I'm more inclined to criticize the budget and spending priorities of the WMF, to tell the truth. The various budgets for the WCA primarily went wrong in assuming that the WMF itself would provide the cash, a truly odd plan given the role the WCA's boosters saw for it. My own opinion is that it was that intermediary, adversary role (which one person recently compared to a union opposing corporate interests) that doomed the WCA. But there is a good point to make about the envisioned support role. It's difficult to understand how a single lawyer, or a single firm, was intended to provide legal support of any utility to chapters in 40 countries. And pitching the WCA's level of professionalism at a degree to where it could help out the largest chapters seems like an odd strategy, when it's the smallest and newest that would need the kind of help the WCA could provide. As a lot of other people have said, there is clearly a role out there for a support organization that helps chapters develop. But I don't think the WCA, as it has been modeled, is the right organization for that role. I don't know if it is the people who were involved at various points, or the environment in the movement at the time a formal body was proposed, but the attitude and approach for the WCA has been wrong for a long time and the WMF is right to not support the current incarnation. ~Nathan

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote: attract), in part because they wonder why they're writing for free for an organization that pays people to do other things. So I agree with Doc James that it would be great if the focus on payment could be reversed a little. Or else spread some money around the editing community in ways that won't cause COI problems. But as things stand, we ought to assume that the growth of the paid bureaucracy and the shrinking of the volunteer editor community might be connected. Sarah

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: +1. A key issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_motivation This is also an issue in the context of paid editing, which Dirk Franke (Benutzer:Southpark) is currently looking at as part of his own (paid) project on paid editing. Related discussions: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:WikiProjekt_Umgang_mit_be… While paid editing is a slightly different topic from a paid bureaucracy, there are some elements in common. If gravy trains are allowed to develop, this will cost the movement dearly in terms of genuine volunteers' dedication (James being a prime example). It's profoundly demotivating. It makes you feel alienated, like a dupe. (If we have to pay anyone from donations, I would rather see micropayments made to editors and content contributors.) Minderbinder, one of the contributors to discussions around Dirk's project, created a really great graphic to illustrate the motivation problem in the context of paid editing, which I wanted to share here. In English looks like this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vicious_circle_of_paid_editing.jpg [image: File:Vicious circle of paid editing.jpg] Personally I am pessimistic as to the chances the movement has of avoiding the pitfalls of paid editing, paid consultancy, and paid bureaucracy. My feeling is that people will increasingly seek to monetise their involvement, or stop contributing. Andreas

hi Theo, On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote: my personal view is that at some stage of development staff indeed does add value and is necessary for more complex operations. From this point of view, it is clear that international collaboration, best practices sharing, cross-border initiatives, etc. (all primarily within the scope of interest of WCA or any other organization addressing it) do or soon will need some structure and probably staff support. So, all in all, the question is not whether in our movement as a whole we can rely only and exclusively on volunteers - we know in some things we can't, and in some it creates more challenges than savings. The question is whether the problems WCA is going to address can be addressed by already existing structures (e.g. by relying on one of the already existing chapters - after all, WCA could be a subproject in an existing budget, and still be managed by the council for all practical purposes, the issue of incorporation is a matter of bureaucracy rather than of actual initiatives fulfillment). If the new structures need to be created (and I understand there has been quite a bit of thought given to the issue and legal, accounting and incorporating costs are considered inevitable), the community at large should probably be given a strong, plausible and persuasive rationale for this, and also consulted in a typically wikimedic manner. Instead, the serious wide discussion on WCA starts only now, after the Board's statement. The way I understood WCA idea the first time I heard about it was, among others, reducing bureaucracy, and increasing openness and transparency of actions. So far, at least on the surface level, the structures dominate over the actual serving the community (there is a council, there's been a long process of choosing a place to incorporate supported by professional consultant(s), there is a secretary general being hired; but there is no roadmap of what is going to be actually done yet). It may be just a passing stage, but this is how it looks for now and possibly casts a shadow over the whole project. Also, the openness and transparency are probably not the strongest points of the initiative. There is a closed mailing list for discussions, decision-making is not fully conducted with the input of the community at large. I understand there may be good reasons for keeping your strategy closed. I also understand that WCA council/managing board feels empowered to represent the participating chapter representatives, the chapter representatives do feel empowered to represent the chapters, and the chapters feel empowered to represent the local communities they serve. But all this, while typical for regular organizations, is not so usual in Wikimedia movement. Three layers of representation distance the initiative from regular editors - even more it is needed to consult and discuss the actions and decisions with the community. I know that WMF was often criticized in the past for being too distant from the community in its planning, too hierarchical, or too bureaucratic - perhaps this could be a lesson that all stakeholders in Wikimedia movement could learn from, and actively oppose the detachment in their own business. Openness, minimal hierarchy, flexibility, goals before structures - these are the values I'd typically associate with Wikimedia. Here's the thing: it is difficult to relate to this argumentation when the community at large has not been offered a possibility to discuss the place of incorporation, right? Even in Europe there is plenty of countries where the minimum wage from Switzerland (not existing, AFAIK, but nevermind) may be way more than enough to cover the exact same expenses and leave quite a lot for the others. Why Belgium or Switzerland and not Hungary, Czech Republic, or Bulgaria? You don't even have to have a strong Wikimedia chapter in a given country to start operating, what you may need though is reducing costs whenever possible without a loss to quality, and also to a lesser extent sending the right message (reaching out across borders, etc.). Again, I totally understand that Belgium or Switzerland have been chosen after careful consideration, but the process has not been transparent and you cannot expect the outcome to be widely accepted and unquestioned just on the face value. Just saying that "it's not for you to decide what is appropriate" will not win WCA any community support, while sharing the reasons for the choices may help build credibility for the idea. A similar issue: we've been discussing a number of times two rejected drafts of WCA budgets. What we have not seen is the actual approved budget that WCA wants to operate on. In the same time a secretary general is being hired. It may be my professional bias, or the fact that I don't know WCA strategy, but I find it at least unusual to start staffing prior to making plans, strategies, and final budgeting, simply because staff is usually meant to support concrete initiatives (and it would seem that you believe this is the purpose for staffing, too). What are those initiatives and why is there no budget, nor a strategic plan ready? If they are ready, why have they not been discussed with the community? Asking about this is not meant to be overly inquisitive, I'm honestly trying to figure out how it is meant to work in your view and why it makes financial sense. I really, really, really would like to see WCA, or a similar initiative, work - simply because I think our movement needs it direly. But I think I'm not the only one out here who is surprised by the turn of events, the lack of discussion or at least detailed reasoning, etc. If you believe that there is some value in community support at all, now it would be a good time to work on it. I'm pretty sure WCA has all that is needed, it has just failed to disclose it to the public. best, Dariusz (a.k.a. "pundit")