Hello
Not sure anyone realise that here, but... my suggestion to go for a model such as the Apache Foundation is not entirely gratuitious.
2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members. For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of you may remember the discussion around the member dues. That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of you and I represented no one :-)
At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of volunteer representative/member representative.
Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*. I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole sections about membership : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
Does that section fit with reality ?
---------
Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.
This new version has a very short "membership section".
The community is still taken into account in ARTICLE II, where a new section has been proposed (section 4).
Board members selection process is in ARTICLE III, section 3.
The rest of the bylaws are a huge improvement compared to current ones.
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP The Foundation shall have no members.
ARTICLE II Section 4. Community. The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.
ARTICLE IV Section 3. Selection. The Trustees shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified. Selection shall be in the following manner: (1) Trustees Elected from the Community. At least two (2) Trustees shall be selected from the Community by vote of the Community. The Board of Trustees shall determine the dates, rules and regulation of the voting procedures; they shall appoint two Inspectors of the Election from the Community to oversee the election procedures who shall report and certify the results within thirty days of any vote. (2) Other Trustees. The remaining number of Trustees shall be elected by the Board. Names of individuals shall be nominated for selection by the Board. The Board shall endeavor to select Trustees who will best fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation. Individuals who are not selected unanimously may be elected by a majority of the Board.
--------
These bylaws have not been approved. They are still in the draft mode. For all I know, they could stay here forever, because beside myself, I did not see other board members working on them. And I did not really see any comments from them either.
I am uncertain whether I should give much energy on new bylaws, even if the current official ones are nonsense within the current situation. Uncertain because of the lack of reaction of board members, and the near lack of reaction of the community. Being just a board member, I can not *force* the other board members to vote. I am not in charge of organising meetings where we could vote or at least discuss together. In short, if a resolution to approve new bylaws is set up, I have NO certainty this will *ever* result in an approved resolution.
It takes a lot of energy to work on a topic when it is so pointedly ignored by peers.
Hence my trying to turn toward you. How many editors work on the projects ? thousands How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0 How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5
As I said... it takes a lot of energy...
But please, try to see the big picture ...
----------
Our current bylaws describe a very mixed model, which has been much complained about in the past 2 years (I criticized it myself when it was originally proposed). It has 2 members elected by the community, for a limited time And 3 members, appointed by Jimbo, and permanent till they die or resign And does not limit members to 5.... but makes no mention of how increase would be done.
The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki) is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation membership.
Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy members in the future. DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2 famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only. Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9. Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such case, they would be appointed.
What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision. Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.
The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a collective running. This is very much the model of our local associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european; whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much american and hard to understand by europeans.
----------
Which model would be better in our case ?
I dunno really.
One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional. I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4 meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the business. And little by little, disinterest by the community. But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms, the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy. More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.
The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise, because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and citizens all over the world. I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of the boiling culture.
In the end, I think there is both a cultural clash in what we are trying to set up... and an issue of courage.
If we pick up the first model, I think things can go very quickly and with little pain. This summer, at Wikimania, we'll meet big names (I say "we" because Jimbo already have breakfast with them regularly... but the board should appoint them... so it would be nice that the board members actually know the people they get recommandation to appoint). We can think of who would be best asset, just ask him, and by september, we'll have a nice board with new big names and maybe one community member we like. And with luck, more money, more introduction and new opportunities.
If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The community (and not Delphine and I alone :-)) will need to do its homework. Seriously discuss a mean to select members. Seriously discuss organisation. And not only stay mute on the list or not only say "this will never work" or not only blame the board just to be so inefficient without proposing solutions. We'll need to sweat together. And we'll need to convince quite a few people that this is the way to go.
I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it *alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no *active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned on the board wiki.
I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits, we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be successful ?
As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty (estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one would be best for you).
I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*. This model is humiliating to me. The big actors in this model would be the big names, which I do not have the chance to meet or talk with. The strategy of the Foundation would be done between Jimbo and the big names in 5 stars conference halls or in far-away islands, where no one will ever think of inviting me (eh, best to keep the circle of people small).
I will simply be offered the results of brainstorms of important people to implement and vote upon (I don't know why I use future, this is already happening). I will have the great opportunity to prepare the path of the big people in doing their homework so that they better shine. Community representatives would be second rate board member.
The other people in the Foundation would be the staff, who would make a (good) living of what I do full time for free (and who receive the religious ceremonies from community when the board gets the fire).
I say "I", but I am quite convinced many would feel just the same.
That would leave the benefit of working for a great cause... But would the biggest cause be the projects ? Or the Foundation ?
--------
Where are we in these models right now ?
In the middle. We have some community representant, but the relations between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help reducing the lack of communication.
But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.
At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need to set up the organisation (on a type of Apache model for example). We need to convince those who are not convinced.
If you want to do a more Business Foundation, the bylaws are ready to be voted upon. Members are knocking at the door.
A very bad thing would be to stay forever in the middle of two seats, with unsuitable bylaws, disorganisation, frustrated community and angry board members.
Sorry for the long rant. I hope it clarifies the current situation.
Anthere
Hiya,
Thanks for the long and insightful posts to this list recently. Some quick thoughts.
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP The Foundation shall have no members.
Opt-in membership is useful; I always liked the idea, regardless of whether or how dues were set up.
ARTICLE II Section 4. Community. The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.
This would be an unfortunate first sentence. Foundations do not usually acknowledge the contributions of projects they support. The contributions of donors, perhaps...
More generally : I am surprised to see the term "volunteer" has come to be used in these discussions as a way of distinguishing some contributors form the Foundation; at times in a lightly patronizing context ('volunteer' as opposed to 'professional' / 'expert' / 'dedicated')... similar to the way "amateur" has come to mean "dilletante" or "unpaid" rather than "connoisseur".
I expect that Wikipedians of all people have a sense of generativity, active creation, and public responsibility which transcends the notion of 'volunteering' for a cause.
When one returns home to fix the plumbing in a parents' house, does one call it "volunteering"? No. Participating in a barn-raising for a neighbor, or rebuilding one's own community after a storm? Likewise no. Neither is it "volunteering" to create part of a public art project, tend a community garden, write the biography of a hero, or spending an evening in language-exchange.
Wikipedians "contributing" to the public store of knowledge are simply doing for their own global community what most people on the planet should come to do -- sharing what they know, and helping others do the same.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:
Hence my trying to turn toward you. How many editors work on the projects ? thousands
[over 100,000]
How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred
[only? when was the last time a call for sign-ups went out?]
How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0 How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5
[more coming...]
This model was fascinating, though a lot to digest. (It would be even more fascinating to see one or two other models, and hear details of how and why they were set up.)
Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
A pity, for a foundation with as much promise as this one has to change the world.
The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a
Right.
Which model would be better in our case ?
One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional. I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4 meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the business. And little by little, disinterest by the community.
But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms, the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy. More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.
I don't know. The best support of the projects and goals that I can imagine doesn't stem directly from money, but from an ever-increasing community participation; something which Wikipedia and other projects have enjoyed to date.
The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise, because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and citizens all over the world. I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of the boiling culture.
I wouldn't say "by free-movement organizations and citizens" -- but simply "by individuals" all over the world. Many people who don't get 'free culture' or 'FOSS' at all, and don't care, get Wikipedia (great project) -- and get *really* interested when they find out the extent to which it is guided by a broad and milling community.
Tangentially, it's not at all clear to me that this would mean less money in the long run; more to the point, goals of generating and distributing content may be better served without that intermediary.
If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The
Also a chance for community members to reflect on the best that they have gotten from the projects, and the best that they have seen in the world; regardless of which model is picked, it would be better if a few hundred community members took this analysis and brainstorming seriously so that it was a considered choice and not a default one based on what is easiest.
I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits, we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be successful ?
