid out. We are working
hard
to overcome regulatory issues to the flow of funds that would provide
more
resources over time to support work of the chapter, the Trust and other groups in the community. The true focus of both the chapter, Trust and other interested community groups should be on building the capacity to
do
effective work that advances the mission. Money is not the limiting
factor
though Indian regulations to create some short term hassles)...it's ideas and capacity to get things done. That's what we all need to work on and
do
so, in good faith, with a shared commitment to the Wikimedia mission.
From WCI experience. Its not just regulations, its more than that. Iv had trouble getting funding where the route is clear - and the trouble roots with a particular bank that the foundation used, which I dont care to mention on a public list. Believe you me, these guys were playing around to their benefit at our cost, something which I find totally unacceptable.
For clarification...when you say "these guys" I hope you are referring to the banks, not WMF? We have expended a huge amount of effort to provide the funding for the conference and other needs. It has indeed been hard as the banking system is difficult to work with (actually, sometimes it is very easy and other times it is shockingly difficult with no pattern), but we've done everything in our power to make things work and a lot has gotten done.
Look forward to joining all of our Indian colleagues at the
Wikiconference
India next week...and to continuing to work to achieve our shared vision
in
India...
Barry _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Bank, Barry. I appreciate what the foundation has done for us, however the bank at your end has proven to be a pain on more than one occasion. We have gone through a lot of unnecessary shit - you would think that international transfers are quite simple in this day and age. They have delayed our payments for weeks on end whiles they debited foundation accounts, which means they were playing with the money interest free all that while! Money mean for the conference. Even when it came, we couldnt trace it due to their methods.
At the end of the day they blamed the Indian Banks. For your information, this happened to 4 different people each having a different bank (one of which was actually the Indian counterpart of the US bank WMF uses).
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:55:03 -0800 From: bnewstead@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:36 AM, wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com wrote:
inline.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:21:17 -0800 From: bnewstead@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
On the funding issue...this is a bit of a red herring. As of now, there
is
sufficient funds available to the chapter to build its organizational capacity and execute on the plans that it has laid out. We are working
hard
to overcome regulatory issues to the flow of funds that would provide
more
resources over time to support work of the chapter, the Trust and other groups in the community. The true focus of both the chapter, Trust and other interested community groups should be on building the capacity to
do
effective work that advances the mission. Money is not the limiting
factor
though Indian regulations to create some short term hassles)...it's ideas and capacity to get things done. That's what we all need to work on and
do
so, in good faith, with a shared commitment to the Wikimedia mission.
From WCI experience. Its not just regulations, its more than that. Iv had trouble getting funding where the route is clear - and the trouble roots with a particular bank that the foundation used, which I dont care to mention on a public list. Believe you me, these guys were playing around to their benefit at our cost, something which I find totally unacceptable.
For clarification...when you say "these guys" I hope you are referring to the banks, not WMF? We have expended a huge amount of effort to provide the funding for the conference and other needs. It has indeed been hard as the banking system is difficult to work with (actually, sometimes it is very easy and other times it is shockingly difficult with no pattern), but we've done everything in our power to make things work and a lot has gotten done.
Look forward to joining all of our Indian colleagues at the
Wikiconference
India next week...and to continuing to work to achieve our shared vision
in
India...
Barry _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Barry Newstead Chief Global Development Officer Wikimedia Foundation
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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ohai Achal
As usual, I disagree. I am a bit more informed of the current situation than most people, maybe not as much as the current WMF advisory board member but who knows.
My opinion on this is from a regular community member before much of the community in other cities was active. I am not affiliated with the chapter or the India operations.
Honestly, from my proximity, and I have been in close proximity for a while to both entities, there is some tension and a sense of antagonism on a lot of issues. The fact they can't and usually don't co-ordinate before, only heightens the issue.
As for solicitation and being open for the famed India education program, I recall mentioning this to Hisham when he first brought it up, weeks after he was hired. My opinion at the time, and now is, he did it in the wrong city, the wrong colleges and with the wrong people. I still stand by my opinion.
You brought up Anirudh's physical presence as affecting his judgement about the chapter. I would like to point out that the India offices are located in Delhi, the foundation offices in San Francisco, neither of those put you in a better position to comment than Anirudh. Many chapters and you can check if you like, have board members who are not resident or are temporarily resident outside a country. It is usually a chapter's decision, if they have objections or not.
As for the Media getting it wrong, well, it's sad you can't correct everyone on what the "Movement" is or where it should be headed.
Theo
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Hallo Anirudh, Lodewijk,
While I think that this discussion is very useful, it has been happening for some time - I know that Anirudh has raised these questions before, for instance. In that sense, I'm not sure how the registration of a trust changes the situation at all; I think that for anyone involved with the Wikimedia movement in India, the relationship between the Foundation entity in India and the India chapter has been perceived as an interesting, evolving - and highly experimental - situation, at least since the strategic plan was concluded.
To repeat, I think this discussion is very useful, but I think it's important to remember that the situation is neither new nor unexpected. Having said that:
On Friday 11 November 2011 10:09 AM, Anirudh Bhati wrote:
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or
the
Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
I'd be interested in understanding what the India chapter and the WikiConference India organising committee (to name one formal community grouping outside either the chapter or foundation) think of the Foundation's presence in India. In my own personal experience, there have been large periods of time when the India chapter was not as active as it is now; there have also been (as can be expected) many differences of opinion between community groupings in India. To that extent, and assuming good faith, have the presence of several entities (formal and informal) helped balance out periods of inactivity or dysfunction among all involved?
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk<lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust and Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or
on
the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
Wikimedia
India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
country I
could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are going
to
talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
There appears to be a strong sense of exclusion you are expressing here, which I think it's important to bring up. I'm curious to understand if it's a more widespread feeling - are there others who were consulted? Or weren't but felt they should be? My own understanding of the program is that the India Education Program involved people who elected to get involved - as a community member, I, for instance, know very little about it because I feel I have nothing to contribute there. More importantly, does the chapter feel it was inadequately consulted? And does it feel like it was in a position to contribute more? I think this would be very interesting to probe a little further.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention
that
there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune
community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In
fact,
the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when
Frank
Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia?
Will
they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if they dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will
the
chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two
entities
operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are already very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally
get
a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF consultants have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in Western India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from WMF (the "international organization") than WMIN.
Honestly, news reporters in India are confused about *everything* related to Wikipedia and Wikimedia :) Even a cursory analysis of news coverage will confirm that they routinely mix up what the movement is, what the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is, what the difference between a chapter member and a staff member is, etc. And as someone who has been following this from the outset, I can say with some confidence that this has nothing to do with the chapter and the Foundation in India, rather, just our own complicated terminology and insider-language, and a general laziness on the part of Indian news media to learn the details. Basically, we'd still get completely whacky press coverage even if there was no chapter and no Foundation entity.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will
theoretically
compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant
(something
that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I think it's a little premature to say that WMIN has been made redundant. As someone who helped the chapter group, right from 2008, for the India chapter to be made redundant would mean that some 3+ years of work and involvement on my part is flushed down the toilet. If that's the case, or is ever made the case, I'll be shouting on the streets - but it isn't, and I'm not sure it's anyone's intention.
For instance, Anirudh, the fact that you are on the board of the India chapter, but don't live in India anymore (you live in Cambodia now, right?), leads me to believe that your involvement with India-based activities, or leading efforts on the ground, is necessarily at a minimum. Don't you think that overall, the effectiveness of the India chapter is a consequence of the involvement and productivity of its members? I recall a host of recent events - the WikiAcademy for librarians in Bangalore, a widely attended copyright seminar, the AGM, elections, regular newsletters - that are testament to the fact that the India chapter is not - and doesn't want to be - "redundant". But perhaps this is something the chapter can clarify more officially.
I'm not saying that there are no issues of overlap to sort out; I am saying that from my perspective it does not seem like there is anything close to the level of antagonism or redundancy you describe in your email.
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have
access
to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning *real significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India Office began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be here for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick
to
its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no relevant background (with a couple of exceptions).
Like you, I read of the India Education Program's work with some concern. While I think that serious analysis and introspection is in order, I think it's a little premature to jump on this incident and dismiss the entire scope of potential Foundation activity in India.
I share your concerns overall, but I think we can be concerned without launching an outright offensive against all Foundation staff, right? Think back to some of the tough moments the India chapter has had to face from Indian community groupings - the chapter was then placed in the position that the Foundation now finds itself in, i.e. being "the man" - and I don't think it would have helped anyone to run this kind of black/white, I'm good/ you're bad dialogue.
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Thank you too, for opening up the discussion.
Cheers, Achal
Lodewijk
anirudh
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi Theo
On 11 November 2011 14:10, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Ohai Achal
As usual, I disagree.
??
I didn't realise we disagree frequently...you must fill me in off list :)
I am a bit more informed of the current situation than most people, maybe not as much as the current WMF advisory board member but who knows.
Theo, this isn't a competition. I value your perspective, as do several other people.
My opinion on this is from a regular community member before much of the community in other cities was active. I am not affiliated with the chapter or the India operations.
Honestly, from my proximity, and I have been in close proximity for a while to both entities, there is some tension and a sense of antagonism on a lot of issues. The fact they can't and usually don't co-ordinate before, only heightens the issue.
While I value your perspective on this issue, I think it would be also helpful to hear from people who have a direct relationship with the chapter, and from people who are in a formal/semi-formal community grouping who've interacted with the chapter and Foundation in India. I don't disagree with you or dispute what you say; I just think that there are many others who are in a better position to speak to this.
As for solicitation and being open for the famed India education program, I recall mentioning this to Hisham when he first brought it up, weeks after he was hired. My opinion at the time, and now is, he did it in the wrong city, the wrong colleges and with the wrong people. I still stand by my opinion.
You brought up Anirudh's physical presence as affecting his judgement about the chapter.
Actually no.
Anirudh is not speaking for the chapter, and clearly said he is speaking for himself. I respect that. I'm simply reiterating that as he has been in Cambodia the last year or so, he hasn't attended chapter meetings, the AGM, or participated in any of the chapter events (physically) - which I, and several other people based here, have. Anirudh is a long standing and dedicated Wikipedian who has every right to an opinion; I'm merely pointing out that living in the country whose Wikimedia chapter you are a board member of is likely to provide more opportunities to do things for the chapter and not make it "redundant".
I would like to point out that the India offices are located in Delhi, the foundation offices in San Francisco, neither of those put you in a better position to comment than Anirudh. Many chapters and you can check if you like, have board members who are not resident or are temporarily resident outside a country. It is usually a chapter's decision, if they have objections or not.
As for the Media getting it wrong, well, it's sad you can't correct everyone on what the "Movement" is or where it should be headed.
I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic here, Theo, but assuming good faith, I'll assume that you mean (like Sue pointed out) that the media does tend to confuse terms that sound and look similar.
Theo
Best wishes, Achal
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Hallo Anirudh, Lodewijk,
While I think that this discussion is very useful, it has been happening for some time - I know that Anirudh has raised these questions before, for instance. In that sense, I'm not sure how the registration of a trust changes the situation at all; I think that for anyone involved with the Wikimedia movement in India, the relationship between the Foundation entity in India and the India chapter has been perceived as an interesting, evolving - and highly experimental - situation, at least since the strategic plan was concluded.
To repeat, I think this discussion is very useful, but I think it's important to remember that the situation is neither new nor unexpected. Having said that:
On Friday 11 November 2011 10:09 AM, Anirudh Bhati wrote:
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or
the
Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
I'd be interested in understanding what the India chapter and the WikiConference India organising committee (to name one formal community grouping outside either the chapter or foundation) think of the Foundation's presence in India. In my own personal experience, there have been large periods of time when the India chapter was not as active as it is now; there have also been (as can be expected) many differences of opinion between community groupings in India. To that extent, and assuming good faith, have the presence of several entities (formal and informal) helped balance out periods of inactivity or dysfunction among all involved?
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk<lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust
and
Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by
(or
on
the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
Wikimedia
India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
country I
could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are
going
to
talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
There appears to be a strong sense of exclusion you are expressing here, which I think it's important to bring up. I'm curious to understand if it's a more widespread feeling - are there others who were consulted? Or weren't but felt they should be? My own understanding of the program is that the India Education Program involved people who elected to get involved - as a community member, I, for instance, know very little about it because I feel I have nothing to contribute there. More importantly, does the chapter feel it was inadequately consulted? And does it feel like it was in a position to contribute more? I think this would be very interesting to probe a little further.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention
that
there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune
community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In
fact,
the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when
Frank
Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia?
Will
they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if
they
dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?).
Will
the
chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two
entities
operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are already very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally
get
a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF
consultants
have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in
Western
India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from
WMF
(the "international organization") than WMIN.
Honestly, news reporters in India are confused about *everything* related to Wikipedia and Wikimedia :) Even a cursory analysis of news coverage will confirm that they routinely mix up what the movement is, what the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation is, what the difference between a chapter member and a staff member is, etc. And as someone who has been following this from the outset, I can say with some confidence that this has nothing to do with the chapter and the Foundation in India, rather, just our own complicated terminology and insider-language, and a general laziness on the part of Indian news media to learn the details. Basically, we'd still get completely whacky press coverage even if there was no chapter and no Foundation entity.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish
another
non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will
theoretically
compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance)
and
in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant
(something
that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I think it's a little premature to say that WMIN has been made redundant. As someone who helped the chapter group, right from 2008, for the India chapter to be made redundant would mean that some 3+ years of work and involvement on my part is flushed down the toilet. If that's the case, or is ever made the case, I'll be shouting on the streets - but it isn't, and I'm not sure it's anyone's intention.
For instance, Anirudh, the fact that you are on the board of the India chapter, but don't live in India anymore (you live in Cambodia now, right?), leads me to believe that your involvement with India-based activities, or leading efforts on the ground, is necessarily at a minimum. Don't you think that overall, the effectiveness of the India chapter is a consequence of the involvement and productivity of its members? I recall a host of recent events - the WikiAcademy for librarians in Bangalore, a widely attended copyright seminar, the AGM, elections, regular newsletters - that are testament to the fact that the India chapter is not - and doesn't want to be - "redundant". But perhaps this is something the chapter can clarify more officially.
I'm not saying that there are no issues of overlap to sort out; I am saying that from my perspective it does not seem like there is anything close to the level of antagonism or redundancy you describe in your
email.
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have
access
to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning
*real
significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India Office began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be
here
for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick
to
its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no
relevant
background (with a couple of exceptions).
Like you, I read of the India Education Program's work with some concern. While I think that serious analysis and introspection is in order, I think it's a little premature to jump on this incident and dismiss the entire scope of potential Foundation activity in India.
I share your concerns overall, but I think we can be concerned without launching an outright offensive against all Foundation staff, right? Think back to some of the tough moments the India chapter has had to face from Indian community groupings - the chapter was then placed in the position that the Foundation now finds itself in, i.e. being "the man" - and I don't think it would have helped anyone to run this kind of black/white, I'm good/ you're bad dialogue.
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Thank you too, for opening up the discussion.
Cheers, Achal
Lodewijk
anirudh
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yes, we disagreed on a couple of things during the filter discussion on this very list, I'm sure you can look it up.
Along with the local discussions, your thoughts on the strategy plan, and movement roles, I wasn't there at the time to disagree so I suppose you have no idea. You are more than welcome to bring any of this up on Internal-l however, I would be happy to go into much more detail for your elucidation.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo
On 11 November 2011 14:10, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Ohai Achal
As usual, I disagree.
??
I didn't realise we disagree frequently...you must fill me in off list :)
I am a bit more informed of the current situation than most people, maybe not as much as the current WMF advisory board member but who knows.
Theo, this isn't a competition. I value your perspective, as do several other people.
Never said it is.
My opinion on this is from a regular community member before much of the community in other cities was active. I am not affiliated with the
chapter
or the India operations.
Honestly, from my proximity, and I have been in close proximity for a
while
to both entities, there is some tension and a sense of antagonism on a
lot
of issues. The fact they can't and usually don't co-ordinate before, only heightens the issue.
While I value your perspective on this issue, I think it would be also helpful to hear from people who have a direct relationship with the chapter, and from people who are in a formal/semi-formal community grouping who've interacted with the chapter and Foundation in India. I don't disagree with you or dispute what you say; I just think that there are many others who are in a better position to speak to this.
So by implication, you mean I have no direct relationship with the chapter and India operations. I don't think I ever stopped being active on the local mailing lists or the conference organizing committee to be considered not-direct, however, I can't say the same for you or others. I can go into the specifics of my involvement with the foundation in India, with things like the office, all the India-operation pages on Meta, the regular IRC meetings I moderated as well as my work for the chapter like customizing the chapter wiki, Wikiconference pages, general outreach etc.. Again, I'm not sure if my work qualifies me to comment or be considered direct, which you seem to be entitled to judge.
I find it odd since you are dismissing Anirudh for being in the chapter and not in the country, and then me for being in the country and not on the chapter or in proximity. You suggested asking the organizers in your last mail, last I checked I was one of them. Pranav also responded but he also happens to be on a "fellowship"/grant, I'm not.