Not only successful. Exuberantly, outrageously successful, orders of magnitude beyond the dreams of the initial participants. There are subtleties in what has worked here that have never before been effectively explored. Some are still mysterious, which is why small groups of editors / meta-editors / policy writers often have trouble tapping them as needed to work on specific projects.
I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*.
Do you think it has value for the general good?
between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help reducing the lack of communication.
But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.
At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need
It is hard to get feedback on newly drafted bylaws when they are not public. How could the community help draft new bylaws that were different from what has been written?
Sorry for the long rant. I hope it clarifies the current situation.
Anthere
Thanks again. Catching up on email, SJ
Samuel Klein wrote:
ARTICLE II Section 4. Community. The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.
This would be an unfortunate first sentence. Foundations do not usually acknowledge the contributions of projects they support. The contributions of donors, perhaps...
More generally : I am surprised to see the term "volunteer" has come to be used in these discussions as a way of distinguishing some contributors form the Foundation; at times in a lightly patronizing context ('volunteer' as opposed to 'professional' / 'expert' / 'dedicated')... similar to the way "amateur" has come to mean "dilletante" or "unpaid" rather than "connoisseur".
I expect that Wikipedians of all people have a sense of generativity, active creation, and public responsibility which transcends the notion of 'volunteering' for a cause.
When one returns home to fix the plumbing in a parents' house, does one call it "volunteering"? No. Participating in a barn-raising for a neighbor, or rebuilding one's own community after a storm? Likewise no. Neither is it "volunteering" to create part of a public art project, tend a community garden, write the biography of a hero, or spending an evening in language-exchange.
Wikipedians "contributing" to the public store of knowledge are simply doing for their own global community what most people on the planet should come to do -- sharing what they know, and helping others do the same.
My objections are to the whole section. That would not be fixed by semantic variations on the word "volunteer"
Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
A pity, for a foundation with as much promise as this one has to change the world.
The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be garanteed from the community. There would be term limits.
Right.
These are the important distinctions if we are ever to avoid being overrun by corporatism.
The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise, because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and citizens all over the world. I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of the boiling culture.
I wouldn't say "by free-movement organizations and citizens" -- but simply "by individuals" all over the world. Many people who don't get 'free culture' or 'FOSS' at all, and don't care, get Wikipedia (great project) -- and get *really* interested when they find out the extent to which it is guided by a broad and milling community.
Yes, it is easy to interpret public perceptions as something more than what they are. Editors who find that things are going well in the article set that interests them are not going to feel at all concerned with governance issues. When you raise these philosophical issues with them the most intelligent response will be, "Duh?" If you press them to take a stand the results will be unpredictable. Perhaps I'm a little more cynical in saying that they don't give a damn what kind of community it comes from.
I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits, we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be successful ?
Not only successful. Exuberantly, outrageously successful, orders of magnitude beyond the dreams of the initial participants. There are subtleties in what has worked here that have never before been effectively explored. Some are still mysterious, which is why small groups of editors / meta-editors / policy writers often have trouble tapping them as needed to work on specific projects.
Definitely! A soft stream of air when starting a compfire will encourage it to grow. A hard wind is likely to put it out.
Ec
On 6/16/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello
Not sure anyone realise that here, but... my suggestion to go for a model such as the Apache Foundation is not entirely gratuitious.
2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members. For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of you may remember the discussion around the member dues. That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of you and I represented no one :-)
At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of volunteer representative/member representative.
You seem to be implying here that the original bylaws only provided for "contributing" members. This is incorrect. According to the original bylaws, "all persons interested in supporting the activities of the Foundation who have contributed under a user name to any Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline" are volunteer members. Angela represented the volunteer members. You represented both the volunteer members *and* the contributing active members (of which there were none).
Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*. I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole sections about membership : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
Does that section fit with reality ?
It provides for a type of member which doesn't exist, and in my opinion should not exist. It needs to be modified, but it doesn't *have* to be completely overhauled.
Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.
This new version has a very short "membership section".
[snip]
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP The Foundation shall have no members.
So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new bylaws have *no one* as members. Unfortunately, it seems to be possible for three members of the board to make this change. I urge all the board members to vote against it. At the very least, I hope the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to see what they think about the idea.
The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki) is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation membership.
That is only the reality of the situation because the board has made it so. According to the bylaws, the membership "shall consist of all persons interested in supporting the activities of the Foundation who have contributed under a user name to any Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline. The only other qualification for membership shall be the creation of a user account on some Wikimedia project. Volunteer Active Members shall have all the privileges of active members."
Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad. At the least, one should be required to submit an application providing ones identity. But to say that the fact that the membership is defined too broadly is equivalent to there being no membership at all is not at all valid.
Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy members in the future. DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2 famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only. Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9. Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such case, they would be appointed.
What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision. Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.
Again I think your terminology is confusing. Right now there are 4 members of the board who are part of the community, and there is 1 member who very well might not be on the board much longer. Only 2 members of the board were *voted in* by the community, but that doesn't mean they are the only members who are part of the community.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It makes absolutely no sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community. I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.
The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a collective running. This is very much the model of our local associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european; whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much american and hard to understand by europeans.
I don't think the American/European dichotomy is a valid one. There are a large number of membership non-profit organizations in the United States. In fact, I'd guess most public charities in the US are membership based organizations.
Now maybe it's true that Europeans don't have very many private non-membership foundations. I don't know about this.
I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it *alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no *active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned on the board wiki.
I don't think very many of the current members (let's say, everyone who voted in one of the two elections) are aware that there is currently a proposal to take away their membership. I'll have to think about how best to publicise this.
As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty (estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one would be best for you).
If the foundation explicitly drops its members I think the community will grow more and more distant. I think at some point there will be a fork, and the foundation will lose everything but a couple now-worthless trademarks.
If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will be a fork. Ultimately I don't know if this is a good thing or not, though. That depends on how effectively the model is implemented.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/16/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello
Not sure anyone realise that here, but... my suggestion to go for a model such as the Apache Foundation is not entirely gratuitious.
2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members. For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of you may remember the discussion around the member dues. That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of you and I represented no one :-)
At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of volunteer representative/member representative.
You seem to be implying here that the original bylaws only provided for "contributing" members. This is incorrect. According to the original bylaws, "all persons interested in supporting the activities of the Foundation who have contributed under a user name to any Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline" are volunteer members. Angela represented the volunteer members. You represented both the volunteer members *and* the contributing active members (of which there were none).
My memory is that I represented only contributing active...so no one. But the whole issue has been dropped down anyway, so it does not matter at all, *except* that this is still what is in the bylaws.
Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*. I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole sections about membership : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
Does that section fit with reality ?
It provides for a type of member which doesn't exist, and in my opinion should not exist. It needs to be modified, but it doesn't *have* to be completely overhauled.
True. No more than 50% needs rewritting ;-)
Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.
This new version has a very short "membership section".
[snip]
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP The Foundation shall have no members.
So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new bylaws have *no one* as members. Unfortunately, it seems to be possible for three members of the board to make this change. I urge all the board members to vote against it. At the very least, I hope the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to see what they think about the idea.
What the f*** do you think I am currently doing Anthony ???
It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you to have answered.
Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.
The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki) is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation membership.
That is only the reality of the situation because the board has made it so. According to the bylaws, the membership "shall consist of all persons interested in supporting the activities of the Foundation who have contributed under a user name to any Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline. The only other qualification for membership shall be the creation of a user account on some Wikimedia project. Volunteer Active Members shall have all the privileges of active members."
Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad. At the least, one should be required to submit an application providing ones identity. But to say that the fact that the membership is defined too broadly is equivalent to there being no membership at all is not at all valid.
I agree. Now, who is interested in making the application ? And who is interested in filling up the database of members with the paper forms ? These are practical issues. Another practical issue is that I am currently the only board member interested in trying to do that. Given that trying to rewrite bylaws is meant to take a few hours, I'd be happy to know what you guys think and what other board members think.
And I get mostly silence.
Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy members in the future. DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2 famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only. Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9. Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such case, they would be appointed.
What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision. Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.
Again I think your terminology is confusing. Right now there are 4 members of the board who are part of the community, and there is 1 member who very well might not be on the board much longer. Only 2 members of the board were *voted in* by the community, but that doesn't mean they are the only members who are part of the community.
I am a bit confused here. I think only JImbo, Angela and myself are part of the community...
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It makes absolutely no sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community. I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.
It does make sense to have famous members on the board so as to improve our image in terms of professionalism. Because these guys may be great strategists. Because they can bring us the weight of another organisation which would improve our own standing. Because they could help us get more funds. Because they could help in bringing another vision or another perspective that current members of the community do not have.
The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a collective running. This is very much the model of our local associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european; whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much american and hard to understand by europeans.
I don't think the American/European dichotomy is a valid one. There are a large number of membership non-profit organizations in the United States. In fact, I'd guess most public charities in the US are membership based organizations.
Now maybe it's true that Europeans don't have very many private non-membership foundations. I don't know about this.
I know only membership associations in France. Foundations are very very very unusual in France at least. Usually, there are created by big bosses who need to use part of their commercial benefits in a charity.
I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it *alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no *active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned on the board wiki.
I don't think very many of the current members (let's say, everyone who voted in one of the two elections) are aware that there is currently a proposal to take away their membership. I'll have to think about how best to publicise this.
Since there will still be two elected members, I think most would not care.
We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the board by 2 more members. Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself. There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members. Elected are renewed every 2 years.
My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of more.
Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.
My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new proposition AND that board members vote. Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.
So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and 5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.
As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty (estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one would be best for you).
If the foundation explicitly drops its members I think the community will grow more and more distant. I think at some point there will be a fork, and the foundation will lose everything but a couple now-worthless trademarks.
If the Foundation explicitely drops members, I think more associations will erupt. The Foundation will have its own life with big guys, staff and those of us with clear political goals, and the associations will have other lives, with the community input.
At least, that is a possibility :-)
If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will be a fork. Ultimately I don't know if this is a good thing or not, though. That depends on how effectively the model is implemented.
Anthony
Anthere wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the board by 2 more members. Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself. There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members. Elected are renewed every 2 years.
My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of more.
Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.
My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new proposition AND that board members vote. Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.
So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and 5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.
Oh, an important clarification. Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least the majority should be from the community.
The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united team with complementary skills. The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit diversity of view points.
Ant
We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the board by 2 more members. Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself. There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members. Elected are renewed every 2 years.
My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones.
To have a
clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of more.
Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.
My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new proposition AND that board members vote. Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.
So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and 5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.
Oh, an important clarification. Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least the majority should be from the community.
The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united team with complementary skills. The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit diversity of view points.
Ant
Apart from persons named above I believe only Delphine made a strong case in recent discussions against voting for all board members? Am I right?
For me the major drawback to "appointed" would be that the community (the people that made Wikimedia happen) is not acknowledged for what it achieved so far. The community has been and is competent enough to build a encyclopedia in a few years that ranks among the best. The community has been competent enough to elect two worthy representatives. Most community members have higher education (unproven, but I doubt many would contest this).
I probably won't make myself more popular with what follows, but I favour candidness, while being respectful: I think Jimbo is a great guy, with tremendous vision and drive, and a friendly person. But with all that Jimbo did for Wikimedia, which is a tremendous amount and which may indeed lead him to the Nobel Price some day, it is still an undeniable fact that others (read: the community) did collectively much more, orders of magnitude more. Jimbo invested huge sums of money. Volunteers might have made huge amounts of money had they not spent so much of their free time on this project, I'm sure again orders of magnitude more than Jimbo has. For me it would be great if Jimbo kept his life long membership to the board, as a sincere token of appreciation, but I feel it is over the top, if he treats the foundation as something he has special rights to forever, at least morally.
It can't be that a single person, and members from his close inner circle, be it business partners or other people he knows and values, formally have a final say over a global movement indefinitely, and extend their grip on the organisation through co-optation indefinitely.
I can imagine three reasons why Jimbo would want to bypass elections for at least part of the board:
1 Concern that the community does not have all required skills, and therefore experts from outside need to be imposed. 2 Concern that the community does not have all required information/knowledge to make wise decisions. 3 Concern that the community or possibly a future community does not have the best of motives and wants to hijack the organisation.
ad 1: It is imaginable that the community lacks certain skills. To me it would help if the community thinks so too. If this is not the case, and the board decides to overule the community, how else to call this than 'paternalism'? If board and community agree on this, outside candidates for the board could be proposed, discussed and elected like any internal candidates. No need for appointments.
ad 2: This is probably true, and I still fear becomes more true all the time. I'm cautiously concerned when a non-profit organisation can't discuss most deals in the open, at least in general terms, and has no approved guidelines for which issues can be settled behind closed doors. As stated earlier, to me it would be OK to delegate authority from the community to the board, but delegation is what mattters here.
ad 3: This would be a major concern for me too. But I tbink reasonable precautions can be taken to avoid that say Greenland or the veganist society (to name two unlikely examples deliberately) launches a dedicated attack to take over the foundation by ordering all its inhabitants/members to sign up and vote. At least if we discuss this fear in the open we can discuss appropriate precautions.
Erik Zachte
Erik Zachte wrote:
I probably won't make myself more popular with what follows, but I favour candidness, while being respectful: I think Jimbo is a great guy, with tremendous vision and drive, and a friendly person. But with all that Jimbo did for Wikimedia, which is a tremendous amount and which may indeed lead him to the Nobel Price some day, it is still an undeniable fact that others (read: the community) did collectively much more, orders of magnitude more. Jimbo invested huge sums of money. Volunteers might have made huge amounts of money had they not spent so much of their free time on this project, I'm sure again orders of magnitude more than Jimbo has. For me it would be great if Jimbo kept his life long membership to the board, as a sincere token of appreciation, but I feel it is over the top, if he treats the foundation as something he has special rights to forever, at least morally.
You make yourself perfectly popular with me, because I could not have said it better myself. I think one of the most important things that we can recognize about this conversation is that I do not expect my own perspective to be absolutely definitive. I do not think that the foundation is something I have special rights to, not forever, and not even right now.
As it stands right now we have a real board of 5 members, of whom I am only one. In our internal board work, everyone has an independent voice and vote, no problem.
I am an advocate of two basic principles with respect to the longterm governance of the foundation. First, the board must carefully defend the values that have brought us together, including freedom of content, openness to participation, an atmosphere of human dignity and respect, and a slow reasoned approach to change. Second, the board must have a diversity of mechanisms for participation, and a diversity of membership.
There are great Wikimedians who are willing to go through the trollfest of an election. There are great Wikimedians who are not. There are amazing people with a passion for our mission who are inside the community, and there are amazing people with a passion for our mission who are not.
There are great editors who become famous within Wikipedia and who can be elected to the board. There are great business people, great lawyers, great thinkers who are not editors and not so widely known to the community.
My view is that a majority of the board should always come from within the community, some by election, some by appointment. But my view is also that a healthy organization should have brilliant people with specialized knowledge and skills who are also outside the organization, to give a strong outside perspective, to help prevent the board from going over a cliff of group-think, etc.
As with most things, I think that a cautious hybrid approach works best.
--Jimbo
Anthere wrote:
The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united team with complementary skills. The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit diversity of view points.
Hmm, actually I view diversity of viewpoints as one of the strengths of an appointment method. It is easy for us to get people who think exactly as we do, but it could be very interesting I think to find some major important academic (as an example) to join the board to provide a different perspective from what we have now.
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:
make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.
I am definitely interested. It would be revitalizing for those who don't know where they stand vis-a-vis the foundation and are feeling anxious about it... but want to be involved.
Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad. At the least, one should be required to submit an application providing ones identity. But to say that the fact that the membership
I agree. Now, who is interested in making the application ? And who is interested in filling up the database of members with the paper forms ? These are practical issues.