As for solicitation and being open for the famed India education
program, I
recall mentioning this to Hisham when he first brought it up, weeks after he was hired. My opinion at the time, and now is, he did it in the wrong city, the wrong colleges and with the wrong people. I still stand by my opinion.
You brought up Anirudh's physical presence as affecting his judgement
about
the chapter.
Actually no.
Anirudh is not speaking for the chapter, and clearly said he is speaking for himself. I respect that. I'm simply reiterating that as he has been in Cambodia the last year or so, he hasn't attended chapter meetings, the AGM, or participated in any of the chapter events (physically) - which I, and several other people based here, have. Anirudh is a long standing and dedicated Wikipedian who has every right to an opinion; I'm merely pointing out that living in the country whose Wikimedia chapter you are a board member of is likely to provide more opportunities to do things for the chapter and not make it "redundant".
First you say he's not speaking for the chapter, only himself, which you respect then you proceed to make an argument how he is unfit to speak for the chapter? I'm not sure how someone's physical presence or attending certain meetings relates to their effectiveness on the board, certainly their personal opinion. I pointed out there are several chapters with little or no restrictions to its board members being resident or present in the country, again, you are more than free to check. I also don't understand the point of quoting redundant, are those quotes intended to be ironic?
I'm not sure how his physical presence is related to this, I would go so far as to say, it's his personal business. One that you don't exactly have a position to question, just as much as someone else does to question yours, helping chapters and communities in two continents. Can someone ask you to stop representing India as the advisory board member when you represent South Africa or vice-versa, after missing a couple of meetings? Last I checked the board of a chapter was a non-paid volunteer position.
I would like to point out that the India offices are located in Delhi, the foundation offices in San Francisco, neither of those put
you
in a better position to comment than Anirudh. Many chapters and you can check if you like, have board members who are not resident or are temporarily resident outside a country. It is usually a chapter's
decision,
if they have objections or not.
As for the Media getting it wrong, well, it's sad you can't correct everyone on what the "Movement" is or where it should be headed.
I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic here, Theo, but assuming good faith, I'll assume that you mean (like Sue pointed out) that the media does tend to confuse terms that sound and look similar.
I was indeed being sarcastic. (Someone call [[WP:OMGcom]] )
Theo
Hi Theo, I find your tone needlessly rude - do you really think this is the best way to communicate?
It makes it very difficult to have a useful conversation.
Best wishes, Achal
On 11 November 2011 18:07, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we disagreed on a couple of things during the filter discussion on this very list, I'm sure you can look it up.
Along with the local discussions, your thoughts on the strategy plan, and movement roles, I wasn't there at the time to disagree so I suppose you have no idea. You are more than welcome to bring any of this up on Internal-l however, I would be happy to go into much more detail for your elucidation.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo
On 11 November 2011 14:10, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Ohai Achal
As usual, I disagree.
??
I didn't realise we disagree frequently...you must fill me in off list :)
I am a bit more informed of the current situation than most people, maybe not as much as the current WMF advisory board member but who knows.
Theo, this isn't a competition. I value your perspective, as do several other people.
Never said it is.
My opinion on this is from a regular community member before much of
the
community in other cities was active. I am not affiliated with the
chapter
or the India operations.
Honestly, from my proximity, and I have been in close proximity for a
while
to both entities, there is some tension and a sense of antagonism on a
lot
of issues. The fact they can't and usually don't co-ordinate before,
only
heightens the issue.
While I value your perspective on this issue, I think it would be also helpful to hear from people who have a direct relationship with the chapter, and from people who are in a formal/semi-formal community
grouping
who've interacted with the chapter and Foundation in India. I don't disagree with you or dispute what you say; I just think that there are
many
others who are in a better position to speak to this.
So by implication, you mean I have no direct relationship with the chapter and India operations. I don't think I ever stopped being active on the local mailing lists or the conference organizing committee to be considered not-direct, however, I can't say the same for you or others. I can go into the specifics of my involvement with the foundation in India, with things like the office, all the India-operation pages on Meta, the regular IRC meetings I moderated as well as my work for the chapter like customizing the chapter wiki, Wikiconference pages, general outreach etc.. Again, I'm not sure if my work qualifies me to comment or be considered direct, which you seem to be entitled to judge.
I find it odd since you are dismissing Anirudh for being in the chapter and not in the country, and then me for being in the country and not on the chapter or in proximity. You suggested asking the organizers in your last mail, last I checked I was one of them. Pranav also responded but he also happens to be on a "fellowship"/grant, I'm not.
As for solicitation and being open for the famed India education
program, I
recall mentioning this to Hisham when he first brought it up, weeks
after
he was hired. My opinion at the time, and now is, he did it in the
wrong
city, the wrong colleges and with the wrong people. I still stand by my opinion.
You brought up Anirudh's physical presence as affecting his judgement
about
the chapter.
Actually no.
Anirudh is not speaking for the chapter, and clearly said he is speaking for himself. I respect that. I'm simply reiterating that as he has been
in
Cambodia the last year or so, he hasn't attended chapter meetings, the
AGM,
or participated in any of the chapter events (physically) - which I, and several other people based here, have. Anirudh is a long standing and dedicated Wikipedian who has every right to an opinion; I'm merely
pointing
out that living in the country whose Wikimedia chapter you are a board member of is likely to provide more opportunities to do things for the chapter and not make it "redundant".
First you say he's not speaking for the chapter, only himself, which you respect then you proceed to make an argument how he is unfit to speak for the chapter? I'm not sure how someone's physical presence or attending certain meetings relates to their effectiveness on the board, certainly their personal opinion. I pointed out there are several chapters with little or no restrictions to its board members being resident or present in the country, again, you are more than free to check. I also don't understand the point of quoting redundant, are those quotes intended to be ironic?
I'm not sure how his physical presence is related to this, I would go so far as to say, it's his personal business. One that you don't exactly have a position to question, just as much as someone else does to question yours, helping chapters and communities in two continents. Can someone ask you to stop representing India as the advisory board member when you represent South Africa or vice-versa, after missing a couple of meetings? Last I checked the board of a chapter was a non-paid volunteer position.
I would like to point out that the India offices are located in Delhi, the foundation offices in San Francisco, neither of those put
you
in a better position to comment than Anirudh. Many chapters and you can check if you like, have board members who are not resident or are temporarily resident outside a country. It is usually a chapter's
decision,
if they have objections or not.
As for the Media getting it wrong, well, it's sad you can't correct everyone on what the "Movement" is or where it should be headed.
I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic here, Theo, but assuming good faith, I'll assume that you mean (like Sue pointed out) that the
media
does tend to confuse terms that sound and look similar.
I was indeed being sarcastic. (Someone call [[WP:OMGcom]] )
Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm sorry Achal, but I read Theo's answer twice and didn't find the "rudeness" in his comments.
Can't we all just assume good faith and answer the questions and comment with that in mind? I'm sure he didn't wanted to be rude to anyone, and I'm sure you can assume his good faith and move on. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 11 November 2011 23:14, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo, I find your tone needlessly rude - do you really think this is the best way to communicate?
It makes it very difficult to have a useful conversation.
Best wishes, Achal
On 11 November 2011 18:07, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we disagreed on a couple of things during the filter discussion on this very list, I'm sure you can look it up.
Along with the local discussions, your thoughts on the strategy plan, and movement roles, I wasn't there at the time to disagree so I suppose you have no idea. You are more than welcome to bring any of this up on Internal-l however, I would be happy to go into much more detail for your elucidation.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo
On 11 November 2011 14:10, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Ohai Achal
As usual, I disagree.
??
I didn't realise we disagree frequently...you must fill me in off list
:)
I am a bit more informed of the current situation than most people, maybe not as much as the current WMF advisory board member but who knows.
Theo, this isn't a competition. I value your perspective, as do several other people.
Never said it is.
My opinion on this is from a regular community member before much of
the
community in other cities was active. I am not affiliated with the
chapter
or the India operations.
Honestly, from my proximity, and I have been in close proximity for a
while
to both entities, there is some tension and a sense of antagonism on
a
lot
of issues. The fact they can't and usually don't co-ordinate before,
only
heightens the issue.
While I value your perspective on this issue, I think it would be also helpful to hear from people who have a direct relationship with the chapter, and from people who are in a formal/semi-formal community
grouping
who've interacted with the chapter and Foundation in India. I don't disagree with you or dispute what you say; I just think that there are
many
others who are in a better position to speak to this.
So by implication, you mean I have no direct relationship with the
chapter
and India operations. I don't think I ever stopped being active on the local mailing lists or the conference organizing committee to be
considered
not-direct, however, I can't say the same for you or others. I can go
into
the specifics of my involvement with the foundation in India, with things like the office, all the India-operation pages on Meta, the regular IRC meetings I moderated as well as my work for the chapter like customizing the chapter wiki, Wikiconference pages, general outreach etc.. Again, I'm not sure if my work qualifies me to comment or be considered direct,
which
you seem to be entitled to judge.
I find it odd since you are dismissing Anirudh for being in the chapter
and
not in the country, and then me for being in the country and not on the chapter or in proximity. You suggested asking the organizers in your last mail, last I checked I was one of them. Pranav also responded but he also happens to be on a "fellowship"/grant, I'm not.
As for solicitation and being open for the famed India education
program, I
recall mentioning this to Hisham when he first brought it up, weeks
after
he was hired. My opinion at the time, and now is, he did it in the
wrong
city, the wrong colleges and with the wrong people. I still stand by
my
opinion.
You brought up Anirudh's physical presence as affecting his judgement
about
the chapter.
Actually no.
Anirudh is not speaking for the chapter, and clearly said he is
speaking
for himself. I respect that. I'm simply reiterating that as he has been
in
Cambodia the last year or so, he hasn't attended chapter meetings, the
AGM,
or participated in any of the chapter events (physically) - which I,
and
several other people based here, have. Anirudh is a long standing and dedicated Wikipedian who has every right to an opinion; I'm merely
pointing
out that living in the country whose Wikimedia chapter you are a board member of is likely to provide more opportunities to do things for the chapter and not make it "redundant".
First you say he's not speaking for the chapter, only himself, which you respect then you proceed to make an argument how he is unfit to speak for the chapter? I'm not sure how someone's physical presence or attending certain meetings relates to their effectiveness on the board, certainly their personal opinion. I pointed out there are several chapters with little or no restrictions to its board members being resident or present
in
the country, again, you are more than free to check. I also don't understand the point of quoting redundant, are those quotes intended to
be
ironic?
I'm not sure how his physical presence is related to this, I would go so far as to say, it's his personal business. One that you don't exactly
have
a position to question, just as much as someone else does to question yours, helping chapters and communities in two continents. Can someone
ask
you to stop representing India as the advisory board member when you represent South Africa or vice-versa, after missing a couple of meetings? Last I checked the board of a chapter was a non-paid volunteer position.
I would like to point out that the India offices are located in Delhi, the foundation offices in San Francisco, neither of those
put
you
in a better position to comment than Anirudh. Many chapters and you
can
check if you like, have board members who are not resident or are temporarily resident outside a country. It is usually a chapter's
decision,
if they have objections or not.
As for the Media getting it wrong, well, it's sad you can't correct everyone on what the "Movement" is or where it should be headed.
I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic here, Theo, but
assuming
good faith, I'll assume that you mean (like Sue pointed out) that the
media
does tend to confuse terms that sound and look similar.
I was indeed being sarcastic. (Someone call [[WP:OMGcom]] )
Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't think you've interacted on these mailing lists or on-wiki a lot, have you?
As far as I can see, barring maybe my last line in the previous reply, I was civil thorough-out, maybe sarcastic or acerbically restrained. You don't know me, but I assure you this was not me attempting to be rude.
Second, as far as tones go on a written medium, I would say I dislike your authoritative tone generally, especially when you dismiss my or other's arguments. That is not helpful either.
You are however, more than free to ignore me to avoid any further acrimony.
Theo
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 4:44 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo, I find your tone needlessly rude - do you really think this is the best way to communicate?
It makes it very difficult to have a useful conversation.
Best wishes, Achal
On 11 November 2011 18:07, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we disagreed on a couple of things during the filter discussion on this very list, I'm sure you can look it up.
Along with the local discussions, your thoughts on the strategy plan, and movement roles, I wasn't there at the time to disagree so I suppose you have no idea. You are more than welcome to bring any of this up on Internal-l however, I would be happy to go into much more detail for your elucidation.
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Achal Prabhala aprabhala@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo
On 11 November 2011 14:10, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
Ohai Achal
As usual, I disagree.
??
I didn't realise we disagree frequently...you must fill me in off list
:)
I am a bit more informed of the current situation than most people, maybe not as much as the current WMF advisory board member but who knows.
Theo, this isn't a competition. I value your perspective, as do several other people.
Never said it is.
My opinion on this is from a regular community member before much of
the
community in other cities was active. I am not affiliated with the
chapter
or the India operations.
Honestly, from my proximity, and I have been in close proximity for a
while
to both entities, there is some tension and a sense of antagonism on
a
lot
of issues. The fact they can't and usually don't co-ordinate before,
only
heightens the issue.
While I value your perspective on this issue, I think it would be also helpful to hear from people who have a direct relationship with the chapter, and from people who are in a formal/semi-formal community
grouping
who've interacted with the chapter and Foundation in India. I don't disagree with you or dispute what you say; I just think that there are
many
others who are in a better position to speak to this.
So by implication, you mean I have no direct relationship with the
chapter
and India operations. I don't think I ever stopped being active on the local mailing lists or the conference organizing committee to be
considered
not-direct, however, I can't say the same for you or others. I can go
into
the specifics of my involvement with the foundation in India, with things like the office, all the India-operation pages on Meta, the regular IRC meetings I moderated as well as my work for the chapter like customizing the chapter wiki, Wikiconference pages, general outreach etc.. Again, I'm not sure if my work qualifies me to comment or be considered direct,
which
you seem to be entitled to judge.
I find it odd since you are dismissing Anirudh for being in the chapter
and
not in the country, and then me for being in the country and not on the chapter or in proximity. You suggested asking the organizers in your last mail, last I checked I was one of them. Pranav also responded but he also happens to be on a "fellowship"/grant, I'm not.
As for solicitation and being open for the famed India education
program, I
recall mentioning this to Hisham when he first brought it up, weeks
after
he was hired. My opinion at the time, and now is, he did it in the
wrong
city, the wrong colleges and with the wrong people. I still stand by
my
opinion.
You brought up Anirudh's physical presence as affecting his judgement
about
the chapter.
Actually no.
Anirudh is not speaking for the chapter, and clearly said he is
speaking
for himself. I respect that. I'm simply reiterating that as he has been
in
Cambodia the last year or so, he hasn't attended chapter meetings, the
AGM,
or participated in any of the chapter events (physically) - which I,
and
several other people based here, have. Anirudh is a long standing and dedicated Wikipedian who has every right to an opinion; I'm merely
pointing
out that living in the country whose Wikimedia chapter you are a board member of is likely to provide more opportunities to do things for the chapter and not make it "redundant".
First you say he's not speaking for the chapter, only himself, which you respect then you proceed to make an argument how he is unfit to speak for the chapter? I'm not sure how someone's physical presence or attending certain meetings relates to their effectiveness on the board, certainly their personal opinion. I pointed out there are several chapters with little or no restrictions to its board members being resident or present
in
the country, again, you are more than free to check. I also don't understand the point of quoting redundant, are those quotes intended to
be
ironic?
I'm not sure how his physical presence is related to this, I would go so far as to say, it's his personal business. One that you don't exactly
have
a position to question, just as much as someone else does to question yours, helping chapters and communities in two continents. Can someone
ask
you to stop representing India as the advisory board member when you represent South Africa or vice-versa, after missing a couple of meetings? Last I checked the board of a chapter was a non-paid volunteer position.
I would like to point out that the India offices are located in Delhi, the foundation offices in San Francisco, neither of those
put
you
in a better position to comment than Anirudh. Many chapters and you
can
check if you like, have board members who are not resident or are temporarily resident outside a country. It is usually a chapter's
decision,
if they have objections or not.
As for the Media getting it wrong, well, it's sad you can't correct everyone on what the "Movement" is or where it should be headed.
I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic here, Theo, but
assuming
good faith, I'll assume that you mean (like Sue pointed out) that the
media
does tend to confuse terms that sound and look similar.
I was indeed being sarcastic. (Someone call [[WP:OMGcom]] )
Theo _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants with the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally, have paid employees and bypass community.
From what I have seen, the program office does not behave like a law unto
itself, as implied above.
This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects which support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body).
WMIN has already had interest from and meetings with other donors, including pretty big ones in India (I was there at one such in 2010), so why this feeling that WMIN can't acquire the big grants?
WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces.
As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".
This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I really don't get this. Given that India is a huge country - with more
than 1 billion people - and zillions of opportunities to grow editing communities in different languages, how can WMIN become or be made redundant? Also, given that the chapter is less than a year old, and has some new office-bearers, and has announced new plans for moving forward, how is it redundant?
My personal view is that there is enough work ahead for not just one, or two, but numerous entities, formal and informal, to enter the fray and actualize this potential. Already, there are many more requests for collaboration within India than either WMIN or WIPT or both put together can handle.
Given this huge potential, I don't see why this discussion has to be framed through the lens of competition or territoriality.
Cheers Bishakha
Disclaimer: I'm not Indian, and I don't know much about the Indian operations, but I needed to answer about something I do know.
*Anirudh said: WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within
India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces.*
*And Bishakha answered: As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".** *
Ok talking about grants: WMIN has so far 2 grants: a Bootstrap Granthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Bootstrap_Grantand a grant for WCI 2011 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/WikiConference_India_2011(since this granthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Wiki_Community_development_in_India_and_newsletterstate in the begin that is not a chapter grant, despite the fact that has the WMIN in the title). One is for a ver specif thing - a conference - who is being leading by 2 "fellows" of WMF. The second one has nothing to do with professionalization. So when comes to funding, if they decide to collect funds locally, would be incredible difficult to "fight against" the WIPT who is full of employees[1] who are used to work with that for years. That was - I believe - Anirudh's point.
[1] I'm in WMIN ML and I see a hiring once per month, sometimes more. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 11 November 2011 17:34, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community.
From what I have seen, the program office does not behave like a law unto itself, as implied above.
This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body).
WMIN has already had interest from and meetings with other donors, including pretty big ones in India (I was there at one such in 2010), so why this feeling that WMIN can't acquire the big grants?
WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces.
As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".
This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I really don't get this. Given that India is a huge country - with more
than 1 billion people - and zillions of opportunities to grow editing communities in different languages, how can WMIN become or be made redundant? Also, given that the chapter is less than a year old, and has some new office-bearers, and has announced new plans for moving forward, how is it redundant?
My personal view is that there is enough work ahead for not just one, or two, but numerous entities, formal and informal, to enter the fray and actualize this potential. Already, there are many more requests for collaboration within India than either WMIN or WIPT or both put together can handle.
Given this huge potential, I don't see why this discussion has to be framed through the lens of competition or territoriality.
Cheers Bishakha _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A couple of clarifications:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not Indian, and I don't know much about the Indian operations, but I needed to answer about something I do know.
*Anirudh said: WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within
India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces.*
*And Bishakha answered: As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".** *
Ok talking about grants: WMIN has so far 2 grants: a Bootstrap Granthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Bootstrap_Grantand a grant for WCI 2011 < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/WikiConference_India_2011
(since
this grant< http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Wiki_Community_development_in_In...
state
in the begin that is not a chapter grant, despite the fact that has the WMIN in the title). One is for a ver specif thing - a conference - who is being leading by 2 "fellows" of WMF.
So there are some technical issues that we were dealing with regarding the funding of the conference that did not enable it to be a grant. Also, I think it is a mistake to say that the conference is the product of a WMF initiative or is being controlled by WMF. The conference was and is a community initiative with lots of participation. We provided a small stipend to help once it was clear that the logistical activities required full time resources. WMF or the trust as not run the conference...we have provided funds to enable it.
The second one has nothing to do with professionalization.
The grant does actually help to put some building blocks in place such as supporting accounting and legal needs. Also, nothing stopping the chapter from building further in the future...since the grant process remains open as do communication lines with WMF and the community.
So when comes to funding, if they decide to collect funds locally, would be incredible difficult to "fight against" the WIPT who is full of employees[1] who are used to work with that for years. That was - I believe - Anirudh's point.
As I said, there is no reason to "fight against" anyone. For example, Hisham, Gautam and others all worked to find sponsorships for the Wikiconference India. It was a collaborative effort, not a competition. Funding should and will flow to program work in various places. In some cases, donors may be more comfortable giving to one org or another...so it may actually be an asset to have more than one alternative.
[1] I'm in WMIN ML and I see a hiring once per month, sometimes more.
There have been three consultant hires in India to date - Hisham, Nitika and Shiju. As mentioned in the past, the team is expected to be 5 people.
_____
*Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
Best,
Barry
On 11 November 2011 17:34, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish
another
non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community.
From what I have seen, the program office does not behave like a law unto itself, as implied above.
This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body).
WMIN has already had interest from and meetings with other donors, including pretty big ones in India (I was there at one such in 2010), so why this feeling that WMIN can't acquire the big grants?
WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance)
and
in WMF's good graces.
As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".
This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I really don't get this. Given that India is a huge country - with more
than 1 billion people - and zillions of opportunities to grow editing communities in different languages, how can WMIN become or be made redundant? Also, given that the chapter is less than a year old, and has some new office-bearers, and has announced new plans for moving forward, how is it redundant?
My personal view is that there is enough work ahead for not just one, or two, but numerous entities, formal and informal, to enter the fray and actualize this potential. Already, there are many more requests for collaboration within India than either WMIN or WIPT or both put together can handle.
Given this huge potential, I don't see why this discussion has to be
framed
through the lens of competition or territoriality.
Cheers Bishakha _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Barry, answers will be in line (as a side notice: I will start love when someone says something bad about WMF if that is the only way that we can actually see they posting mails).
*So there are some technical issues that we were dealing with regarding the
funding of the conference that did not enable it to be a grant.
So, I helped AroundTheGlobe to write the grant, I'm in GAC and thefore I need to review the grant. I'm also an "honorary" organizer of WCI, so I actually know a lot about this grant and all the things around it - and that is why I mention it.
*Also, I think it is a mistake to say that the conference is the product of
a WMF initiative or is being controlled by WMF. The conference was and is a community initiative with lots of participation.
I don't know where you read in my mail that "the conference is product of a WMF initiative". I never said that.
*We provided a small stipend to help once it was clear that the logistical
activities required full time resources.** WMF or the trust as not run the conference...we have provided funds to enable it.*
So let me do a little comparison to see if you get my (in fact Anirudh's) point: If WMIN decide to fund thenselves in 2012 Fundraising, WMF will provide people to "a small stipend help" them with the full time employee necessary to run a decent fundraising?
*The grant does actually help to put some building blocks in place such as
supporting accounting and legal needs.
legal needs don't actually imply a full time lawyer or accountant to WMIN (I also review this grant and made that exactly questionhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_IN/Bootstrap_Grant#Operating_Expenses )
*Also, nothing stopping the chapter from building further in the
future...since the grant process remains open as do communication lines with WMF and the community.
Again, no one said they can't. The only thing we said was that WIPT receive money directly WITHOUT a grant, with give them an advantage.
*There have been three consultant hires in India to date - Hisham, Nitika
and Shiju. As mentioned in the past, the team is expected to be 5 people.
Well, I saw at least 4 hiring in the mailing list, so Hisham might have someone else working for him. I can go look into archives, but I'm pretty sure Indian operations are bigger than this. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 11 November 2011 18:58, Barry Newstead bnewstead@wikimedia.org wrote:
A couple of clarifications:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not Indian, and I don't know much about the Indian operations, but I needed to answer about something I do know.
*Anirudh said: WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding
within
India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces.*
*And Bishakha answered: As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".** *
Ok talking about grants: WMIN has so far 2 grants: a Bootstrap Granthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Bootstrap_Grantand a grant for WCI 2011 < http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/WikiConference_India_2011
(since
this grant<
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Wiki_Community_development_in_In...
state
in the begin that is not a chapter grant, despite the fact that has the WMIN in the title). One is for a ver specif thing - a conference -
who
is being leading by 2 "fellows" of WMF.
So there are some technical issues that we were dealing with regarding the funding of the conference that did not enable it to be a grant. Also, I think it is a mistake to say that the conference is the product of a WMF initiative or is being controlled by WMF. The conference was and is a community initiative with lots of participation. We provided a small stipend to help once it was clear that the logistical activities required full time resources. WMF or the trust as not run the conference...we have provided funds to enable it.
The second one has nothing to do with professionalization.
The grant does actually help to put some building blocks in place such as supporting accounting and legal needs. Also, nothing stopping the chapter from building further in the future...since the grant process remains open as do communication lines with WMF and the community.
So when comes to funding, if they decide to collect funds locally, would be incredible difficult to "fight against"
the
WIPT who is full of employees[1] who are used to work with that for
years.
That was - I believe - Anirudh's point.
As I said, there is no reason to "fight against" anyone. For example, Hisham, Gautam and others all worked to find sponsorships for the Wikiconference India. It was a collaborative effort, not a competition. Funding should and will flow to program work in various places. In some cases, donors may be more comfortable giving to one org or another...so it may actually be an asset to have more than one alternative.
[1] I'm in WMIN ML and I see a hiring once per month, sometimes more.
There have been three consultant hires in India to date - Hisham, Nitika and Shiju. As mentioned in the past, the team is expected to be 5 people.
*Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
Best,
Barry
On 11 November 2011 17:34, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish
another
non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community.
From what I have seen, the program office does not behave like a law
unto
itself, as implied above.
This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions
in
India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big
grants
(since WMIN is not a professional body).
WMIN has already had interest from and meetings with other donors, including pretty big ones in India (I was there at one such in 2010),
so
why this feeling that WMIN can't acquire the big grants?
WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance)
and
in WMF's good graces.
As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".
This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I really don't get this. Given that India is a huge country - with
more
than 1 billion people - and zillions of opportunities to grow editing communities in different languages, how can WMIN become or be made redundant? Also, given that the chapter is less than a year old, and
has
some new office-bearers, and has announced new plans for moving
forward,
how is it redundant?
My personal view is that there is enough work ahead for not just one,
or
two, but numerous entities, formal and informal, to enter the fray and actualize this potential. Already, there are many more requests for collaboration within India than either WMIN or WIPT or both put
together
can handle.
Given this huge potential, I don't see why this discussion has to be
framed
through the lens of competition or territoriality.
Cheers Bishakha _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Barry Newstead Chief Global Development Officer Wikimedia Foundation
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 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
FYI - The two "Fellows" are WMIN chapter members and signatories on its bank account.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:41:43 +0000 From: berialima@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
Disclaimer: I'm not Indian, and I don't know much about the Indian operations, but I needed to answer about something I do know.
*Anirudh said: WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within
India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces.*
*And Bishakha answered: As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".** *
Ok talking about grants: WMIN has so far 2 grants: a Bootstrap Granthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Bootstrap_Grantand a grant for WCI 2011 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/WikiConference_India_2011(since this granthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Wiki_Community_development_in_India_and_newsletterstate in the begin that is not a chapter grant, despite the fact that has the WMIN in the title). One is for a ver specif thing - a conference - who is being leading by 2 "fellows" of WMF. The second one has nothing to do with professionalization. So when comes to funding, if they decide to collect funds locally, would be incredible difficult to "fight against" the WIPT who is full of employees[1] who are used to work with that for years. That was - I believe - Anirudh's point.
[1] I'm in WMIN ML and I see a hiring once per month, sometimes more. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 11 November 2011 17:34, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community.
From what I have seen, the program office does not behave like a law unto itself, as implied above.
This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body).
WMIN has already had interest from and meetings with other donors, including pretty big ones in India (I was there at one such in 2010), so why this feeling that WMIN can't acquire the big grants?
WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces.
As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".
This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I really don't get this. Given that India is a huge country - with more
than 1 billion people - and zillions of opportunities to grow editing communities in different languages, how can WMIN become or be made redundant? Also, given that the chapter is less than a year old, and has some new office-bearers, and has announced new plans for moving forward, how is it redundant?
My personal view is that there is enough work ahead for not just one, or two, but numerous entities, formal and informal, to enter the fray and actualize this potential. Already, there are many more requests for collaboration within India than either WMIN or WIPT or both put together can handle.
Given this huge potential, I don't see why this discussion has to be framed through the lens of competition or territoriality.
Cheers Bishakha _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This thread started out with questions about the legal and practical differences between chapter and trust, but has veered much more into the terrain of funding and money.
In addition, there have been numerous emails on bank accounts, grants, fellowships and what not.
I'm glad we're talking about money and funding, but it's seeming like this is of greater concern than programs and activities - surely, funding is just a means to an end, rather than an end in itself?
Funding is being discussed almost as if funding is an 'end' in itself - as if money is of greater importance than the huge amounts of work needed to build editing communities. This is both ironical in a volunteer community, and a source of worry, and I would like to place this on record.
Best Bishakha
On 12 November 2011 06:53, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
This thread started out with questions about the legal and practical differences between chapter and trust, but has veered much more into the terrain of funding and money.
In addition, there have been numerous emails on bank accounts, grants, fellowships and what not.
I'm glad we're talking about money and funding, but it's seeming like this is of greater concern than programs and activities - surely, funding is just a means to an end, rather than an end in itself?
Funding is being discussed almost as if funding is an 'end' in itself - as if money is of greater importance than the huge amounts of work needed to build editing communities. This is both ironical in a volunteer community, and a source of worry, and I would like to place this on record.
Best Bishakha
I understand what you mean, and agree with the sentiment, but I think the "funding question" you're referring to is the practical application of the broader issue of "organisational roles".
What I still don't understand, despite the fast and helpful answers from both yourself and Hisham (thank you) is the differentiation of the organisational roles between the Trust and the Chapter. I had originally assumed that the Trust was set up because it provided a legal way for the WMF India Team to be a 'branch' organisation of the WMF (not just individual contractors). But, from reading the description of the legal setup of the Trust, it seems that the Trust is, in fact, legally independent. Presumably this means that Hisham and the rest of the team are now employees of the Trust and no longer contractors to the WMF directly. If that is the case, then presumably the WMF has basically the same amount of legal and financial control over the Trust than it has over the Chapter. Namely, it provides project funds (one-off or ongoing) and provides trademark permission. Both organisations, presumably, also have the right to seek funding and undertake projects independently from the WMF so long as they meet their organisation's mission.
Therefore... I'm confused about the differentiation of organisational roles because it seems we now have two, independent from each other, non-profit organisations in India that are both also equally independent from the WMF. The only difference, as I understand it from what Bishakha explained earlier, is that the Chapter is legally a "Society" (with an elected board and members) and the Trust has two appointed trustees.
Is that the case? As a practical question - to make it more concrete and less abstract - what can the Trust do that the Chapter cannot? And, if the Chapter can legally do all the things that the Trust can do (and the WMF has the same amount of control either way), why do we need two organisations?
-Liam p.s. and yes, to support Erik's point, let's please focus on what actual work can be done rather than arguing about who was present at which meetups and whether contractors are "outsiders".
Thank you Liam for using the term, "organisational roles," instead of the more pretentious, "movement roles." I find the whole thread disturbing. I am and have always been a strong supporter of the autonomy of both projects and chapters, and from that vantage point it is difficult to see this initiative as leading to anything other than the undermining of a chapter.
It is all proceeding in a predictable pattern. It pits young amateurs who have embraced an ideal as a labour of love and who have a naïveté about the ways of the world against goal-oriented professionals well schooled in the sophisms that produce success. This does not establish intent or malice; it's just the way things develop unless someone is willing to step away and recognize the process for what it is.
I am an amateur. I am not motivated by dreams of a sinecure or reveries of prestige. I don't care if anything that I do becomes a polished feature articles. I don't care if the site has a professional appearance with consistent format throughout. I am not obsessed by growth, or by leading the global south by the hand into salvation. It's nice if that can happen, and nicer if they can figure it out for themselves. My bottom line remains a commitment to share the sum of the world's knowledge. Not more, not less.
When I hear of things like these Indian developments, I start to get the impression that we have lost our way. As much as the organizers may deny, it's as plain as day that these two organizations are being set up to compete. That alienates people.
Ray
On 11/11/11 11:24 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
I understand what you [Bishaka] mean, and agree with the sentiment, but I think the "funding question" you're referring to is the practical application of the broader issue of "organisational roles".
What I still don't understand, despite the fast and helpful answers from both yourself and Hisham (thank you) is the differentiation of the organisational roles between the Trust and the Chapter. I had originally assumed that the Trust was set up because it provided a legal way for the WMF India Team to be a 'branch' organisation of the WMF (not just individual contractors). But, from reading the description of the legal setup of the Trust, it seems that the Trust is, in fact, legally independent. Presumably this means that Hisham and the rest of the team are now employees of the Trust and no longer contractors to the WMF directly. If that is the case, then presumably the WMF has basically the same amount of legal and financial control over the Trust than it has over the Chapter. Namely, it provides project funds (one-off or ongoing) and provides trademark permission. Both organisations, presumably, also have the right to seek funding and undertake projects independently from the WMF so long as they meet their organisation's mission.
Therefore... I'm confused about the differentiation of organisational roles because it seems we now have two, independent from each other, non-profit organisations in India that are both also equally independent from the WMF. The only difference, as I understand it from what Bishakha explained earlier, is that the Chapter is legally a "Society" (with an elected board and members) and the Trust has two appointed trustees.
Is that the case? As a practical question - to make it more concrete and less abstract - what can the Trust do that the Chapter cannot? And, if the Chapter can legally do all the things that the Trust can do (and the WMF has the same amount of control either way), why do we need two organisations?
(not replying to Liam in particular and apologies for the longer email in advance) Thank you all for this thread.
First of all a minor request from someone who's not that familiar with how India and Wikimedia in India exactly is structured: I appreciate it that people tell who they are and what their (apparent) conflicts of interest are, but I hope sincerely that we will be able to keep discussions about the validity of people to a minimum and focus on the validity of arguments.