Not quite answering your question, but...
The application need not be complicated; - user name on a wikimedia project if applicable - optional contribution* - real name and address; - privacy : whether this membership can be made public, whether the real name can be made public - spam : whether future emails or updates are desired (note that one yearly notice will be sent to all members; checkbox for preferring snail mail or email)
* or, as per the older proposal, how much is being contributed (regular / discounted dues) with a check of the length and degree of contribution for the latter
As for who would fill the database, presumably these would be sent to the foundation office...
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It makes absolutely no sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community. I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.
It does make sense to have famous members on the board so as to improve our image in terms of professionalism. Because these guys may be great strategists. Because they can bring us the weight of another organisation which would improve our own standing. Because they could help us get more funds. Because they could help in bringing another vision or another perspective that current members of the community do not have.
It is entirely possible to have a board of trustees, with executive duties, and a separate board of advisors; which could provide for image, strategy, standing, goodwill, fundraising help, and extra perspective. This has been suggested before; I recall some very old pages on Meta listing who in the world might make good advisors.
My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
Both the overlapping terms and the division of appointment/election sound fine. It seems that at any rate the bylaws have to be modified...
If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will
The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to do this?
SJ
On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to do this?
SJ
I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre. Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something. You give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member. You attend a meeting of other members, maybe, and perhaps you are part of a particular local organization of that group. Churches, civic organizations, soup kitchens, environmental groups, etc., all exist in this paradigm for good reason; they include as part of their fundamental mission a dichotomy between those who *are* in the group and those who *are not* in the group.
Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism and respect for the contributions of *everyone*. There is no us and them - if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are. It's simple, and only goes in one direction. If you edit enough, you can vote for a person you want to see on the board. Without money changing hands, you have the same representation you would under any other circumstances. The Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place indeed. What happens to members who don't pay? Are they prevented from editing? If there is no meaningful distinction in categorization of either one or the other, what exactly is the point in the first place, except to give those who are interested and active another membership ID in their wallet - and this is the point - which confers no additional rights or privileges?
As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be respected. As soon as you cross the line into a "real world" membership situation, that is undermined substantially, if not eliminated. To be sure, we have anonymous donors now. But that is a quid without a quo - it is a gift from an unknown individual to an organization they want to support. Membership cannot be sustained the same way for any valid reason...there is, again, no meaningful distinction.
The essence of this openness to all will be lost as soon as an us/them dichotomy is established. It does not exist today, except as a relic of the bylaws which are long overdue to be changed. The badges of "membership" - if you give money, if you contribute to projects, if you volunteer for various positions in the organization - all exist independent of that. Other than providing a political means for takeover of the organization directly (and that's a whole other conversation), I don't see the point.
The Apache model has some strengths, but my personal opinion is that the difference between producing software alone and producing encyclopedias, news, etc. yields a gap that is difficult to close. My hats are off to the Apache folks. But they have a much more narrow mission and fewer moving parts to achieve that mission. Different parts of the free culture movement are more or less affected by each undertaking of the Foundation, and are of varying degrees of interest to many. I think the Foundation's mission is simply too broad to decide to govern it through direct reliance on formalized elected constituencies. Creating representation from the existing pattern of projects is also inherently political. If the Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be towards languages and projects with many fewer articles and users now, and millions more speakers and writers worldwide yet to be connected. So, there is a shift ahead no matter which way you look at it, provided the projects continue to grow as they have.
Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion, as some have done. Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
-Brad
On 6/17/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to do this?
SJ
I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre. Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something. You give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member.
Not necessarily dues. Calling oneself a member is often a null quid and provides nothing that is actually used by the member, save the sense of belonging and support...
Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism and respect for the contributions of *everyone*. There is no us and them - if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are. It's simple, and only goes in one direction. If you edit enough, you can vote for a person you want to see on the board. Without money changing hands, you have the same representation you would under any other circumstances.
Money isn't the issue here. There's nothing wrong with a membership system that requires no dues. "If you edit enough" -- that's what one currently gives in exchange for the right to vote.
Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place indeed. What happens to members who don't pay? Are they prevented from editing?
I don't know where you are getting any of this...
As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be respected.
That was a quick cut and paste from previous discussions on meta; there are subtle issues of pseudonymity to handle -- does it matter if one Real Person has many different membership carsd? How much does it matter? How well can we improve our tech infrastructure to provide for filling out forms authenticated by project user-id? And also issues of privacy -- if some part of the Foundation knows something about a user (IP, real name, phone number), how many others will come to know the same thing?
We would all benefit from a more subtle discussion of these matters, even aside from membership.
like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
Yes. I'm very glad that you are participating in it.
SJ
Brad:
We may disagree on various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope
everyone agrees the
conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
Yes. I'm very glad that you are participating in it.
SJ
I'll break my self imposed rule and send a mail just to say I agree on all the above.
Erik Zachte
What are the benefits of membership?
On 6/17/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
< you get to "belong" and call yourself a member.
I would say this sums it up well. Not necessarily based on dues; the definition of membership helps people identify with a group or cause. Some people like the foundation and would want to be members. Others would not. Those that would, might be glad to have a little icon or <cough> userbox to put on their user page, might be willing to answer some basic information about themselves such as a general survey, might be glad to have the opportunity to sign up for regular information or to be reminded about events such as fund drives and conferences. By making a small effort each year to identify as members, they would have a stronger sense of participation in the Foundation.
When becoming a member of my local NPR affiliate, I have the 'right' to be solicited by them to renew my membership. I'm not aware of any other rights I have; though I get some member-related swag. Nevertheless, I feel good about said membership process, better than just saying "yes, I'm a listener".
As to anonymity...
in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be respected.
I don't know anyone actively interested in being a member of the foundation (whatever that means) who wants their identity to be hidden *from the foundation*. Hidden from other editors and from the general public, perhaps. I can imagine the former being the case in a theoretical sense; but I would like to know of a single example so that we're not setting up a complete hypothetical as a strawman.
SJ
Brad Patrick wrote:
On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to do this?
SJ
I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre. Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something. You give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member. You attend a meeting of other members, maybe, and perhaps you are part of a particular local organization of that group. Churches, civic organizations, soup kitchens, environmental groups, etc., all exist in this paradigm for good reason; they include as part of their fundamental mission a dichotomy between those who *are* in the group and those who *are not* in the group.
Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism and respect for the contributions of *everyone*. There is no us and them - if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are. It's simple, and only goes in one direction. If you edit enough, you can vote for a person you want to see on the board. Without money changing hands, you have the same representation you would under any other circumstances. The Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place indeed. What happens to members who don't pay? Are they prevented from editing? If there is no meaningful distinction in categorization of either one or the other, what exactly is the point in the first place, except to give those who are interested and active another membership ID in their wallet - and this is the point - which confers no additional rights or privileges?
Just to clarify about the original idea which explain the current bylaws.
The idea was that absolutely every editor of any wikimedia project was a member. This membership was described as "volunteer membership". There was of course nothing to "give" in terms of money, since the gift was the gift of one person time, energy and goodwill.
However, Jimbo thought there might be people who would bring other things than "edits" but who would be valuable enough to find a path to join as a member. And one of the simplest thing to imagine was simply money. It was considered that if people gave money to the organisation, they should be represented by someone as well. Hence the "contributing membership". This option made it possible for everyone to join the membership without having to edit.
As for those who both edited and paid, they were offered two representants.
As a deeper background... Jimbo's dream, at the time of bylaws creation, was that the membership dues would represent a highly significiant amount of the Foundation revenues.
I am not sure, but I think Jimbo envisionned a huge membership with paying members spread all over the world. Something such as "if we have 100 000 members and each give 50 dollars...
It was not a dark scheme, there was no notion of removing or not granting anyone right. The idea was rather to be totally inclusive and to allow anyone helping, being as an editor or as a payer, to somehow have a right to impact who was on the board.
What happened next ?