I think it brought up some issues that have to be dealt with that the Trust seemed to be unaware of, judging its initial replies. It is clear that some valued and active volunteers don't feel involved, and consider the trust to be a threat to the future development of the chapter in India. I can see some dangers in it too (although I don't know the specific situation as well - so I'll try to stay in general terms, some may or may not apply to India) and would like to share them. This doesn't mean I'm against the trust or not (I haven't made up my mind yet), but it may give a better insight in why I am interested and concerned, and perhaps some other worried people have similar feelings.
When there are two organizations calling themselves "Wikimedia" in one country, there are some obvious and some less obvious problems. In the Netherlands we have encountered some of those problems in a lesser degree - but I will spare you the details of that specific situation and how it came to be. It is of course obvious that there is potential confusion in the press - personally I don't think that is the one with the most impact to our mission, but it certainly is annoying to volunteers. The press has on some occasions attributed projects of Wikimedia Nederland to the Foundation or even once to Wikimedia Deutschland - and here the chance for that to happen is quite small. So yes, brace for impact, if you have two organizations in one country, you *will* get lots more confusion.
The money issue has been covered as well - Both are targeting the same companies for sponsoring their activities, both are aiming for perhaps the same major donors. Even though India is a huge country (understatement) it is likely that every now and then they will encounter each other here. Clear agreements on who does what and when seems vitally important. Probably this is one of the most important reasons why I think it would be good that if there is a seperate trust, that the chapter gets a say in the appointment of their trustees as well. Anyway, I don't need to cover this in detail, others did.
But when it comes to money, there is one thing we have to be very careful of too: envy. I don't accuse people on this list of that, but it is something they have to consider in the back of their minds when they are bridging this information to their supporters and members. I have seen in several chapters a certain level of "envy" towards the foundation or richer chapters and that they were getting demotivated, because those other organizations should just hire people to do that stuff instead of bothering them with it. Again it seems likely this gets stronger the closer by it gets.
What is perhaps less obvious, is that both organizations will be drawing on volunteers (I hope! If either wouldn't try to work primarily with volunteers, I would personally consider it a missed opportunity to use a euphemism), and that the volunteers will be likely confused about the organizations just like the press is. The really active ones will know, but I have seen a situation that very active Wikimedia Nederland members did not comprehend the differences between the WMF and WMNL - now again imagine how the situation must be when there are two organizations in one country.
I definitely think that communication is very important, and some signals on this list have worried me. I also have heard a few times "this is a first time" etc, and I would like to remark that this doesn't excuse us from thinking this through very well. The Wikimedia Foundation strategic plan identifies India as a key country, and that is one of the reasons we cannot risk letting the chapter going down the drain because some experiment is executed. We should be very careful about side effects, exhausting volunteers simply because they feel their work becomes useless or giving people the feeling they are not needed because the WMF will hire other people anyway (this is a general concern I have about some initiatives throughout the world).
Just to repeat myself: I have not yet taken a position, and I am not against anything. I applaud the intentions, but I am worried about many side effects. And if several very valued Indian volunteers are brave enough to step up and out this criticism, I become even more careful.
Best regards, Lodewijk
No dia Sábado, 12 de Novembro de 2011, Liam Wyattliamwyatt@gmail.comescreveu:
On 12 November 2011 06:53, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
This thread started out with questions about the legal and practical differences between chapter and trust, but has veered much more into the terrain of funding and money.
In addition, there have been numerous emails on bank accounts, grants, fellowships and what not.
I'm glad we're talking about money and funding, but it's seeming like
this
is of greater concern than programs and activities - surely, funding is just a means to an end, rather than an end in itself?
Funding is being discussed almost as if funding is an 'end' in itself -
as
if money is of greater importance than the huge amounts of work needed to build editing communities. This is both ironical in a volunteer
community,
and a source of worry, and I would like to place this on record.
Best Bishakha
I understand what you mean, and agree with the sentiment, but I think the "funding question" you're referring to is the practical application of the broader issue of "organisational roles".
What I still don't understand, despite the fast and helpful answers from both yourself and Hisham (thank you) is the differentiation of the organisational roles between the Trust and the Chapter. I had originally assumed that the Trust was set up because it provided a legal way for the WMF India Team to be a 'branch' organisation of the WMF (not just individual contractors). But, from reading the description of the legal setup of the Trust, it seems that the Trust is, in fact, legally independent. Presumably this means that Hisham and the rest of the team are now employees of the Trust and no longer contractors to the WMF directly. If that is the case, then presumably the WMF has basically the same amount of legal and financial control over the Trust than it has over the Chapter. Namely, it provides project funds (one-off or ongoing) and provides trademark permission. Both organisations, presumably, also have the right to seek funding and undertake projects independently from the WMF so long as they meet their organisation's mission.
Therefore... I'm confused about the differentiation of organisational roles because it seems we now have two, independent from each other, non-profit organisations in India that are both also equally independent from the WMF. The only difference, as I understand it from what Bishakha explained earlier, is that the Chapter is legally a "Society" (with an elected board and members) and the Trust has two appointed trustees.
Is that the case? As a practical question - to make it more concrete and less abstract - what can the Trust do that the Chapter cannot? And, if the Chapter can legally do all the things that the Trust can do (and the WMF has the same amount of control either way), why do we need two organisations?
-Liam p.s. and yes, to support Erik's point, let's please focus on what actual work can be done rather than arguing about who was present at which meetups and whether contractors are "outsiders". _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Bishakha, the program (for WCI) is not a problem. Everyone agrees on it. The funding for WMIN and WIPT is. So makes no sense ask us to discuss in a point everyone agrees and left out the one where we don't. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 12 November 2011 06:53, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
This thread started out with questions about the legal and practical differences between chapter and trust, but has veered much more into the terrain of funding and money.
In addition, there have been numerous emails on bank accounts, grants, fellowships and what not.
I'm glad we're talking about money and funding, but it's seeming like this is of greater concern than programs and activities - surely, funding is just a means to an end, rather than an end in itself?
Funding is being discussed almost as if funding is an 'end' in itself - as if money is of greater importance than the huge amounts of work needed to build editing communities. This is both ironical in a volunteer community, and a source of worry, and I would like to place this on record.
Best Bishakha _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
*FYI - The two "Fellows" are WMIN chapter members and signatories on its bank account.*
Thanks but that only make things worse to me. So, the people who are paid by WMF are the ones taking care of WMIN money? Only I see the COI here? _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 12 November 2011 05:33, wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com wrote:
FYI - The two "Fellows" are WMIN chapter members and signatories on its bank account.
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:41:43 +0000 From: berialima@gmail.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust
Disclaimer: I'm not Indian, and I don't know much about the Indian operations, but I needed to answer about something I do know.
*Anirudh said: WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding
within
India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces.*
*And Bishakha answered: As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".** *
Ok talking about grants: WMIN has so far 2 grants: a Bootstrap Granthttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Bootstrap_Grantand a grant for WCI 2011 <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/WikiConference_India_2011
(since this grant<
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:WM_IN/Wiki_Community_development_in_In...
state in the begin that is not a chapter grant, despite the fact that has the WMIN in the title). One is for a ver specif thing - a conference -
who
is being leading by 2 "fellows" of WMF. The second one has nothing to do with professionalization. So when comes to funding, if they decide to collect funds locally, would be incredible difficult to "fight against"
the
WIPT who is full of employees[1] who are used to work with that for
years.
That was - I believe - Anirudh's point.
[1] I'm in WMIN ML and I see a hiring once per month, sometimes more. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 11 November 2011 17:34, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish
another
non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community.
From what I have seen, the program office does not behave like a law
unto
itself, as implied above.
This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions
in
India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big
grants
(since WMIN is not a professional body).
WMIN has already had interest from and meetings with other donors, including pretty big ones in India (I was there at one such in 2010),
so
why this feeling that WMIN can't acquire the big grants?
WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a
chance) and
in WMF's good graces.
As I understand it, WMIN has received a grant from WMF, so I can't understand how it "never had a chance".
This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time).
I really don't get this. Given that India is a huge country - with
more
than 1 billion people - and zillions of opportunities to grow editing communities in different languages, how can WMIN become or be made redundant? Also, given that the chapter is less than a year old, and
has
some new office-bearers, and has announced new plans for moving
forward,
how is it redundant?
My personal view is that there is enough work ahead for not just one,
or
two, but numerous entities, formal and informal, to enter the fray and actualize this potential. Already, there are many more requests for collaboration within India than either WMIN or WIPT or both put
together
can handle.
Given this huge potential, I don't see why this discussion has to be
framed
through the lens of competition or territoriality.
Cheers Bishakha _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 11:03 AM, wheredevelsdare@hotmail.com wrote:
FYI - The two "Fellows" are WMIN chapter members and signatories on its bank account.
Ummm, not to the best of my knowledge. They are, by virtue of being organisers of the Wiki Conference India, signatories to the Conference account. Not the Chapter account.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
My personal view is that there is enough work ahead for not just one, or two, but numerous entities, formal and informal, to enter the fray and actualize this potential. Already, there are many more requests for collaboration within India than either WMIN or WIPT or both put together can handle.
No kidding. Nor do I think there's any point in playing blame games when a first pilot (!) like the India Education Program doesn't meet expectations. The point of trying things is to learn so we can improve over time.
I look forward to seeing some of you based in India at the Hackathon and WikiConference next week:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/India_Hackathon_2011 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiConference_India_2011
Cheers, Erik
The following comments are my personal view and not necessarily of an Executive Member of the Wikimedia India Chapter.
Having said that I must politely disagree with some of the views of Anirudh, my fellow Executive Member and Salmaan ( Theo) , a member of Wikimedia India chapter. But I do respect their personal views , but I guess we agree to disagree.
The news of the formation of Wikimedia India Program Trust wasn't anything new to the chapter EC as it was mentioned in last two Chapter - Foundation Co-ordination meetings, if I remember correctly. And Sunil Abraham , Director of Centre of Internet & Society ( CIS) is a patron of Wikimedia movement in India and chapter in India, not to forget that CIS have been sharing their office space for the chapter and Wikimeetups in Bangalore, or all the help CIS was doing for boot strapping the chapter.
When it comes to "paid contractors/staff ", I don't see a difference between Theo[1] or Hisham, except that Hisham is working for a longer term. So what? Not every work can be done as a volunteer. As far as I understand, the foundation is also committed to support the chapters and community alike.
The way I see is India is a land of immense potential for the Wikimedia Movement. IMHO, There is enough space of 10 chapters and Wikimedia offices to co-exist and work together in India. When there are more than enough work to do, I don't understand why this hue and cry.
There is only one who could diminish the importance of the chapter, the chapter itself. The road ahead for us is not easy but there are tons of things to do. We have our advantages but limitations too. Our current bank balance [2] is not more than a night's tariff at a decent hotel. The board members does the clerical work of receiving membership applications to posting individual snail mail letters of acceptance of membership. In spite of all these, we do this for the passion and love for the movement. It does come at the sacrifice of our own professional/career growths or the wonderful time we would otherwise have spend with our family and friends. But we are proud to Wikipedians/Wikimedians! And we love what we are doing.
Foundation-Community-Chapter-India Trust...Yea, it is complicated and the model may or may not be the best.. But that is the reality. Let us all work together for the movement.
Regards Tinu Cherian
References
1) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_contractors 2) http://wiki.wikimedia.in/images/0/06/WMIN-AnnualReport2010-11.pdf
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or the Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust and Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or
on
the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
Wikimedia
India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
country I
could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are going to talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention
that
there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In fact, the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when Frank Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia?
Will
they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if they dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will
the
chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two entities operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are already very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally get a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF consultants have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in Western India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from WMF (the "international organization") than WMIN.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants with the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally, have paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects which support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will theoretically compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to WIPT, given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant (something that I have been saying for a long, long time).
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have access to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning *real significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India Office began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be here for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick to its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no relevant background (with a couple of exceptions).
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Lodewijk
anirudh
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I was not going to comment on this thread again. I am kind of annoyed by what you are painting me as, but I'll try and remain objective.
First, what mail are you disagreeing with? The last mail I sent on this thread is 3 days old, the last topic was Achal. I didn't talk about Hisham directly on any thread.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:44 PM, CherianTinu Abraham <tinucherian@gmail.com
wrote:
When it comes to "paid contractors/staff ", I don't see a difference between Theo[1] or Hisham, except that Hisham is working for a longer term. So what? Not every work can be done as a volunteer. As far as I understand, the foundation is also committed to support the chapters and community alike.
Really? there is no difference between me and Hisham except the term? I didn't know I held a position of such stature. I never hid the fact that I worked for 3 months for WMF in the last fundraiser anywhere, you may remember me sending updates and asking for help with outreach last year on the India mailing list. You honestly think hiring a community member for 2-3 months for local outreach and translation for the fundraiser is the same as hiring a staff to oversee the entire operation in a country, set up the office, run the programs and hire 4 more staff members?
You know this also puts a slap across my work as a community member for the last 2 years before Hisham was hired, you negate all my work and standing because I helped out WMF for 3 months last year with outreach and localization?
I won't even mention the work I did on WMF strategy plan. I am trying really hard to remain objective about this, but this is infuriating to hear.
Theo
*Having said that I must politely disagree with some of the views of Anirudh, my fellow Executive Member and Salmaan ( Theo) , a member of Wikimedia India chapter. But I do respect their personal views , but I guess we agree to disagree.
So, your idea of "politeness" include offend other member of your chapter? I already had been tagged as impolite, but not even I got that low. And that create a second question: Is that office worth the price to divide the chapter in 2 or more groups?
* The news of the formation of Wikimedia India Program Trust wasn't
anything new to the chapter EC as it was mentioned in last two Chapter - Foundation Co-ordination meetings, if I remember correctly.*
So, WMF "remembered" to warn the chapter 2 months ago about a project they are conducting for the past year? And you think that is ok? You can't see the miscommunication here?
*When it comes to "paid contractors/staff ", I don't see a difference
between Theo[1] or Hisham, except that Hisham is working for a longer term. So what?*
I have not to add besides what Theo said. The main and bigger difference is that one is a well know and long term wikimedian, the other happens to have a job who deal with wikis.
*The way I see is India is a land of immense potential for the Wikimedia
Movement. IMHO, There is enough space of 10 chapters and Wikimedia offices to co-exist and work together in India.*
Did you ever read the Chapter Agreement you signed with WMF? That document states that WMIN is the ONLY chapter of WMF in India, and that any one organization must have their "approval" to work in Indian soil (I'm saying that based in WMPT agreement, WMIN one might be different.)
Best regards, *Béria Lima*
Who sincerely hope that this office don't became a arm of mass destruction for Indian Chapter and community. *
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 14 November 2011 18:14, CherianTinu Abraham tinucherian@gmail.comwrote:
The following comments are my personal view and not necessarily of an Executive Member of the Wikimedia India Chapter.
Having said that I must politely disagree with some of the views of Anirudh, my fellow Executive Member and Salmaan ( Theo) , a member of Wikimedia India chapter. But I do respect their personal views , but I guess we agree to disagree.
The news of the formation of Wikimedia India Program Trust wasn't anything new to the chapter EC as it was mentioned in last two Chapter - Foundation Co-ordination meetings, if I remember correctly. And Sunil Abraham , Director of Centre of Internet & Society ( CIS) is a patron of Wikimedia movement in India and chapter in India, not to forget that CIS have been sharing their office space for the chapter and Wikimeetups in Bangalore, or all the help CIS was doing for boot strapping the chapter.
When it comes to "paid contractors/staff ", I don't see a difference between Theo[1] or Hisham, except that Hisham is working for a longer term. So what? Not every work can be done as a volunteer. As far as I understand, the foundation is also committed to support the chapters and community alike.
The way I see is India is a land of immense potential for the Wikimedia Movement. IMHO, There is enough space of 10 chapters and Wikimedia offices to co-exist and work together in India. When there are more than enough work to do, I don't understand why this hue and cry.
There is only one who could diminish the importance of the chapter, the chapter itself. The road ahead for us is not easy but there are tons of things to do. We have our advantages but limitations too. Our current bank balance [2] is not more than a night's tariff at a decent hotel. The board members does the clerical work of receiving membership applications to posting individual snail mail letters of acceptance of membership. In spite of all these, we do this for the passion and love for the movement. It does come at the sacrifice of our own professional/career growths or the wonderful time we would otherwise have spend with our family and friends. But we are proud to Wikipedians/Wikimedians! And we love what we are doing.
Foundation-Community-Chapter-India Trust...Yea, it is complicated and the model may or may not be the best.. But that is the reality. Let us all work together for the movement.
Regards Tinu Cherian
References
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_contractors
- http://wiki.wikimedia.in/images/0/06/WMIN-AnnualReport2010-11.pdf
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or
the
Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust
and
Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or
on
the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
Wikimedia
India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
country I
could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are going
to
talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention
that
there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In
fact,
the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when
Frank
Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia?
Will
they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if
they
dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will
the
chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two
entities
operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are already very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally
get
a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF consultants have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in Western India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from WMF (the "international organization") than WMIN.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will
theoretically
compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant
(something
that I have been saying for a long, long time).
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have
access
to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning *real significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India Office began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be here for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick
to
its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no relevant background (with a couple of exceptions).
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Lodewijk
anirudh
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am not going the respond inline, as it may confuse many a readers like me. I will also try to answer below various questions/comments from multiple mails/ people. Some of my comments may be general and not directed to anyone in particular.