Well, we first met the issue of the dues. Jimbo was suggesting for example dues of 80 dollars, because it is a very natural amount in most us organisations. Other positions requested a much lower amount to fit all countries. Then, we discussed amount per group of countries...per professional status etc... and it became horribly complicated.
At the same time... some developers indicated that ... they participated without being editors... so where not counted in the first group.
And some people highly objected to be mandatorily considered as members. They asked that the memberships be opt-in.
And of course, there was the question of whether someone could be a member without revealing his true identity. Add a layer of sockpuppetry on top...
As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be respected. As soon as you cross the line into a "real world" membership situation, that is undermined substantially, if not eliminated. To be sure, we have anonymous donors now. But that is a quid without a quo - it is a gift from an unknown individual to an organization they want to support. Membership cannot be sustained the same way for any valid reason...there is, again, no meaningful distinction.
The essence of this openness to all will be lost as soon as an us/them dichotomy is established. It does not exist today, except as a relic of the bylaws which are long overdue to be changed. The badges of "membership" - if you give money, if you contribute to projects, if you volunteer for various positions in the organization - all exist independent of that. Other than providing a political means for takeover of the organization directly (and that's a whole other conversation), I don't see the point.
The Apache model has some strengths, but my personal opinion is that the difference between producing software alone and producing encyclopedias, news, etc. yields a gap that is difficult to close. My hats are off to the Apache folks. But they have a much more narrow mission and fewer moving parts to achieve that mission. Different parts of the free culture movement are more or less affected by each undertaking of the Foundation, and are of varying degrees of interest to many. I think the Foundation's mission is simply too broad to decide to govern it through direct reliance on formalized elected constituencies. Creating representation from the existing pattern of projects is also inherently political. If the Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be towards languages and projects with many fewer articles and users now, and millions more speakers and writers worldwide yet to be connected. So, there is a shift ahead no matter which way you look at it, provided the projects continue to grow as they have.
Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion, as some have done. Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
-Brad
--- Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote: Different parts of
the free culture movement are more or less affected by each undertaking of the Foundation, and are of varying degrees of interest to many. I think the Foundation's mission is simply too broad to decide to govern it through direct reliance on formalized elected constituencies. Creating representation from the existing pattern of projects is also inherently political. If the Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be towards languages and projects with many fewer articles and users now, and millions more speakers and writers worldwide yet to be connected. So, there is a shift ahead no matter which way you look at it, provided the projects continue to grow as they have.
I can agree with your dislike of formalized elected constituncies. My personal dislike of them is largely logistical. What I liked about the Apache Model it is *not* a representaion model. Maybe I read it differently than everyone else, I don't know. It seemed to me perfectly scaleable and I envision it as very suitable for including new languages worldwide.
Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion, as some have done. Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
I do not mean to ignore the near-term composition and expansion of the board by discussing this model. It is good everyone is examining the possibiliies of the future Board, but there is a great need for a larger infrastucture within the WMF (If you only edit at Wikipedia you probably do not see this need). And it is not just to know who is member or who may vote in Board elections.
The expanded Board and expanded commitees even would not solve the issues as the Apache Model would regarding communication of needs, repeatedly duplicating efforts across languages if not projects, and need for a bottom-to-top chain of authority. Authority is not the right word but when people need specific solutions they should not be coming to the top to get it worked out, but there is no other chioce right now. For example the issue of guidelines for acceptable Wikibooks. They come to this list where most people can't even fully understand the problem because you have to be familair with Wikibooks to really understand it. How many people go and investigate the Wikibooks site, and read deletion archives before giving there opinion on the matter? And were the Wikibooks editor ever actually given useful guidelines at the end of such discussion? Is any current comittee working on it for them? This could be handled in a much better fashion if there was Project Level organization.
This is what I see the Project Level Officers doing (Now all other Project Level Members are just a pool of people who can become officers and vote on officers and maybe start a no confidence vote to bring an early election, they are not some sort of Parlimentary Representatives):
*Writing and in the future reviewing blanket common policies and providing any translations neccessary through requests at the Foundation level. These policies are not adopted project-wide but are working drafts that the language communities can either adopt as is or modify to their liking.
*Keep an record of difficult project specific questions that have been asked of proffesionals (lawyers, developers, etc.) and see that they are translated for everyone's reference. At Wikisource this would include a lot of Copyright information.
*Be the help desk for any such questions or problems in the future and send difficult ones on to proffessionals at Foundation Level. I think they should also be given a token amount of attention from the Foundation for these concerns. For example if Wikisource officers decide Protect Section is a priority for Wikisource they should be given some guarantee of developer attention even though any Wikipedia related bug has triple the votes. Although this should have limits of course.
*Be the point of contact for any Foundation level comittees. Right now people seem to go to whoever is around IRC at the moment, which is not generally the most knowledgable person.
*Actively investigate language communities and keep records of their progress and make recomendations either to the community itself or any applicable Chapters that deal with that language regarding growth and promotion. This will also help indentify any innovations that can then be shared project-wide and also notice any problems at an early stage. I do not know how this would done exactly but it is needed.
*Set quality goals for the project as a whole and write reccomendations for best practices. Ensure translation of this of course. This is something that is being done well in many larger communities (i.e. en.WP's list of core topics) but smaller langs need more guidence as they have everyone busy creating content. Also the Officers could work on some kind of incentives to encourage editors to work on these quality issues.
This was really long and I didn't even talk of Foundation level stuff. But it is similar, the members are a pool of people with a low bar for entry not some kind of representatives. Just people that are willing to work on Foundation level stuff and can be appointed to commitees etc. I would imagine the Foundation basically collects money, deals with press/outside organizations, and organizes developers, lawyers, and translators. Of course the Board sets goals and trys to do what is most useful to as many projects as possible, but as of now I do not even know that they are aware what would be most useful in many cases. This model is basically much more efficent and acknowledges the reality that each project has specific concerns that are not understood by people from other projects.
Birgitte SB
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 6/17/06, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion, as some have done. Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
I do not mean to ignore the near-term composition and expansion of the board by discussing this model. It is good everyone is examining the possibiliies of the future Board, but there is a great need for a larger infrastucture within the WMF (If you only edit at Wikipedia you probably do not see this need). And it is not just to know who is member or who may vote in Board elections.
The expanded Board and expanded commitees even would not solve the issues as the Apache Model would regarding communication of needs, repeatedly duplicating efforts across languages if not projects, and need for a bottom-to-top chain of authority. Authority is not the right word but when people need specific solutions they should not be coming to the top to get it worked out, but there is no other chioce right now. For example the issue of guidelines for acceptable Wikibooks. They come to this list where most people can't even fully understand the problem because you have to be familair with Wikibooks to really understand it. How many people go and investigate the Wikibooks site, and read deletion archives before giving there opinion on the matter? And were the Wikibooks editor ever actually given useful guidelines at the end of such discussion? Is any current comittee working on it for them? This could be handled in a much better fashion if there was Project Level organization.
<snip>
I like this argument for the Apache model - or something like it - very much. Having "Project Level Officers" -- people who are both knowledgeable about and invested in both the projects and the Foundation -- as a level of organization in between the community in general and the Board seems like it would not only go a long way towards helping with communication and responsiveness (two of the major complaints about the Foundation currently) but also mean the people dealing with issues on a daily basis have a high level of knowledge about the projects they work with. Having people at a project level to liason with the Foundation committees that currently exist would also be helpful; as Ant pointed out, the Apache Foundation committees seem roughly equivalant to ours, so this would probably work fine.
I also agree with Brad, that focussing -- and staying focussed -- on Board expansion is important if it's going to get done; but discussing what kind of organizational structures that Board will interface with over the long term is also important.
There are various goals that a reformation of the organizational structure of the Foundation would hopefully address -- e.g., spreading out Foundation-level work, so it becomes less burdensome for any small group of people; providing for a stable (fiscally and otherwise) organization; providing a mechanism for visionary leadership (as Erik eloquently put it); providing community representation in leadership; providing good communication on decisions reached and in process; providing a timely response to community and outside concerns (lawsuits, offers of funding); etc. It would probably be helpful to agree, if possible, on these broad goals for leadership which have come up in these threads and others, and evaluate proposals (such as the Apache model) in light of them.
For instance, as I said above, I think the major benefits of the Apache model as described and Project Level Officer idea as expanded on by Birgitte is that it would spread out [the ability to do] foundation-level work (copyright questions, liasoning with the board), as well as providing for greater community representation at the Foundation level. (The original Apache model could also possibly lessen community representation in terms of voting; it's unclear to me who gets to vote or nominate for what). If it worked properly, timeliness and responsiveness would also be improved since there would be a larger pool of people to contact at the project officer level. (Though, would the responsiveness/timeliness of the Board be improved? hard to say). An extra benefit to having this model of organizational structure is that it might make it less daunting to get involved in Foundation work. (I can't be the only person in the world who is interested in Foundation-level stuff, and who makes an effort to follow discussions etc., but who can't possibly make it a full-time job -- and thus ends up not saying anything at all, because there's simply too much traffic (issues, ideas) to follow).
This was really long and I didn't even talk of Foundation level stuff. But it is similar, the members are a pool of people with a low bar for entry not some kind of representatives. Just people that are willing to work on Foundation level stuff and can be appointed to commitees etc. I would imagine the Foundation basically collects money, deals with press/outside organizations, and organizes developers, lawyers, and translators. Of course the Board sets goals and trys to do what is most useful to as many projects as possible, but as of now I do not even know that they are aware what would be most useful in many cases. This model is basically much more efficent and acknowledges the reality that each project has specific concerns that are not understood by people from other projects.
Yes.
-- phoebe (brassratgirl), catching up on email & diving in, rather long-windedly
Now I see why my reply kept bouncing... This was crossposted to wikipedia-l and my client was trying to reply there.
On 6/17/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to do this?
SJ
I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre. Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something. You give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member. You attend a meeting of other members, maybe, and perhaps you are part of a particular local organization of that group. Churches, civic organizations, soup kitchens, environmental groups, etc., all exist in this paradigm for good reason; they include as part of their fundamental mission a dichotomy between those who *are* in the group and those who *are not* in the group.
Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism and respect for the contributions of *everyone*. There is no us and them - if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are. It's simple, and only goes in one direction. If you edit enough, you can vote for a person you want to see on the board. Without money changing hands, you have the same representation you would under any other circumstances. The Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place indeed. What happens to members who don't pay? Are they prevented from editing? If there is no meaningful distinction in categorization of either one or the other, what exactly is the point in the first place, except to give those who are interested and active another membership ID in their wallet - and this is the point - which confers no additional rights or privileges?
Let me give an example from my own experience, which hopefully will make the concept less bizarre. I used to be a volunteer firefighter. I didn't carry any cards in my wallet, and I didn't pay any dues, but I was a member of the Fire Association, a non-profit organization.
I wouldn't say there were any quid pro quos involved. I volunteered my time and efforts, and I got back the satisfaction of helping others in my community. The only real distinction as to who was in the group and who was out of it was that the members had a say in the governance of the organization. We got to elect not just the directors, but the officers, the fire chief, the deputy chief, etc., and we were eligible to participate in the committees which did things such as proposed the budgets, proposed modifications to the bylaws, organized the fundraisers, etc.
I don't think I or many others would have voluntarily put on our equipment and gone into a burning building on the say so of the fire chief if he was chosen by a board of directors who was appointed by a board of directors who was appointed by the guy who started the organization. Maybe if we were paid employees, but we weren't.
I'm not sure how that organization fits in to your explanation of membership organizations, but it seems to differ in many of the same ways that Wikimedia does.
Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion, as some have done. Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
-Brad
My biggest concern with this is of the scope of the foundation. Right now the mission of the foundation is to create and distribute free content. However, the creation of the content is not done by the foundation, it is done by the community. To me it seems a usurpation for the foundation to include in its jurisdiction the creation of the content without giving us the creators a direct voice in the management of the foundation.
So far the community has been largely self-governing. Sure, office actions come "down from above" from time to time, but these are *mostly* concerning legal issues. Regarding the legal issues I have no problem with the foundation taking action on its own, in fact, I prefer it. But regarding the issues of content creation, the community must be allowed to govern itself.
In my mind the most effective way to do that is to have the foundation governed by its members, with an elected board with limited powers. The current bylaws don't provide for that, but the new proposed bylaws that Ant described are even further from that ideal.
The other alternative is to adopt a mission more like the FSF - "to encourage, foster and promote" the creation and distribution of free content. Let the community govern itself, and provide the servers and bandwidth (and printing presses and CD burners and whatever else is in the future).
The third alternative is what I described to Ant earlier - "the community will grow more and more distant [...] at some point there will be a fork, and the foundation will lose everything but a couple now-worthless trademarks."
Anthony
On 6/17/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/16/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP The Foundation shall have no members.
So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new bylaws have *no one* as members. Unfortunately, it seems to be possible for three members of the board to make this change. I urge all the board members to vote against it. At the very least, I hope the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to see what they think about the idea.
What the f*** do you think I am currently doing Anthony ???
I think you're trying to get ideas on how to resolve the issue. But you don't seem to be acting on behalf of the board in doing so.
It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you to have answered.
Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.
Any chance of getting the board to set up a committee with the task of recommending a new set of bylaws?
If not, then you're probably right - it's not worth the effort.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/17/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 6/16/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP The Foundation shall have no members.
So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new bylaws have *no one* as members. Unfortunately, it seems to be possible for three members of the board to make this change. I urge all the board members to vote against it. At the very least, I hope the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to see what they think about the idea.
What the f*** do you think I am currently doing Anthony ???
I think you're trying to get ideas on how to resolve the issue.
yes
But
you don't seem to be acting on behalf of the board in doing so.
correct
It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you to have answered.
Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.
Any chance of getting the board to set up a committee with the task of recommending a new set of bylaws?
Dunno
But... one should not set up bylaws and then try to make his view of the Foundation fit the bylaws. The proper way would be to decide of what we want... and set up bylaws that makes that possible.
If not, then you're probably right - it's not worth the effort.
Anthony
Anthere:
It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you to have answered.
Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.
Anthere, apart from SJ, Anthony, and Delphine others responded as well with constructive feedback, e.g. Delirium, Michael, Birgitte. I also plan to respond for sure on the Apache system but it is complicated matter and needs some careful thought. Also I have other comittments to honour before I go on holiday for a few days this week. Maybe some other people are also tired or occupied elsewhere. Apparently that goes for other board members as well. My point, please give it few more days or even weeks, perhaps give yourself a break as well, before you decide no one is interested. We don't need to reach a conclusion within a week. Better slow and steady than hastily and without results.
Erik Zachte
Erik Zachte wrote:
Anthere:
My point, please give it few more days or even weeks, perhaps give yourself a break as well, before you decide no one is interested. We don't need to reach a conclusion within a week. Better slow and steady than hastily and without results.
Erik Zachte
My own point is that we may have days, but we may not have weeks. I know who is on the board now, I do not know for sure who will be on the board in a few months. By the way, about a good dozen people indicated their interest to be on the board, and some of them gave their opinion on the current topic. Others did not.
I think that it would be interesting that all current candidates actually *give* their opinion publicly on what they consider is membership, on how membership should be taken into account and which type of organisation they envision would be best for the Foundation.
Ultimately, either we together will have to decide which persons should be elected (in case of elections) or I (and other board members) will have to decide which persons to appoint (in case of appointments).