I didn't mean to offend anyone, whether he is a chapter member or not. I reserve my right to free opinion just like anyone does. I didn't either intend to undermine the great works of anyone. I am aware that "whipping foundation label" is very cool these days, but I am not for it. I may have disagreements of some of the "foundation way" or "chapter way" , but I express my concerns on issues only.
The reason that I had mentioned that the formation of trust was announced in earlier co-ordination meetings was that whosoever had concerns earlier could have raised it even then. The fact that Sunil Abraham was made as one of the trustees was indeed not mentioned in the meetings, all i meant was I think he is well eligible for his contributions as a trustee for the WIPT. Does every chapter share every minute things of its proceedings with the foundation or the community?
I am not here to say whether hiring Hisham or any foundation staff is right to wrong. AFAIK, the foundation encouraged/s community members to apply for various positions and I could point to you a lots of examples where active community members have been hired. Everywhere possible, whenever eligible and qualified candidates from the community are available, they have been hired, AFAIK. If I choose to work on a volunteer basis on part time, it is my own wish... And if I want work on full time for the movement, without worrying about my daily bread, it is also my wish. The choice is strictly personal. So is it cool if some people joins the foundation and not when some other people ? We, Wikipedians, claim to be open & welcoming and vow to not bite the new comers, but in reality we form cabals and resists anyone new who comes to the movement, ...hah, ... they are all outsiders !
"Oh I can whip everyone personally, but don't you dare to touch me" attitude is also not productive. I am tired of seeing foundation-l used for personal grudges and attacks. I am tired seeing sock puppet accounts been made to just launch personal attacks on individuals on the mailing lists/forums. It is not just one time, but many a times.
So finally it all boils down to funding and money, right ? Who gets the bigger share and who gets the smaller share? Is that all we care about ? Is that why we are all in the movement? I would have been much personally much richer, if I ( like many others) had put my energy, time and concentration elsewhere than putting on a movement that is very close to my/our hearts. Our family and friends would have much appreciated if we had spend time more with them, instead. But that is my/our choice and I am happy about it. We are just doing it because we are just passionate about it.
Regards Tinu Cherian
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
*Having said that I must politely disagree with some of the views of Anirudh, my fellow Executive Member and Salmaan ( Theo) , a member of Wikimedia India chapter. But I do respect their personal views , but I guess we agree to disagree.
So, your idea of "politeness" include offend other member of your chapter? I already had been tagged as impolite, but not even I got that low. And that create a second question: Is that office worth the price to divide the chapter in 2 or more groups?
- The news of the formation of Wikimedia India Program Trust wasn't
anything new to the chapter EC as it was mentioned in last two Chapter - Foundation Co-ordination meetings, if I remember correctly.*
So, WMF "remembered" to warn the chapter 2 months ago about a project they are conducting for the past year? And you think that is ok? You can't see the miscommunication here?
*When it comes to "paid contractors/staff ", I don't see a difference
between Theo[1] or Hisham, except that Hisham is working for a longer
term.
So what?*
I have not to add besides what Theo said. The main and bigger difference is that one is a well know and long term wikimedian, the other happens to have a job who deal with wikis.
*The way I see is India is a land of immense potential for the Wikimedia
Movement. IMHO, There is enough space of 10 chapters and Wikimedia
offices
to co-exist and work together in India.*
Did you ever read the Chapter Agreement you signed with WMF? That document states that WMIN is the ONLY chapter of WMF in India, and that any one organization must have their "approval" to work in Indian soil (I'm saying that based in WMPT agreement, WMIN one might be different.)
Best regards, *Béria Lima*
Who sincerely hope that this office don't became a arm of mass destruction for Indian Chapter and community.
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 14 November 2011 18:14, CherianTinu Abraham <tinucherian@gmail.com
wrote:
The following comments are my personal view and not necessarily of an Executive Member of the Wikimedia India Chapter.
Having said that I must politely disagree with some of the views of Anirudh, my fellow Executive Member and Salmaan ( Theo) , a member of Wikimedia India chapter. But I do respect their personal views , but I guess we agree to disagree.
The news of the formation of Wikimedia India Program Trust wasn't
anything
new to the chapter EC as it was mentioned in last two Chapter -
Foundation
Co-ordination meetings, if I remember correctly. And Sunil Abraham , Director of Centre of Internet & Society ( CIS) is a patron of Wikimedia movement in India and chapter in India, not to forget that CIS have been sharing their office space for the chapter and Wikimeetups in Bangalore,
or
all the help CIS was doing for boot strapping the chapter.
When it comes to "paid contractors/staff ", I don't see a difference between Theo[1] or Hisham, except that Hisham is working for a longer
term.
So what? Not every work can be done as a volunteer. As far as I
understand,
the foundation is also committed to support the chapters and community alike.
The way I see is India is a land of immense potential for the Wikimedia Movement. IMHO, There is enough space of 10 chapters and Wikimedia
offices
to co-exist and work together in India. When there are more than enough work to do, I don't understand why this hue and cry.
There is only one who could diminish the importance of the chapter, the chapter itself. The road ahead for us is not easy but there are tons of things to do. We have our advantages but limitations too. Our current
bank
balance [2] is not more than a night's tariff at a decent hotel. The
board
members does the clerical work of receiving membership applications to posting individual snail mail letters of acceptance of membership. In
spite
of all these, we do this for the passion and love for the movement. It
does
come at the sacrifice of our own professional/career growths or the wonderful time we would otherwise have spend with our family and friends. But we are proud to Wikipedians/Wikimedians! And we love what we are
doing.
Foundation-Community-Chapter-India Trust...Yea, it is complicated and the model may or may not be the best.. But that is the reality. Let us all
work
together for the movement.
Regards Tinu Cherian
References
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_contractors
- http://wiki.wikimedia.in/images/0/06/WMIN-AnnualReport2010-11.pdf
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or
the
Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very
much
interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust
and
Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by
(or
on
the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
Wikimedia
India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
country I
could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are
going
to
talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You
mention
that
there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In
fact,
the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when
Frank
Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia?
Will
they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if
they
dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?).
Will
the
chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two
entities
operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are already very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally
get
a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF
consultants
have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in
Western
India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from
WMF
(the "international organization") than WMIN.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish
another
non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will
theoretically
compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance)
and
in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant
(something
that I have been saying for a long, long time).
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have
access
to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning
*real
significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India Office began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be
here
for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick
to
its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no
relevant
background (with a couple of exceptions).
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Lodewijk
anirudh
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Tinu Cherian, thank you so much for writing this gorgeous, thoughtful e-mail. I agree with every word you wrote, and I am grateful that you did it.
One of the things I like best about Wikimedia is that anyone can become a leader. You become a leader by acting like one: by being compassionate and good, by reminding us of why we're all here, and calling upon us all to be our best, wisest, most generous selves. That's what you've done here, and I think it's really lovely.
While I was reading your e-mail, it reminded me of a famous mail that Brion sent to this same list, back on Christmas Eve of 2006. It was before I joined the projects, but lots of people told me about it, and eventually I looked it up in our archives. It's here: http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/FH5EqJVBMHtX4RawfKZY -- we used to call it the eggnog e-mail. It was essentially doing the same thing that you did in your mail just now: asking us all, despite our disagreements, to remember that what we're doing here in the Wikimedia projects is awesome, and that we should remember that we love each other.
You've written the new eggnog e-mail. Thank you!
Sue
On Nov 15, 2011 10:02 AM, "CherianTinu Abraham" tinucherian@gmail.com wrote:
I am not going the respond inline, as it may confuse many a readers like me. I will also try to answer below various questions/comments from multiple mails/ people. Some of my comments may be general and not directed to anyone in particular.
I didn't mean to offend anyone, whether he is a chapter member or not. I reserve my right to free opinion just like anyone does. I didn't either intend to undermine the great works of anyone. I am aware that "whipping foundation label" is very cool these days, but I am not for it. I may have disagreements of some of the "foundation way" or "chapter way" , but I express my concerns on issues only.
The reason that I had mentioned that the formation of trust was announced in earlier co-ordination meetings was that whosoever had concerns earlier could have raised it even then. The fact that Sunil Abraham was made as one of the trustees was indeed not mentioned in the meetings, all i meant was I think he is well eligible for his contributions as a trustee for the WIPT. Does every chapter share every minute things of its proceedings with the foundation or the community?
I am not here to say whether hiring Hisham or any foundation staff is right to wrong. AFAIK, the foundation encouraged/s community members to apply for various positions and I could point to you a lots of examples where active community members have been hired. Everywhere possible, whenever eligible and qualified candidates from the community are available, they have been hired, AFAIK. If I choose to work on a volunteer basis on part time, it is my own wish... And if I want work on full time for the movement, without worrying about my daily bread, it is also my wish. The choice is strictly personal. So is it cool if some people joins the foundation and not when some other people ? We, Wikipedians, claim to be open & welcoming and vow to not bite the new comers, but in reality we form cabals and resists anyone new who comes to the movement, ...hah, ... they are all outsiders !
"Oh I can whip everyone personally, but don't you dare to touch me" attitude is also not productive. I am tired of seeing foundation-l used for personal grudges and attacks. I am tired seeing sock puppet accounts been made to just launch personal attacks on individuals on the mailing lists/forums. It is not just one time, but many a times.
So finally it all boils down to funding and money, right ? Who gets the bigger share and who gets the smaller share? Is that all we care about ? Is that why we are all in the movement? I would have been much personally much richer, if I ( like many others) had put my energy, time and concentration elsewhere than putting on a movement that is very close to my/our hearts. Our family and friends would have much appreciated if we had spend time more with them, instead. But that is my/our choice and I am happy about it. We are just doing it because we are just passionate about it.
Regards Tinu Cherian
I read Brion's email. It really worked, I discarded the first draft I wrote in response, with the same tone and some links to grant pages and something about conflict of interest, I was completely prepared to entrench. I came back and re-read but didn't infer anything in Tinu's email to be in the same vein as Brion. Every other line was a veiled reference or insinuation about me or someone, along with a dozen questions. I don't have as much of a problem with it as before it seems. But before I actually back away, and do what Brion suggested, I want to clarify certain things.
I'm going to break the etiquette of public mailing lists a bit and talk about something personal in my life that occupies my thoughts. In my day job, I happen to manage a business. I have a person who has worked with us for several years that lives next to our office. His wife, a mother of three was diagnosed with a terminal illness 14 months ago. I usually see their kids, all under the age of 12 pass by now and again, some days I have the distinction of talking to them, on a few, telling them their mom is going to be alright, that she'd be back from the doctor soon. I don't enjoy doing that.
Then I come on these mailing lists, Meta and IRC at night, to see my friends and distract myself. I offer my thoughts, and then get involved in these exchanges. I see my friends being mentioned, along with things and people I completely disagree with, some I find wrong or even insulting, some times I get involved. Lately, I seem to be getting involved more and more, deeper than I want. This is not why I got in this for, besides a small period lasting 3 months last year where I was paid, I do it genuinely because I love the projects.
In all these discussions, I sent 3 emails about the IEP, and a couple of more 4 days ago. I thought, I had more to contribute about fund raising on internal-l instead before this, spanning several dozen emails and discussion on Meta in the last month. I'm not so sure anymore about either.
Honestly, I like Hisham, I have no problem with Nitika, absolutely none of it is personal. I can and do like people personally while disagreeing with what they say and do, and vice-versa. My critique was and is, strictly about the work they do that affects the things I value. My tone which might seem abrasive has been honed from years of reading talk pages and mailing lists, some times a little abrasion is needed to make certain points stand out.
When someone decides to lead a movement of people like me, I expect better from them. Maybe I should expect less. I even had the pleasure of arguing yesterday, if paid employees should be held to a lower standard.
Anyway, My passion and loyalty involved me in this particular cross-fire. I don't value mediocrity, it should not be an excuse, neither should rudeness. It also doesn't change any of my convictions either. I vehemently believe the things I said. I don't think employees should be held to a lower standard than any volunteer.
On the issue of "outsiders", well, maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. Maybe this will come up again, it's not like I was the first one to bring it up on internal. It is easy to talk about lofty ideals, and morals, and grandstand about what a Movement should be. It is much harder to find a way to get there. Lets drown out all the feedback and emotions when things like this or the next filter or the next fundraising issue comes up, just rinse, lather, repeat, that is how we improve, by not listening to what is actually behind those emotions; keep giving all the time, energy and concentration without questioning where it is all going. It is probably the people held to a lower standard that will decide that.
I suppose it's easier to proclaim them leaders of the community, people who agree when others seem to only attack, who remind others of the same lofty principles while glossing over the abject realities and marks incurred in the process.
Lastly, on the subject of eggnog e-mails, do make sure it's not your own Kool-aid that you end up drinking instead.
And with that, I'm going to step back, I have said what I wanted to on this subject. I have enough on my plate.
Tired and sleepy, Theo
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:31 PM, CherianTinu Abraham tinucherian@gmail.comwrote:
I am not going the respond inline, as it may confuse many a readers like me. I will also try to answer below various questions/comments from multiple mails/ people. Some of my comments may be general and not directed to anyone in particular.
I didn't mean to offend anyone, whether he is a chapter member or not. I reserve my right to free opinion just like anyone does. I didn't either intend to undermine the great works of anyone. I am aware that "whipping foundation label" is very cool these days, but I am not for it. I may have disagreements of some of the "foundation way" or "chapter way" , but I express my concerns on issues only.
The reason that I had mentioned that the formation of trust was announced in earlier co-ordination meetings was that whosoever had concerns earlier could have raised it even then. The fact that Sunil Abraham was made as one of the trustees was indeed not mentioned in the meetings, all i meant was I think he is well eligible for his contributions as a trustee for the WIPT. Does every chapter share every minute things of its proceedings with the foundation or the community?
I am not here to say whether hiring Hisham or any foundation staff is right to wrong. AFAIK, the foundation encouraged/s community members to apply for various positions and I could point to you a lots of examples where active community members have been hired. Everywhere possible, whenever eligible and qualified candidates from the community are available, they have been hired, AFAIK. If I choose to work on a volunteer basis on part time, it is my own wish... And if I want work on full time for the movement, without worrying about my daily bread, it is also my wish. The choice is strictly personal. So is it cool if some people joins the foundation and not when some other people ? We, Wikipedians, claim to be open & welcoming and vow to not bite the new comers, but in reality we form cabals and resists anyone new who comes to the movement, ...hah, ... they are all outsiders !
"Oh I can whip everyone personally, but don't you dare to touch me" attitude is also not productive. I am tired of seeing foundation-l used for personal grudges and attacks. I am tired seeing sock puppet accounts been made to just launch personal attacks on individuals on the mailing lists/forums. It is not just one time, but many a times.
So finally it all boils down to funding and money, right ? Who gets the bigger share and who gets the smaller share? Is that all we care about ? Is that why we are all in the movement? I would have been much personally much richer, if I ( like many others) had put my energy, time and concentration elsewhere than putting on a movement that is very close to my/our hearts. Our family and friends would have much appreciated if we had spend time more with them, instead. But that is my/our choice and I am happy about it. We are just doing it because we are just passionate about it.
Regards Tinu Cherian
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
*Having said that I must politely disagree with some of the views of Anirudh, my fellow Executive Member and Salmaan ( Theo) , a member of Wikimedia India chapter. But I do respect their personal views , but I guess we agree to disagree.
So, your idea of "politeness" include offend other member of your
chapter?
I already had been tagged as impolite, but not even I got that low. And that create a second question: Is that office worth the price to divide
the
chapter in 2 or more groups?
- The news of the formation of Wikimedia India Program Trust wasn't
anything new to the chapter EC as it was mentioned in last two Chapter
Foundation Co-ordination meetings, if I remember correctly.*
So, WMF "remembered" to warn the chapter 2 months ago about a project
they
are conducting for the past year? And you think that is ok? You can't see the miscommunication here?
*When it comes to "paid contractors/staff ", I don't see a difference
between Theo[1] or Hisham, except that Hisham is working for a longer
term.
So what?*
I have not to add besides what Theo said. The main and bigger difference
is
that one is a well know and long term wikimedian, the other happens to
have
a job who deal with wikis.
*The way I see is India is a land of immense potential for the Wikimedia
Movement. IMHO, There is enough space of 10 chapters and Wikimedia
offices
to co-exist and work together in India.*
Did you ever read the Chapter Agreement you signed with WMF? That
document
states that WMIN is the ONLY chapter of WMF in India, and that any one organization must have their "approval" to work in Indian soil (I'm
saying
that based in WMPT agreement, WMIN one might be different.)
Best regards, *Béria Lima*
Who sincerely hope that this office don't became a arm of mass
destruction
for Indian Chapter and community.
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 14 November 2011 18:14, CherianTinu Abraham <tinucherian@gmail.com
wrote:
The following comments are my personal view and not necessarily of an Executive Member of the Wikimedia India Chapter.
Having said that I must politely disagree with some of the views of Anirudh, my fellow Executive Member and Salmaan ( Theo) , a member of Wikimedia India chapter. But I do respect their personal views , but I guess we agree to disagree.
The news of the formation of Wikimedia India Program Trust wasn't
anything
new to the chapter EC as it was mentioned in last two Chapter -
Foundation
Co-ordination meetings, if I remember correctly. And Sunil Abraham , Director of Centre of Internet & Society ( CIS) is a patron of
Wikimedia
movement in India and chapter in India, not to forget that CIS have
been
sharing their office space for the chapter and Wikimeetups in
Bangalore,
or
all the help CIS was doing for boot strapping the chapter.
When it comes to "paid contractors/staff ", I don't see a difference between Theo[1] or Hisham, except that Hisham is working for a longer
term.
So what? Not every work can be done as a volunteer. As far as I
understand,
the foundation is also committed to support the chapters and community alike.
The way I see is India is a land of immense potential for the Wikimedia Movement. IMHO, There is enough space of 10 chapters and Wikimedia
offices
to co-exist and work together in India. When there are more than
enough
work to do, I don't understand why this hue and cry.
There is only one who could diminish the importance of the chapter, the chapter itself. The road ahead for us is not easy but there are tons of things to do. We have our advantages but limitations too. Our current
bank
balance [2] is not more than a night's tariff at a decent hotel. The
board
members does the clerical work of receiving membership applications to posting individual snail mail letters of acceptance of membership. In
spite
of all these, we do this for the passion and love for the movement. It
does
come at the sacrifice of our own professional/career growths or the wonderful time we would otherwise have spend with our family and
friends.
But we are proud to Wikipedians/Wikimedians! And we love what we are
doing.
Foundation-Community-Chapter-India Trust...Yea, it is complicated and
the
model may or may not be the best.. But that is the reality. Let us all
work
together for the movement.
Regards Tinu Cherian
References
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_contractors
- http://wiki.wikimedia.in/images/0/06/WMIN-AnnualReport2010-11.pdf
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter
or
the
Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk <
lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very
much
interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the
trust
and
Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by
(or
on
the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
Wikimedia
India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
country I
could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the
India
Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of
the
Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are
going
to
talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You
mention
that
there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become
the
default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune community member, the general community and the Chapter body have
been
excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In
fact,
the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when
Frank
Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point
of
contact in India for institutions who want to partner with
Wikimedia?
Will
they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if
they
dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?).
Will
the
chapter and the trust be competing with each other or
collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two
entities
operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are
already
very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I
personally
get
a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF
consultants
have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in
Western
India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from
WMF
(the "international organization") than WMIN.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish
another
non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee
happening:
WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions
in
India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big
grants
(since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will
theoretically
compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance)
and
in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant
(something
that I have been saying for a long, long time).
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable
talking
about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have
access
to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning
*real
significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India
Office
began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be
here
for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will
stick
to
its words, and with time we will all learn that small
volunteer-driven
projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no
relevant
background (with a couple of exceptions).
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Lodewijk
anirudh
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This is a fantastic email, thanks Theo.
When someone decides to lead a movement of people like me, I expect better
from them. Maybe I should expect less. I even had the pleasure of arguing yesterday, if paid employees should be held to a lower standard.
That is wonderfully expressed.
I suppose it's easier to proclaim them leaders of the community, people who
agree when others seem to only attack, who remind others of the same lofty principles while glossing over the abject realities and marks incurred in the process.
This is very true.
I suppose I am often a vocal critic - even of things I support; I see this as an important role (and I encourage everyone to constantly criticise). We should always push to be better and part of that process is to be criticised.
The Foundation is pretty good. It could be better; it worries me, sometimes, that criticism descends so often either into a war of emotions
As both a community and an organisation we still reject criticism too easily. We consistently lack empathy (yep, me too) and far too often see any negative comment as a slight on our own actions.
As Theo says, criticism is sometimes expressed too forcefully. A problem born out of the fires of "consensus building" :) We are too entrenched (I've been taking something of a Wiki-break the last few weeks to mull on how to pull my own self out of this pit).
So we need to be better at giving and receiving critique.
I've followed this thread with interest. And whilst I am still unsure of exactly what went wrong here; something clearly did. And the takeaway should be to find out what went wrong, and how to stop it happening again. Not arguing over who to blame.
Perhaps it is just that we are all very passionate (not at all a bad thing, though it leads to clashes). But I do have this growing well of concern that we are too often talking the wrong approach in communication (both on and off wiki), stalling our momentum.
Tom
Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,
Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want to take this conversation forward.
One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness within the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens - these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated almost as sacrilege.
One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there - regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some sort of trespasser or gate-crasher).
A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only workable model?)
For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27 countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not mistaken.
India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories, atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.
If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more entities, not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge to people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a second entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding sources do not seem to be scarce.
Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity in any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email: "...this new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the potential to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage anymore."
I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity, should feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to prove that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start laying any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.
And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself too - via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then, will it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't think anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that would be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).
So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see what this problem actually is.
Best Bishakha
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters
Dear Bishakha,
I apologize for intruding in this discussion again as someone who has little knowledge about India and the local situation.
I'm myself not entirely convinced that there always should be one organization in one country - but it is out default. That means that if we want to drift off drom that default, there should be a good reason for it. That is a different mindset of course than that organizations have to prove itself.
There are a few things special here however. The first is that one of the organizations is a membership organization, and the other isn't. To me, with my limited knowledge and understanding, it would indeed seem logical given our background to put the membership organization at the center stage. However, at the same time I can understand that this organization might not be ready to handle the funds yet that it needs to. But again - the default would lie imho with the membership organization. If the Trust wants to deviate that is fine, but ideally that would always happen with the consent of the chapter.
And of course, now that there *are* two organizations, they should communicate well with each other. Somehow we should ensure that, and I hope some good routes are being found to let everyone on the chapter believe that they are being communicated well with to the full extent. Like was noted somewhere else in this thread, if there is a paid organization just doing stuff you'd like to do as a volunteer as well - that can be pretty darn demotivating. And possibly harmful for the volunteer community in the long run. Lets just be careful.
Another is the confusing name - both organizations have the words "Wikimedia India" in their name. Since chapters are usually identified with Wikimedia Country, this trust is already to me confusing, since it implies it is set up *by* the chapter. Choosing a different name might resolve some issues here.
I'm not trying to say here whether those conversations and consent happened - at the beginning of the discussion I was merely trying to understand the situation better, to get a better grasp of who talked with who, who were involved in decision making processes here. From chapters we expect no less than transparent founding processes on meta, involving the community. Receiving feedback and even opening up the bylaws for discussion. I have not seen such a process, but may have missed it. If we are to place the trust at the center stage (are we? still unclear to me, so not suggesting anything here) we should *at least* require the same standards as we do for new chapters.
At least for me this is the major part of why I started off this discussion in the first place. It is no attack, it has mainly been a set of questions which have gotten answered in many different ways throughout this discussion. That alone leaves me to believe that there are ways to improve.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 16 de Novembro de 2011 04:08, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta@gmail.com
escreveu:
Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,
Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want to take this conversation forward.
One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness within the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens - these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated almost as sacrilege.
One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there - regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some sort of trespasser or gate-crasher).
A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only workable model?)
For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27 countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not mistaken.
India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories, atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.
If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more entities, not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge to people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a second entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding sources do not seem to be scarce.
Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity in any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email: "...this new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the potential to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage anymore."
I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity, should feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to prove that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start laying any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.
And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself too - via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then, will it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't think anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that would be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).
So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see what this problem actually is.
Best Bishakha
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
Dear Bishakha,
I apologize for intruding in this discussion again as someone who has little knowledge about India and the local situation.
Your reply made me happy - it broadened the conversation beyond borders,
it made me feel we can still exchange ideas without snarling at each other, and it made some solid points.
I feel no particular need to respond to anything, but just wanted to thank you for pitching in. Really. After a long time, I'm smiling on this thread.
Best Bishakha
hi bishaka,
many thanks for your mail! i like a lot your attitude a lot to challenge constantly existing ways of thinking and doing :)
just let us look on others. our exemplary organizations are not doing anything different than in all other countries: * http://www.indianredcross.org/sb.htm * http://www.msfindia.in/ * national indian football leage * http://www.wwfindia.org/
coming to the other point you made about "living up to expectations". i am pretty sure you know that the chapters are "per definition" at the center stage, like wmf is. and you know of the careful ant patient proceeding which led, in a second try, to a successful UK chapter. and the thoughtful and friendly and listening proceeding to make every organization in the wiki universe live up to the expectations and get better, which now can be seen exemplary by planning the future fundraising and fund disemination.
is there a reason why the wikimedia movement should address it differently in india? why not be patient? why not be consistent? why not do like the other big ones, surely much more experienced in india than we are?
rupert
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:08, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.comwrote:
Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,
Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want to take this conversation forward.
One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness within the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens - these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated almost as sacrilege.
One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there - regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some sort of trespasser or gate-crasher).
A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only workable model?)
For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27 countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not mistaken.
India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories, atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.
If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more entities, not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge to people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a second entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding sources do not seem to be scarce.
Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity in any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email: "...this new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the potential to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage anymore."
I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity, should feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to prove that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start laying any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.
And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself too - via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then, will it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't think anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that would be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).
So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see what this problem actually is.
Best Bishakha
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks for the reply, Rupert, and for pushing me to think harder. I like that!
Without repeating myself and building on your questions, here's what I'll say:
I agree that chapters are an important way to take the wikimedia movement forward across the globe. No issues with that. I'm still not convinced that *any entity* should see itself at the centre of the movement either globally or in a country - either because it has members, or because it has funding, or because it is an entity. For any reason. Why is it important for an entity in a volunteer movement to be at the centre at all?
If there is anyone or anything that I see at the centre of the wikimedia movement, it is individual volunteers - who work on the projects, edit day in and day out, do other things etc. When entities and formal organizations start up in a country, individual volunteers who are not affiliated to any of these start seeing themselves as 'lower order volunteers' in some way; to me, this is tremendously sad. I've heard editors in India say, "I'm just a volunteer" (to describe themselves, since they are neither office bearers in the chapter, nor work in the program trust). When I hear that, I feel we're doing something wrong - the presence of entities in a country should make individual volunteers and editors feel supported and part of this universe, not devalued or disconnected.
In response to your questions about not doing it differently in India, I think there's good reason for us to experiment in different ways in different geographies - wasn't wikipedia itself a grand experiment to begin with? But yes, experiment in a way that does not exclude the communities that have organically grown in these places. If we really want to sustain the projects at a time when the editor base is declining, I do think some experimentation may be in order. Agree that things don't work out should be dropped, but maybe new ways of doing things can also provide new answers.
And yes, a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to work, given how culturally diverse the world is. So yes, boots on the ground, but also ear to the ground. :)
Cheers Bishakha
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
hi bishaka,
many thanks for your mail! i like a lot your attitude a lot to challenge constantly existing ways of thinking and doing :)
just let us look on others. our exemplary organizations are not doing anything different than in all other countries:
- http://www.indianredcross.org/sb.htm
- http://www.msfindia.in/
- national indian football leage
- http://www.wwfindia.org/
coming to the other point you made about "living up to expectations". i am pretty sure you know that the chapters are "per definition" at the center stage, like wmf is. and you know of the careful ant patient proceeding which led, in a second try, to a successful UK chapter. and the thoughtful and friendly and listening proceeding to make every organization in the wiki universe live up to the expectations and get better, which now can be seen exemplary by planning the future fundraising and fund disemination.
is there a reason why the wikimedia movement should address it differently in india? why not be patient? why not be consistent? why not do like the other big ones, surely much more experienced in india than we are?
rupert
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:08, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,
Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want
to
take this conversation forward.
One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness
within
the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens - these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated almost as sacrilege.
One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there - regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some
sort
of trespasser or gate-crasher).
A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only
workable
model?)
For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27 countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not mistaken.
India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories, atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.
If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more entities, not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge
to
people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a
second
entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding sources do not seem to be scarce.
Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity in any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email:
"...this
new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the
potential
to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage anymore."
I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity,
should
feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to prove that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start laying any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.
And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself too - via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then,
will
it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't
think
anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that
would
be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).
So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see what this problem actually is.
Best Bishakha
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
[4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
haha, I like that expression ... need to remember the ear on the ground:)
the big problem with a trust is imo, that it is not possible for an ordinary person to get involved in a decisive role. a chapter takes anybody as member and anybody can be elected to its board.
rupert On Nov 23, 2011 7:21 AM, "Bishakha Datta" bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the reply, Rupert, and for pushing me to think harder. I like that!
Without repeating myself and building on your questions, here's what I'll say:
I agree that chapters are an important way to take the wikimedia movement forward across the globe. No issues with that. I'm still not convinced that *any entity* should see itself at the centre of the movement either globally or in a country - either because it has members, or because it has funding, or because it is an entity. For any reason. Why is it important for an entity in a volunteer movement to be at the centre at all?
If there is anyone or anything that I see at the centre of the wikimedia movement, it is individual volunteers - who work on the projects, edit day in and day out, do other things etc. When entities and formal organizations start up in a country, individual volunteers who are not affiliated to any of these start seeing themselves as 'lower order volunteers' in some way; to me, this is tremendously sad. I've heard editors in India say, "I'm just a volunteer" (to describe themselves, since they are neither office bearers in the chapter, nor work in the program trust). When I hear that, I feel we're doing something wrong - the presence of entities in a country should make individual volunteers and editors feel supported and part of this universe, not devalued or disconnected.
In response to your questions about not doing it differently in India, I think there's good reason for us to experiment in different ways in different geographies - wasn't wikipedia itself a grand experiment to begin with? But yes, experiment in a way that does not exclude the communities that have organically grown in these places. If we really want to sustain the projects at a time when the editor base is declining, I do think some experimentation may be in order. Agree that things don't work out should be dropped, but maybe new ways of doing things can also provide new answers.
And yes, a one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to work, given how culturally diverse the world is. So yes, boots on the ground, but also ear to the ground. :)
Cheers Bishakha
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:
hi bishaka,
many thanks for your mail! i like a lot your attitude a lot to challenge constantly existing ways of thinking and doing :)
just let us look on others. our exemplary organizations are not doing anything different than in all other countries:
- http://www.indianredcross.org/sb.htm
- http://www.msfindia.in/
- national indian football leage
- http://www.wwfindia.org/
coming to the other point you made about "living up to expectations". i
am
pretty sure you know that the chapters are "per definition" at the center stage, like wmf is. and you know of the careful ant patient proceeding which led, in a second try, to a successful UK chapter. and the
thoughtful
and friendly and listening proceeding to make every organization in the wiki universe live up to the expectations and get better, which now can
be
seen exemplary by planning the future fundraising and fund disemination.
is there a reason why the wikimedia movement should address it
differently
in india? why not be patient? why not be consistent? why not do like the other big ones, surely much more experienced in india than we are?
rupert
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 04:08, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta@gmail.com
wrote:
Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,
Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and
want
to
take this conversation forward.
One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness
within
the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as
givens -
these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone
explored
in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated almost as sacrilege.
One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there - regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some
sort
of trespasser or gate-crasher).
A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default,
and
without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for
many
countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only
workable
model?)
For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27 countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not mistaken.
India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories, atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.
If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more
entities,
not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge
to
people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a
second
entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding
sources
do not seem to be scarce.
Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity
in
any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email:
"...this
new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the
potential
to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage anymore."
I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity,
should
feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to
prove
that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start
laying
any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.
And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself
too -
via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then,
will
it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't
think
anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that
would
be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).
So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see
what
this problem actually is.
Best Bishakha
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
[4]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
would you be so kind to tell us a reason why
1. the indian chapter does not receive 500000 dollars to hire 2 persons, to pay the internet and telephone cost of 150 volunteers and to pay prices for 50 writing and photo shooting competitions around many universities in india? the first price could again be free internet and phone for one year.
2. the indian chapter does not set up an advisory board to include people with other desired experiences than wikimedia?
but instead a trust was set up ... making some volunteers unhappy, and leading to differences in opinion even amongst chapter executives.
if we assume the goal is to win contributors, I am wondering how somebody who is paid, writes blogs, tweeds, mails and maybe discussion pages is able to convince somebody else to write wikipedia in his free time. I am lacking a good english word here, but maybe one could say it is not authentic?
setting up an independent trust besides the chapter and giving it 20 times as much money is not perceived peaceful by everybody.
the goal of the wiki movement is to make love, and peace and .... wikipedia, at least imo.
rupert On Nov 14, 2011 7:15 PM, "CherianTinu Abraham" tinucherian@gmail.com wrote:
The following comments are my personal view and not necessarily of an Executive Member of the Wikimedia India Chapter.
Having said that I must politely disagree with some of the views of Anirudh, my fellow Executive Member and Salmaan ( Theo) , a member of Wikimedia India chapter. But I do respect their personal views , but I guess we agree to disagree.
The news of the formation of Wikimedia India Program Trust wasn't anything new to the chapter EC as it was mentioned in last two Chapter - Foundation Co-ordination meetings, if I remember correctly. And Sunil Abraham , Director of Centre of Internet & Society ( CIS) is a patron of Wikimedia movement in India and chapter in India, not to forget that CIS have been sharing their office space for the chapter and Wikimeetups in Bangalore, or all the help CIS was doing for boot strapping the chapter.