During last elections, some people complained that there has not been much "deep" discussions. To my opinion, membership and organisation are really important topics. There is a pending resolution which aims at appointing a temporary board member. This board member will have a voice, just as current board members have. This person will be able to impact greatly the future of the organisation depending on his/her position. I gather I was elected with the expectation I will make informed decisions with regards to the future of the organisation. I do not consider myself informed enough. No decisions is required. But opinions are necessary.
ant
Anthere wrote:
Erik Zachte wrote:
Anthere:
My point, please give it few more days or even weeks, perhaps give yourself a break as well, before you decide no one is interested. We don't need to reach a conclusion within a week. Better slow and steady than hastily and without results.
Erik Zachte
My own point is that we may have days, but we may not have weeks. I know who is on the board now, I do not know for sure who will be on the board in a few months. By the way, about a good dozen people indicated their interest to be on the board, and some of them gave their opinion on the current topic. Others did not.
I think that it would be interesting that all current candidates actually *give* their opinion publicly on what they consider is membership, on how membership should be taken into account and which type of organisation they envision would be best for the Foundation.
Ultimately, either we together will have to decide which persons should be elected (in case of elections) or I (and other board members) will have to decide which persons to appoint (in case of appointments).
During last elections, some people complained that there has not been much "deep" discussions. To my opinion, membership and organisation are really important topics. There is a pending resolution which aims at appointing a temporary board member. This board member will have a voice, just as current board members have. This person will be able to impact greatly the future of the organisation depending on his/her position. I gather I was elected with the expectation I will make informed decisions with regards to the future of the organisation. I do not consider myself informed enough. No decisions is required. But opinions are necessary.
ant
Hoi, Weighing in on the subject.
The first question to ask is what IS our organisation and what is its values, how does it work so far. Our organisation is the Wikimedia Foundation. Its value is in providing an organisational background to several projects that exist in many languages. There are a few ground rules that are enforced by the organisation. They are NPOV, wiki and Freedom and, they are aspects of the mission statement of the WMF. The projects have a specific domain and they are organised per language. By and large they are self organised. The English Wikipedia serves as a role model for many of the projects and the many language versions.
The WMF provides infra-structure; it owns the hardware it provides some office functions including legal expertise. When necessary it steps in and takes action in order to prevent legal problems. The WMF provides the financial underpinnings for the operation of the projects by soliciting funds via the projects. There are some meta-functions for the projects; OTRS stewards and two developers are paid to oversee the smooth development of the MediaWiki software.
The projects largely run themselves. There are opposing faction on almost everything. This does not mean that things do not develop. They do. People can become relevant in a project and they can become irrelevant again depending on the quality of their social skills and the recognition of their value to the project, the community. When a choice is made for a more formal structure in the projects, it means that the current processes are pushed to the side. My expectation is that the result will not lead to what some expect ie more stability.
The WMF is very much an enabling organisation. To accomplish this, chapters have been started. They too are imho intended to support the organisation in countries. When charitable money is solicited, this can only be considered charitable (and tax deductible) when it is done according to the laws of the land. The chapters are also great to use as a vehicle when organising events. In my opinion, it would be good to emphasize the organisational nature of the chapters and have strong links between the chapters and the organisation.
The consequence of all this is that the WMF is very much about organisation. It helps prevent editors falling victim when they behave irresponsible by intervening when it is necessary for legal reasons. It provides the monetary and organisational background needed for activities undertaken by the projects.
When people want to become member, they can. They can become member of their chapter. This allows them to find the organisational background when something is to be organised from within the projects in their country. When there is no chapter yet in a country, this points to the immaturity of the community in a country. This immaturity may exist for many reasons. One reason may be that there are not many projects relevant in a country. When the WMF is of the opinion that it would be GOOD to stimulate projects in a country and for a particular language, this is something where particularly infrastructural things come to mind.
When people are of the opinion that they want direct influence in the WMF, the current representation by board members is one way. It could be that chapters are given some visible influence in the WMF.When people want influence, they can do what they have done so far; make a lot of noise or they can get themselves a reputation of being helpful in finding solutions by actively involving themselves (e.g. in the Betawiki)
* I am of the opinion that there should be an US-American chapter. The WMF is NOT its chapter and should not play that role. * I do not like to hear that you are not sure who will be on the board in the not so distant future.. I hope to see you there
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/18/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I think that it would be interesting that all current candidates actually *give* their opinion publicly on what they consider is membership, on how membership should be taken into account and which type of organisation they envision would be best for the Foundation.
This is the kind of thing that I would want to put into an election platform after much serious thought and, if elected to the Board, would want to debate in further detail with everyone concerned, rather than making some kind of firm statement about it on a Sunday afternoon.
Michael Snow raised the important question whether we want any membership to be tied to our legal structure. I tend to agree with him that this is not strictly necessary if an informal commitment to open and broad member participation -- legal or otherwise -- is firmly rooted in our organization's principles. I believe that, given some recent episodes, the desire of some users to remain anonymous is understandable, and needs to be taken very seriously. I would like to hear some more of Tim Starling's thoughts on the matter; I believe he is an advocate of legal membership.
I also think Kelly's suggestion to tie membership to the chapter structure deserves some serious thought, though of course we don't have chapters in most regions. It would drive the creation of new chapters, but I would also want some other method for people who do not have a chapter to represent them to nevertheless participate in membership-oriented decisions. This is a complex proposal with many implications, given our desire to keep chapters to some extent separate from the Foundation. (I'm also not sure all chapters currently have members.) Here I would very much appreciate Delphine's input, and that of the chapter committee and the chapters themselves.
I am inclined to believe that the entire Board should be chosen by the community (legally as members or otherwise), and that there should be an additional Advisory Council with non-voting experts and, as you like to call them, "Big Shots" ;-). So far I haven't seen many strong arguments to give outsiders or non-elected community members the full _legal_ authority of the Board. While I might be convinced on that point, I would probably want at least the majority of the Board to be elected.
As we are striving to reduce the role of the Board in day-to-day governance, I think the more critical questions are about the interaction of the committees, the role of the Executive Director and (possibly) an Executive Committee, the ease of participation in these groups, their scope, their internationality, and so on. Board membership should be about strategy, while the implementation of that strategy should be left up to a well-balanced combination of a large and dynamic group of volunteers and some hired staff.
I do explicitly not support the notion of a small membership base of handpicked individuals, and think that membership dues must be set up in such a way that they do not discriminate against those who cannot afford them. I am not a big fan of the Wikicouncil idea or similar proposals of elected representative bodies. Any Board election should be open to all active community members who are interested in Foundation affairs, and votes on new projects or other Foundation matters should be similarly direct and open. Simply put, when you have an open vote, I see no reason not to allow anyone who meets some basic criteria to vote. And when it's about getting involved in Foundation matters, the criteria for involvement should not be imposed universally through some community filter, but according to the needs of each project and workgroup.
As regards your statement that a temporary Board appointment may be imminent, is there a particular reason why it needs to be an appointment, rather than an election? For what period of time would such an appointment be?
Erik
On 6/19/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
As regards your statement that a temporary Board appointment may be imminent, is there a particular reason why it needs to be an appointment, rather than an election?
It would be an interim measure between the time of the appointment and the next election (hopefully September if the Board can make the effort to vote on the pending resolution between now and then).
For what period of time would such an appointment be?
The one Anthere is talking about would be 3 months. Others could be longer (hopefully not permanent).
Angela.
On 6/18/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/19/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
As regards your statement that a temporary Board appointment may be imminent, is there a particular reason why it needs to be an appointment, rather than an election?
It would be an interim measure between the time of the appointment and the next election (hopefully September if the Board can make the effort to vote on the pending resolution between now and then).
Has the possibility been considered to make this, then, an interim appointment in the same way Brad is our interim Executive Director -- i.e. the person appointed would explicitly not be running in the Board election? Besides being more fair to all prospective candidates, it would allow us to postpone some of the matters being discussed here until the final Board setup is clear. The interim Board member would focus on operational issues only.
Erik
Anthere
We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the board by 2 more members. Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself. There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members. Elected are renewed every 2 years.
My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of more.
Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.
My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new proposition AND that board members vote. Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.
So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and 5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.
Oh, an important clarification. Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least the majority should be from the community.