When it comes to "paid contractors/staff ", I don't see a difference between Theo[1] or Hisham, except that Hisham is working for a longer term. So what? Not every work can be done as a volunteer. As far as I understand, the foundation is also committed to support the chapters and community alike.
The way I see is India is a land of immense potential for the Wikimedia Movement. IMHO, There is enough space of 10 chapters and Wikimedia offices to co-exist and work together in India. When there are more than enough work to do, I don't understand why this hue and cry.
There is only one who could diminish the importance of the chapter, the chapter itself. The road ahead for us is not easy but there are tons of things to do. We have our advantages but limitations too. Our current bank balance [2] is not more than a night's tariff at a decent hotel. The board members does the clerical work of receiving membership applications to posting individual snail mail letters of acceptance of membership. In spite of all these, we do this for the passion and love for the movement. It does come at the sacrifice of our own professional/career growths or the wonderful time we would otherwise have spend with our family and friends. But we are proud to Wikipedians/Wikimedians! And we love what we are doing.
Foundation-Community-Chapter-India Trust...Yea, it is complicated and the model may or may not be the best.. But that is the reality. Let us all work together for the movement.
Regards Tinu Cherian
References
- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_contractors
- http://wiki.wikimedia.in/images/0/06/WMIN-AnnualReport2010-11.pdf
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Anirudh Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com wrote:
My personal opinion, and I only speak for myself and not the Chapter or
the
Foundation (I wouldn't dare!).
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org
wrote:
Hi,
thanks a lot all for exmplaining the differences. I would be very much interested to know more about the ''relationship'' between the trust
and
Wikimedia India. You seem to suggest that trustees get appointed by (or
on
the advice of - not sure of the legal wording) the WMF - but will
Wikimedia
India be involved in that too? Since they are the chapter in that
country I
could imagine them to have a say in it.
Nope. Up until now WMIN has not received any say either with the India Education Programs design and implementation or the structuring of the Wikimedia India Program Trust. And given that not many people are going
to
talk about it, I don't think much will change in the future.
How closely will this trust and the chapter work together? You mention
that
there is communication etc - but is cooperation likely to become the default or the exception?
From my own experience and from what I have heard from a fellow Pune community member, the general community and the Chapter body have been excluded and ignored by WMF consultants from the very beginning. In
fact,
the Chapter representatives were only invited to attend meetings when
Frank
Schlenburg and Annie Lin were in town.
And how will it work with regards of who will be the primary point of contact in India for institutions who want to partner with Wikimedia?
Will
they have to approach one of the two or whichever they like (and if
they
dont get the answer they like, can they just approach the other?). Will
the
chapter and the trust be competing with each other or collaborating?
I think there is already a lot of confusion with regard to the two
entities
operating out of India. Going by the media, news reporters are already very confused by the existence of two Wikimedia bodies and I personally
get
a lot of queries every week asking me to clarify on the location of Wikimedia offices. With its paid consultants, the local WMF consultants have done a good job of making their presence felt (especially in Western India), and more and more journalists are interested in hearing from WMF (the "international organization") than WMIN.
The initial idea, if I understood it correctly, was to establish another non-profit body within India, for a period of three to five years to execute specific (and large-scale) programmes. As of now, the WIPT (Wikimedia India Program Office) can pretty much do anything it wants
with
the Wikimedia brand - partner with institutions, raise money locally,
have
paid employees and bypass community. This is what I foresee happening: WMIN will be involved in community-building and small-scale projects
which
support volunteers and the WIPT will partner with large institutions in India (who are understandably looking to club with international organizations), get a lot of media coverage and acquire the big grants (since WMIN is not a professional body). WMIN and WIPT will
theoretically
compete for funding within India, much of which will be allocated to
WIPT,
given that it is professionalized (and because we never had a chance) and in WMF's good graces. This is how WMIN has been made redundant
(something
that I have been saying for a long, long time).
The most important difference, something many are uncomfortable talking about, is in the distribution of money. The WIPT in India will have
access
to *significantly *more WMF funding than WMIN (significant meaning *real significant*). Around the time when discussions about the India Office began, Barry came to India and assured us that the WIPT will only be here for a period of 3-5 years. I am hopeful that the Foundation will stick
to
its words, and with time we will all learn that small volunteer-driven projects have a larger impact than costly, ill-designed, large-scale programmes run by hired consultants who hire consultants with no relevant background (with a couple of exceptions).
Thanks for helping me seeing the situation more clearly,
No, thank you for asking the right questions.
Lodewijk
anirudh
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
the practical difference seems to be the experience
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:44, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Hisham, Interesting development :-)
My question is with regards to the relationship of the new trust to the existing India Chapter. The purpose of the trust (as defined as "The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various projects with an India focus.") seems synonymous with the purpose of a Chapter, and you now also have trustees which is synonymous with a Chapter's board. One difference I can see is that you don't have Members.
Can you elaborate on the legal and practical differences between the new India Trust and the India Chapter?
-Liam
On 11 November 2011 05:11, Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org wrote:
cross-posting to foundation-l & internal-l from India Community list; apologies if you've read this already.
hisham
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia India Program Trust Date: November 11, 2011 9:55:00 AM GMT+05:30 To: Wikimedia India Community list <
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Folks, I'm writing to share an update with you on certain developments of
relevance to the Wikimedia movement in India.
Announcement of Wikimedia India Program Trust For some time, efforts have gone into creating an organization that
would provide an appropriate structure to support Wikimedia program activities in India. Aspects such as the current regulatory framework (regarding funding, taxation, etc.) as well as the legal protection for
the
India team have been considered to determine this structure. In this context, a host of options (e.g. subsidiary, branch, Section 25) were evaluated and a determination was made towards an independent non-profit public trust. Legal advice has been taken at every stage in this
decision.
A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has now been formed
and registered (in Delhi.) This will be the organization that will eventually drive India programs and house the team in India.
Why an Independent Public Trust? The Trust will provide an effective vehicle within India to marshal
resources to support programs and partner with local institutions. The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various
projects
with an India focus. It is important to understand that the Trust will
not
have any editorial control over content on any of the Wikimedia projects. The Trust is a not for profit organization.
Introduction of Trustees Trustees have been identified based upon their support for Wikimedia
movement's principles and plans in addition to having reputations for
good
governance and management.
Sunil Abraham and Rahul Matthan have been requested to be the initial
Trustees. Both are friends of Wikipedia and have extensive experience.
Sunil is Executive Director of the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS),
is a long term advocate of free software and IP reform and has been supporting the Wikimedia community and movement for some time now.
Rahul is a partner and heads the technology practice at Trilegal. He
brings deep expertise and relationships that will be valuable for the
Trust.
These initial Trustees will serve for a term of three years at the
maximum. All additional or subsequent Trustees will serve on rotation in accordance with a trustee selection plan that will be prepared.
Trustees will not be compensated for their services.
Governance, Funding, Financial Standards & Communications of the Trust The Trust will be governed by Trustees who will provide oversight and
guidance regarding the operations and governance of the Trust.
Since the Trust is an independent organization, it will require funding
for its operations which is in compliance with the legal and regulatory framework in India. It will seek funding from private donors within India as well as external sources.
The Trust has the support of the Wikimedia Foundation which is a United
States based non-profit foundation. However, in India all non-profit organizations need to be in existence for 3 years before they can receive funding from sources outside India. In the interim, they can apply for prior-permission under the FCRA regulations to help expedite the process. As a result, the Trust will shortly be applying for approval to receive funds from the Wikimedia Foundation in the future.
As a Trust, we are required to have an independent external auditor. We
have appointed KPMG. KPMG is experienced in auditing non-profit companies and are also auditors for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Annually, the Trust will publicly disclose it's independently audited
financial statements.
The Trust will publish a monthly newsletter outlining its current
activities and future plans. This will commence in December 2011.
Operations of the Trust The trust deed under which the Trust must operate clearly states that
the purpose of the Trust is to independently promote the growth of volunteer activities within India in support of effective and
unrestricted
dissemination of free knowledge to the public.
I will serve as the Executive Director of the Trust. Once it is
possible, additional employees will be brought on to the Trust
The Trust will eventually have an office in Delhi.
In the interim, I have personally secured temporary office space to
facilitate establishing the Trust and its mission. It is located at Top Floor, G-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. It's a couple of minutes
walk
away from IIT Flyover and Hauz Khas Metro. Do drop in! It's a small but cozy place and we'd love to have you over!
Conclusion We continue to make progress in setting up program activities to
support
the growth of Wikimedia in India. We have a long way to go, but are glad that we are starting to build a solid foundation.
The following link is for FAQs on this (and related) topics:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ_India_Programs/FAQ_Wikimedia_India_Progra...
As always, do reach out if you have any comments or questions.
Warm Regards,
hisham
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
the result of 10 minutes googling is ...
hisham mundol. total edits 138, in 38 different pages. active since 4 months, active time 100% paid by wikimedia foundation. no free software development. created even articles, an example: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafe_Qahwa
sunil abraham. no edits. no free software development. but is mentioned in wikipedia articles like: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Commons
rahul matthan. no edits. no free software development. founded a law firm.
the trust employs KPMG as auditor, which got "sued over the madoff scheme" [1]. additionally, the trust plans paying "consultants" and getting money from the foundation. as well i was able to find some messages of wikimedia india community members saying they are ignored by the trust and its people. i was not able to find discussion pages where the india community seems to be somehow included.
as they seem to be interested in organizational structures, not only in program work, i was searching for signs how hisham, sunil and rahul contributed in building up the chapter, e.g. beeing the chapters first "program manager", beeing the chapters first "paid staff", beeing the chapters "first advisors". then i searched for reasons why they would not do it or could not do it. but no luck in both cases.
i also looked up the critieria to create a chapter, stating "participation", and "critical mass" ... and was wondering if this is applied to a trust as well: * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requirements_for_future_chapters
to get a feeling about the size, the number of readers, contributors, and a trend in it, i tried to find the india country statistics on editing and reading: * http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaML.htm (just took the second most prominent language after english) <100 people making more than 5 edits, not increasing * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_-_India_Programs/Indic_L... < 100 editors for every language, same as last year * http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerCountryTr... the share is 1.7%, stable. switzerland with 8 mio inhabitants (half of dehli) has 0.8%
at the same time, another part of the world, a foto competition, no trust, no consultants, no KPMG involved, but a lot of volunteers and chapters. it gave 160'000 images for wikimedia commons, in one month. and, 30% new contributors. [2]
i know, i am not good at googling ... so bare with me if above info is not 100% correct. but it is what an outsider in this matter like me perceives.
rupert [1] - http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3897984/kpmg-jpmorgan-sued-over-madoff-scheme...
[2] - http://wikilovesmonuments.eu
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 07:44, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Hisham, Interesting development :-)
My question is with regards to the relationship of the new trust to the existing India Chapter. The purpose of the trust (as defined as "The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various projects with an India focus.") seems synonymous with the purpose of a Chapter, and you now also have trustees which is synonymous with a Chapter's board. One difference I can see is that you don't have Members.
Can you elaborate on the legal and practical differences between the new India Trust and the India Chapter?
-Liam
On 11 November 2011 05:11, Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org wrote:
cross-posting to foundation-l & internal-l from India Community list; apologies if you've read this already.
hisham
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia India Program Trust Date: November 11, 2011 9:55:00 AM GMT+05:30 To: Wikimedia India Community list <
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Folks, I'm writing to share an update with you on certain developments of
relevance to the Wikimedia movement in India.
Announcement of Wikimedia India Program Trust For some time, efforts have gone into creating an organization that
would provide an appropriate structure to support Wikimedia program activities in India. Aspects such as the current regulatory framework (regarding funding, taxation, etc.) as well as the legal protection for
the
India team have been considered to determine this structure. In this context, a host of options (e.g. subsidiary, branch, Section 25) were evaluated and a determination was made towards an independent non-profit public trust. Legal advice has been taken at every stage in this
decision.
A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has now been formed
and registered (in Delhi.) This will be the organization that will eventually drive India programs and house the team in India.
Why an Independent Public Trust? The Trust will provide an effective vehicle within India to marshal
resources to support programs and partner with local institutions. The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various
projects
with an India focus. It is important to understand that the Trust will
not
have any editorial control over content on any of the Wikimedia
projects.
The Trust is a not for profit organization.
Introduction of Trustees Trustees have been identified based upon their support for Wikimedia
movement's principles and plans in addition to having reputations for
good
governance and management.
Sunil Abraham and Rahul Matthan have been requested to be the initial
Trustees. Both are friends of Wikipedia and have extensive experience.
Sunil is Executive Director of the Centre for Internet & Society
(CIS),
is a long term advocate of free software and IP reform and has been supporting the Wikimedia community and movement for some time now.
Rahul is a partner and heads the technology practice at Trilegal. He
brings deep expertise and relationships that will be valuable for the
Trust.
These initial Trustees will serve for a term of three years at the
maximum. All additional or subsequent Trustees will serve on rotation
in
accordance with a trustee selection plan that will be prepared.
Trustees will not be compensated for their services.
Governance, Funding, Financial Standards & Communications of the Trust The Trust will be governed by Trustees who will provide oversight and
guidance regarding the operations and governance of the Trust.
Since the Trust is an independent organization, it will require
funding
for its operations which is in compliance with the legal and regulatory framework in India. It will seek funding from private donors within
India
as well as external sources.
The Trust has the support of the Wikimedia Foundation which is a
United
States based non-profit foundation. However, in India all non-profit organizations need to be in existence for 3 years before they can
receive
funding from sources outside India. In the interim, they can apply for prior-permission under the FCRA regulations to help expedite the
process.
As a result, the Trust will shortly be applying for approval to receive funds from the Wikimedia Foundation in the future.
As a Trust, we are required to have an independent external auditor.
We
have appointed KPMG. KPMG is experienced in auditing non-profit
companies
and are also auditors for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Annually, the Trust will publicly disclose it's independently audited
financial statements.
The Trust will publish a monthly newsletter outlining its current
activities and future plans. This will commence in December 2011.
Operations of the Trust The trust deed under which the Trust must operate clearly states that
the purpose of the Trust is to independently promote the growth of volunteer activities within India in support of effective and
unrestricted
dissemination of free knowledge to the public.
I will serve as the Executive Director of the Trust. Once it is
possible, additional employees will be brought on to the Trust
The Trust will eventually have an office in Delhi.
In the interim, I have personally secured temporary office space to
facilitate establishing the Trust and its mission. It is located at Top Floor, G-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. It's a couple of minutes
walk
away from IIT Flyover and Hauz Khas Metro. Do drop in! It's a small but cozy place and we'd love to have you over!
Conclusion We continue to make progress in setting up program activities to
support
the growth of Wikimedia in India. We have a long way to go, but are glad that we are starting to build a solid foundation.
The following link is for FAQs on this (and related) topics:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ_India_Programs/FAQ_Wikimedia_India_Progra...
As always, do reach out if you have any comments or questions.
Warm Regards,
hisham
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:04 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
to get a feeling about the size, the number of readers, contributors, and a trend in it, i tried to find the india country statistics on editing and reading:
The major program initiative undertaken by Hisham's team so far is the India Education Program. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Courses
So far there's been a pilot program, which uncovered lots of serious issues with the quality of content contributed by the participating courses. This is now driving further iteration of the program, as it should.
The pilot very much built on, and was informed by, the lessons learned in the Public Policy Initiative, which was the largest and most successful student engagement program ever undertaken in the Wikimedia movement (!). Both the India Education Program and the PPI have been led by Frank Schulenburg, who is an experienced and accomplished Wikipedian.
at the same time, another part of the world, a foto competition, no trust, no consultants, no KPMG involved, but a lot of volunteers and chapters. it gave 160'000 images for wikimedia commons, in one month. and, 30% new contributors. [2]
WLM is a wonderful project, one which WMF actively supported (most importantly by improving Upload Wizard to directly support the management of the upload campaigns). It really is credit to all the people who developed it, and built on the lessons from last year's WLM in the Netherlands.
It's also a photo competition, which by its very nature is a very different kind of program than something like the IEP, with very different risks and opportunities. It's easy to compare apples and oranges and say "those apples are rotten, my oranges are so much nicer". But they are very different fruit entirely. :)
I don't think anyone is served by stereotyping people or programs. We're all pulling towards the same goal. That doesn't mean constantly patting ourselves on the back, but let's focus on the the substance of the work rather than on peddling stereotypes about ignorant consultants and "outsiders".
*The major program initiative undertaken by Hisham's team so far is the India Education Program.*
You sure you want to use that as an example of Hishan workhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-11-07/Special_report? Because if was in a "for-profit" organization things like that would lead to a demission in 2 seconds.
*WLM is a wonderful project, one which WMF actively supported (most
importantly by improving Upload Wizard to directly support the management of the upload campaigns).
Or so the people who spend lots and LOTS of time in Commons, creating, updating and localizing the Upload campaigns for WLM had WMF support? Because we didn't saw any during the time we were doing it. Create the Upload Wizard (thanks for it - despite the fact I preffer the old commonist) don't make you "supportes" because the UW was not created for WLM or even thinking about it.
_____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 12 November 2011 07:18, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:04 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
to get a feeling about the size, the number of readers, contributors,
and a
trend in it, i tried to find the india country statistics on editing and reading:
The major program initiative undertaken by Hisham's team so far is the India Education Program. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Courses
So far there's been a pilot program, which uncovered lots of serious issues with the quality of content contributed by the participating courses. This is now driving further iteration of the program, as it should.
The pilot very much built on, and was informed by, the lessons learned in the Public Policy Initiative, which was the largest and most successful student engagement program ever undertaken in the Wikimedia movement (!). Both the India Education Program and the PPI have been led by Frank Schulenburg, who is an experienced and accomplished Wikipedian.
at the same time, another part of the world, a foto competition, no
trust,
no consultants, no KPMG involved, but a lot of volunteers and chapters.
it
gave 160'000 images for wikimedia commons, in one month. and, 30% new contributors. [2]
WLM is a wonderful project, one which WMF actively supported (most importantly by improving Upload Wizard to directly support the management of the upload campaigns). It really is credit to all the people who developed it, and built on the lessons from last year's WLM in the Netherlands.
It's also a photo competition, which by its very nature is a very different kind of program than something like the IEP, with very different risks and opportunities. It's easy to compare apples and oranges and say "those apples are rotten, my oranges are so much nicer". But they are very different fruit entirely. :)
I don't think anyone is served by stereotyping people or programs. We're all pulling towards the same goal. That doesn't mean constantly patting ourselves on the back, but let's focus on the the substance of the work rather than on peddling stereotypes about ignorant consultants and "outsiders".
-- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I meant to ask earlier, since the fundraiser already started and this is being announced now.
Is this trust set-up to participate in the annual fundraiser? processing donations on-behalf of WMF internally? or would it seek to do so in future? I know you mention FCRA and external funding after approval but what about internal funding through the annual fundraiser.
Theo
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org wrote:
cross-posting to foundation-l & internal-l from India Community list; apologies if you've read this already.
hisham
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia India Program Trust Date: November 11, 2011 9:55:00 AM GMT+05:30 To: Wikimedia India Community list <wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Folks, I'm writing to share an update with you on certain developments of
relevance to the Wikimedia movement in India.
Announcement of Wikimedia India Program Trust For some time, efforts have gone into creating an organization that
would provide an appropriate structure to support Wikimedia program activities in India. Aspects such as the current regulatory framework (regarding funding, taxation, etc.) as well as the legal protection for the India team have been considered to determine this structure. In this context, a host of options (e.g. subsidiary, branch, Section 25) were evaluated and a determination was made towards an independent non-profit public trust. Legal advice has been taken at every stage in this decision.
A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has now been formed
and registered (in Delhi.) This will be the organization that will eventually drive India programs and house the team in India.
Why an Independent Public Trust? The Trust will provide an effective vehicle within India to marshal
resources to support programs and partner with local institutions. The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various projects with an India focus. It is important to understand that the Trust will not have any editorial control over content on any of the Wikimedia projects. The Trust is a not for profit organization.
Introduction of Trustees Trustees have been identified based upon their support for Wikimedia
movement's principles and plans in addition to having reputations for good governance and management.
Sunil Abraham and Rahul Matthan have been requested to be the initial
Trustees. Both are friends of Wikipedia and have extensive experience.
Sunil is Executive Director of the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS),
is a long term advocate of free software and IP reform and has been supporting the Wikimedia community and movement for some time now.
Rahul is a partner and heads the technology practice at Trilegal. He
brings deep expertise and relationships that will be valuable for the Trust.
These initial Trustees will serve for a term of three years at the
maximum. All additional or subsequent Trustees will serve on rotation in accordance with a trustee selection plan that will be prepared.
Trustees will not be compensated for their services.
Governance, Funding, Financial Standards & Communications of the Trust The Trust will be governed by Trustees who will provide oversight and
guidance regarding the operations and governance of the Trust.
Since the Trust is an independent organization, it will require funding
for its operations which is in compliance with the legal and regulatory framework in India. It will seek funding from private donors within India as well as external sources.
The Trust has the support of the Wikimedia Foundation which is a United
States based non-profit foundation. However, in India all non-profit organizations need to be in existence for 3 years before they can receive funding from sources outside India. In the interim, they can apply for prior-permission under the FCRA regulations to help expedite the process. As a result, the Trust will shortly be applying for approval to receive funds from the Wikimedia Foundation in the future.
As a Trust, we are required to have an independent external auditor. We
have appointed KPMG. KPMG is experienced in auditing non-profit companies and are also auditors for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Annually, the Trust will publicly disclose it's independently audited
financial statements.
The Trust will publish a monthly newsletter outlining its current
activities and future plans. This will commence in December 2011.
Operations of the Trust The trust deed under which the Trust must operate clearly states that
the purpose of the Trust is to independently promote the growth of volunteer activities within India in support of effective and unrestricted dissemination of free knowledge to the public.
I will serve as the Executive Director of the Trust. Once it is
possible, additional employees will be brought on to the Trust
The Trust will eventually have an office in Delhi.
In the interim, I have personally secured temporary office space to
facilitate establishing the Trust and its mission. It is located at Top Floor, G-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. It's a couple of minutes walk away from IIT Flyover and Hauz Khas Metro. Do drop in! It's a small but cozy place and we'd love to have you over!
Conclusion We continue to make progress in setting up program activities to support
the growth of Wikimedia in India. We have a long way to go, but are glad that we are starting to build a solid foundation.
The following link is for FAQs on this (and related) topics:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ_India_Programs/FAQ_Wikimedia_India_Progra...
As always, do reach out if you have any comments or questions.
Warm Regards,
hisham
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Responses below...
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Theo10011 de10011@gmail.com wrote:
I meant to ask earlier, since the fundraiser already started and this is being announced now.
No relationship between this announcement and the fundraiser. The Trust has been in the works for months, but it takes months to get the approvals to launch it.
Is this trust set-up to participate in the annual fundraiser?
Again, the trust is setup to support program work in India. It was not set up as a vehicle for the annual fundraiser.
processing donations on-behalf of WMF internally? or would it seek to do so in future? I know you mention FCRA and external funding after approval but what about internal funding through the annual fundraiser.
Our fundraising team did ask (literally this week) if the Trust might be able to process payments for bank transfers (which is an option they would like to offer Indian donors) and requires a domestic processor of some sort. We are looking into this with lawyers and accountants, but from my perspective, I'd rather not have the Trust involved in the annual fundraiser. It would help us all (meaning everyone involved in India) to have funds available domestically to avoid the issues with international funds transfers mentioned earlier, but I don't want it to be a distraction from the priority in India - working with the community and chapter to good program work that advances the mission. Fundraising in India is nice to have, but money isn't really our greatest challenge.
More directly to your questions...the Trust is an independent org, so technically it cannot serve as an "internal" processor for WMF. The question of "seeking to in the future" is open (as it should be because there is no need to close doors at this time), but I shared my current view.
Theo
Best,
Barry
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org wrote:
cross-posting to foundation-l & internal-l from India Community list; apologies if you've read this already.
hisham
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia India Program Trust Date: November 11, 2011 9:55:00 AM GMT+05:30 To: Wikimedia India Community list <
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Folks, I'm writing to share an update with you on certain developments of
relevance to the Wikimedia movement in India.
Announcement of Wikimedia India Program Trust For some time, efforts have gone into creating an organization that
would provide an appropriate structure to support Wikimedia program activities in India. Aspects such as the current regulatory framework (regarding funding, taxation, etc.) as well as the legal protection for
the
India team have been considered to determine this structure. In this context, a host of options (e.g. subsidiary, branch, Section 25) were evaluated and a determination was made towards an independent non-profit public trust. Legal advice has been taken at every stage in this
decision.
A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has now been formed
and registered (in Delhi.) This will be the organization that will eventually drive India programs and house the team in India.
Why an Independent Public Trust? The Trust will provide an effective vehicle within India to marshal
resources to support programs and partner with local institutions. The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various
projects
with an India focus. It is important to understand that the Trust will
not
have any editorial control over content on any of the Wikimedia projects. The Trust is a not for profit organization.
Introduction of Trustees Trustees have been identified based upon their support for Wikimedia
movement's principles and plans in addition to having reputations for
good
governance and management.
Sunil Abraham and Rahul Matthan have been requested to be the initial
Trustees. Both are friends of Wikipedia and have extensive experience.
Sunil is Executive Director of the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS),
is a long term advocate of free software and IP reform and has been supporting the Wikimedia community and movement for some time now.
Rahul is a partner and heads the technology practice at Trilegal. He
brings deep expertise and relationships that will be valuable for the
Trust.
These initial Trustees will serve for a term of three years at the
maximum. All additional or subsequent Trustees will serve on rotation in accordance with a trustee selection plan that will be prepared.
Trustees will not be compensated for their services.
Governance, Funding, Financial Standards & Communications of the Trust The Trust will be governed by Trustees who will provide oversight and
guidance regarding the operations and governance of the Trust.
Since the Trust is an independent organization, it will require funding
for its operations which is in compliance with the legal and regulatory framework in India. It will seek funding from private donors within India as well as external sources.
The Trust has the support of the Wikimedia Foundation which is a United
States based non-profit foundation. However, in India all non-profit organizations need to be in existence for 3 years before they can receive funding from sources outside India. In the interim, they can apply for prior-permission under the FCRA regulations to help expedite the process. As a result, the Trust will shortly be applying for approval to receive funds from the Wikimedia Foundation in the future.
As a Trust, we are required to have an independent external auditor. We
have appointed KPMG. KPMG is experienced in auditing non-profit companies and are also auditors for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Annually, the Trust will publicly disclose it's independently audited
financial statements.
The Trust will publish a monthly newsletter outlining its current
activities and future plans. This will commence in December 2011.
Operations of the Trust The trust deed under which the Trust must operate clearly states that
the purpose of the Trust is to independently promote the growth of volunteer activities within India in support of effective and
unrestricted
dissemination of free knowledge to the public.
I will serve as the Executive Director of the Trust. Once it is
possible, additional employees will be brought on to the Trust
The Trust will eventually have an office in Delhi.
In the interim, I have personally secured temporary office space to
facilitate establishing the Trust and its mission. It is located at Top Floor, G-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. It's a couple of minutes
walk
away from IIT Flyover and Hauz Khas Metro. Do drop in! It's a small but cozy place and we'd love to have you over!
Conclusion We continue to make progress in setting up program activities to
support
the growth of Wikimedia in India. We have a long way to go, but are glad that we are starting to build a solid foundation.
The following link is for FAQs on this (and related) topics:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ_India_Programs/FAQ_Wikimedia_India_Progra...
As always, do reach out if you have any comments or questions.
Warm Regards,
hisham
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Barry Newstead bnewstead@wikimedia.orgwrote:
More directly to your questions...the Trust is an independent org, so technically it cannot serve as an "internal" processor for WMF.
I meant "internal" as in within the country, as opposed to external, when Hisham's email said "external" or "outside" sources.
I thought it was apparent.
Theo
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org wrote:
Announcement of Wikimedia India Program Trust
Congratulations, Hisham. I know this has been a lot of work for you and the team over the last few months. I look forward to seeing the programs that the trust and the chapter develop together.
There's tons of work to do. :-)
Hisham,
There has been much discussion on this already, but this does sound like some *serious* development to someone like me who has been a long time volunteer from India. And perhaps to several other long time contributors from here too, who seem to be staying away from adding their opinion here for a reason.
Thinking back about the time years back when many of us were used to spending our personal earnings to organize small scale outreach programs here, things have surely changed now and much of the development in last couple of years has been, to say the least, *overwhelming*.
India is now getting to see well funded conferences, the funds are now flowing in for new programs that seem to be keen in quickly 'inducing' a community that otherwise would have taken its own time growing in an organic way.
While all this focus on India and the sudden inflow of funds is all quite amazing, this new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the potential to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage anymore.
When the Chapter was formed, a major decision involved choosing between the open, more democratic legal model of a 'society' and slightly locked-in model of a 'trust'. The Chapter chose the 'society' model which presented more democratic setup despite the paperwork, hassles and the delay it presented. Although Bishaka did mention on an earlier email about the trust, there was nothing much to indicate why specifically the India programs office needs to be registered as a trust.
A serious concern in this context is that in a trust, the trustees needn't change. Although new trustees can be elected, the control remains with the initial set of trustees on board. The assets of the trust will be governed by this closed set of trustees who are not subject to elections or restricted to any fixed term unlike the model the chapter is built on.
It is rather disturbing and surprising to see none of the volunteers from the community actually voicing their concerns about this. There sure was a huge discussion when the legal model of chapter was in question. I should note here that Wikimedia India Chapter could have started operating earlier than it did had we gone for the 'trust' model, as this one presented lesser hassles with respect to paperwork. I should also admit that I was one of the people who objected strongly to the idea of going for a 'trust' and instead voted for the 'society' model when the chapter was being formed.
Although I'm no longer part of the chapter now, it is quite disturbing for me to see the efforts put into chapter being pulled to a certain possibility of being sidelined and undermined, if not fully forced to shut its office.
Like Ray expressed in an earlier email, it starts to give an impression that somewhere we have lost our way. These two organizations would compete, create more confusion than that exists now. It would surely make people alienated. And above all - the community faces the risk of being dried out with tons of chemical fertilizers that are being thrown in powered by huge funds to pacify the growth. The rapidly spewed 'community' can vanish or evaporate with just the same pace. The land could get barren. More than the numbers, it will be the quality (which in turn retains the interest of people contributing to it) that would sustain the projects. And if we continue like this, there might be a time when nothing would grow even with the best of the funds thrown in.
Cheers,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org wrote:
cross-posting to foundation-l & internal-l from India Community list; apologies if you've read this already.
hisham
Begin forwarded message:
From: Hisham hmundol@wikimedia.org Subject: Wikimedia India Program Trust Date: November 11, 2011 9:55:00 AM GMT+05:30 To: Wikimedia India Community list <wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Folks, I'm writing to share an update with you on certain developments of
relevance to the Wikimedia movement in India.
Announcement of Wikimedia India Program Trust For some time, efforts have gone into creating an organization that
would provide an appropriate structure to support Wikimedia program activities in India. Aspects such as the current regulatory framework (regarding funding, taxation, etc.) as well as the legal protection for the India team have been considered to determine this structure. In this context, a host of options (e.g. subsidiary, branch, Section 25) were evaluated and a determination was made towards an independent non-profit public trust. Legal advice has been taken at every stage in this decision.
A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has now been formed
and registered (in Delhi.) This will be the organization that will eventually drive India programs and house the team in India.
Why an Independent Public Trust? The Trust will provide an effective vehicle within India to marshal
resources to support programs and partner with local institutions. The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various projects with an India focus. It is important to understand that the Trust will not have any editorial control over content on any of the Wikimedia projects. The Trust is a not for profit organization.
Introduction of Trustees Trustees have been identified based upon their support for Wikimedia
movement's principles and plans in addition to having reputations for good governance and management.
Sunil Abraham and Rahul Matthan have been requested to be the initial
Trustees. Both are friends of Wikipedia and have extensive experience.
Sunil is Executive Director of the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS),
is a long term advocate of free software and IP reform and has been supporting the Wikimedia community and movement for some time now.
Rahul is a partner and heads the technology practice at Trilegal. He
brings deep expertise and relationships that will be valuable for the Trust.
These initial Trustees will serve for a term of three years at the
maximum. All additional or subsequent Trustees will serve on rotation in accordance with a trustee selection plan that will be prepared.
Trustees will not be compensated for their services.
Governance, Funding, Financial Standards & Communications of the Trust The Trust will be governed by Trustees who will provide oversight and
guidance regarding the operations and governance of the Trust.
Since the Trust is an independent organization, it will require funding
for its operations which is in compliance with the legal and regulatory framework in India. It will seek funding from private donors within India as well as external sources.
The Trust has the support of the Wikimedia Foundation which is a United
States based non-profit foundation. However, in India all non-profit organizations need to be in existence for 3 years before they can receive funding from sources outside India. In the interim, they can apply for prior-permission under the FCRA regulations to help expedite the process. As a result, the Trust will shortly be applying for approval to receive funds from the Wikimedia Foundation in the future.
As a Trust, we are required to have an independent external auditor. We
have appointed KPMG. KPMG is experienced in auditing non-profit companies and are also auditors for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Annually, the Trust will publicly disclose it's independently audited
financial statements.
The Trust will publish a monthly newsletter outlining its current
activities and future plans. This will commence in December 2011.
Operations of the Trust The trust deed under which the Trust must operate clearly states that
the purpose of the Trust is to independently promote the growth of volunteer activities within India in support of effective and unrestricted dissemination of free knowledge to the public.
I will serve as the Executive Director of the Trust. Once it is
possible, additional employees will be brought on to the Trust
The Trust will eventually have an office in Delhi.
In the interim, I have personally secured temporary office space to
facilitate establishing the Trust and its mission. It is located at Top Floor, G-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. It's a couple of minutes walk away from IIT Flyover and Hauz Khas Metro. Do drop in! It's a small but cozy place and we'd love to have you over!
Conclusion We continue to make progress in setting up program activities to support
the growth of Wikimedia in India. We have a long way to go, but are glad that we are starting to build a solid foundation.
The following link is for FAQs on this (and related) topics:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FAQ_India_Programs/FAQ_Wikimedia_India_Progra...
As always, do reach out if you have any comments or questions.
Warm Regards,
hisham
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org