The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united team with complementary skills. The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit diversity of view points.
Erik Zachte wrote
Oh, an important clarification. Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least the majority should be from the community.
The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united team with complementary skills. The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit diversity of view points.
Another risk is that the expertise and skills that are available in the community will view all Wikimedia Foundation activities as the responsibilities and problems of the Board. Volunteers not happy with how the governing/management structure is arrived at may simply continue to decline to participate other than within their chosen spheres of influence within specific projects.
regards, lazyquasar
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
Erik Zachte wrote
Oh, an important clarification. Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least the majority should be from the community.
The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united team with complementary skills. The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit diversity of view points.
Another risk is that the expertise and skills that are available in the community will view all Wikimedia Foundation activities as the responsibilities and problems of the Board. Volunteers not happy with how the governing/management structure is arrived at may simply continue to decline to participate other than within their chosen spheres of influence within specific projects.
The same thing can be said of those who are happy with the governance. They can feel no need to tinker with what they feel to be going well.
Ec
On 6/17/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Another practical issue is that I am currently the only board member interested in trying to do that. Given that trying to rewrite bylaws is meant to take a few hours, I'd be happy to know what you guys think and what other board members think.
And I get mostly silence.
Perhaps you have a better idea how I feel now. When the committees first came up, I wrote a detailed summary of my concerns on this list - zero response. The open meeting, which I put a lot of energy into, had almost no visible follow-up. Jimmy asked for comments on possible outside Board members, I made some - no follow-up. In the recent discussions, most of my longer answers were also ignored, and you responded to one of them by only labeling it a "campaign platform", while Gregory has been sniping from the sidelines against "windbagging" "douchebags".
I welcome your initiative, Anthere. I think the Apache model is a remix of some ideas that have been discussed before, and will need some thoughtful consideration. In particular, we definitely need to figure out who our members are, if anyone -- and fix the bylaws. "Wiki" philosophy to me means maximizing participation and openness, but not without safeguards. Having voting members undergo a human vetting process may work, but the process should be built so that it doesn't degenerate into the mess RfA on en.wp has become, where every voter makes up their pet criteria that make up a good Wikimedian. The criteria of membership should be objective, and objections should be actionable and reasonable.
I suggest that a workshop be set up at Wikimania to discuss these things in person; in addition, if you want my personal thoughts on anything, you can always ask. Based on past experience, I am not convinced that a continuing discussion on this mailing list makes much of a difference. I agree with Brad that reforming and expanding the Board so that it can actually meaningfully engage the community in these debates is very much needed. At the moment, arguing with the Board feels like arguing with a one-armed assembly line worker during the night shift. He just doesn't have a lot of time and attention for you.
Erik
On 6/17/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest that a workshop be set up at Wikimania to discuss these things in person; in addition, if you want my personal thoughts on
Heck yes. Would having it over lunch suit? Otherwise, it would conflict with sessions (or have to be before or after, on Thur./Mon.)
As ever, such things can be discussed/proposed here: http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_online
best, phoebe
Phoebe Ayers wrote:
On 6/17/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest that a workshop be set up at Wikimania to discuss these things in person; in addition, if you want my personal thoughts on
Heck yes. Would having it over lunch suit? Otherwise, it would conflict with sessions (or have to be before or after, on Thur./Mon.)
As ever, such things can be discussed/proposed here: http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_online
I support the general idea. I don't know if a lunch session would be long enough to do justice to the question. Perhaps an open-ended evening session?
Judging by some of the views expressed already this could be a fairly heavy duty session. Airing these kinds of things at a meeting like this should be done with a view of building consensus. All persons active in some aspect of wiki governance should be there. I would not make this a closed meeting (too unwiki!), but people who have not been following this discussion before the meeting should be warned that the nature of the discussions could be very boring for them.
I would also suggest that a written agenda be available before the meeting starts, and that the meeting be chaired by a person with a track record in consensus building.
Ec
Anthere wrote:
2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members. For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of you may remember the discussion around the member dues. That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of you and I represented no one :-)
At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of volunteer representative/member representative.
That de facto change made sense even though it has not been supported by a corresponding change in the by-laws.
Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*. I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole sections about membership : http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
Does that section fit with reality ?
I think it's sufficient to agree that the by-laws as a whole do not reflect the principles that drew us to this venture.
Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.
My apologies if I am misreading something, but exactly who on the Board is proposing the specified changes? In some ways some of your comments below seem to suggest that you are the only Board member with the energy to devote to the by-laws; however, I also find that the specific proposals do not match up with the very important principles that you describe. The last thing that I would want to do is to identify you with ideas that are not yours.
This new version has a very short "membership section".
The community is still taken into account in ARTICLE II, where a new section has been proposed (section 4).
Board members selection process is in ARTICLE III, section 3.
The rest of the bylaws are a huge improvement compared to current ones.
ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP The Foundation shall have no members.
I find this concept totally bizarre. An organization is accountable to its members. It follows that an organization without members is accountable to no-one. The term "foundation" can take on different meaning in different legal jurisdictions. In many places a foundation receives charitable donations for the sole purpose of providing financial support for other worthy causes. Admittedly, I have not looked at how the term is defined in Florida state law, but I would hope that there has been no explotation of the differences which people may have in their understanding of that term.
Note too that in the existing by-laws the members are given the right to some votes. The proposed changes would quash the existing rights of existing members, limited as those tights may be. At first glance it would seem that the amendment section would allow this to be done, but I don't know how Florida law looks upon by-law amendments whose effect would be the mass disenfranchisement of all members. I would venture the guess that everyone who voted at the last Board election was ipso facto recognized as a member.
ARTICLE II Section 4. Community. The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.
The first sentence is pure fluff. It's meant to make people feel good without accomplishing a damn thing. The second sentence is weaselly. It does not define a community; it defines a "purpose". That has very little weight in the absence of a definition of those communities to which it refers. The whole section is meaningless.
ARTICLE IV Section 3. Selection. The Trustees shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified. Selection shall be in the following manner: (1) Trustees Elected from the Community. At least two (2) Trustees shall be selected from the Community by vote of the Community. The Board of Trustees shall determine the dates, rules and regulation of the voting procedures; they shall appoint two Inspectors of the Election from the Community to oversee the election procedures who shall report and certify the results within thirty days of any vote.
Again, we need to define "Community". The inspectors, reporting and certification references are of secondary importance.
(2) Other Trustees. The remaining number of Trustees shall be elected by the Board. Names of individuals shall be nominated for selection by the Board. The Board shall endeavor to select Trustees who will best fulfill the mission and needs of the Foundation. Individuals who are not selected unanimously may be elected by a majority of the Board.
This sounds like the principle of self-perpetuation.
These proposals would be worse than what we already have.
These bylaws have not been approved. They are still in the draft mode. For all I know, they could stay here forever, because beside myself, I did not see other board members working on them. And I did not really see any comments from them either.
I am uncertain whether I should give much energy on new bylaws, even if the current official ones are nonsense within the current situation. Uncertain because of the lack of reaction of board members, and the near lack of reaction of the community. Being just a board member, I can not *force* the other board members to vote. I am not in charge of organising meetings where we could vote or at least discuss together. In short, if a resolution to approve new bylaws is set up, I have NO certainty this will *ever* result in an approved resolution.
Would you really want them to vote on these?
It takes a lot of energy to work on a topic when it is so pointedly ignored by peers.
I have worked on by-laws for other organizations, and know the feeling. :-(
Hence my trying to turn toward you. How many editors work on the projects ? thousands How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0 How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5
As I said... it takes a lot of energy...
But please, try to see the big picture ...
It also takes a lot of energy to just plough through this stuff enough to have an informed opinion. What you have said about the Apache model seems to make a lot of broad sense, but the details would still need to be reviewed separately to see how they could be adapted to our even more diverse organization.
Our current bylaws describe a very mixed model, which has been much complained about in the past 2 years (I criticized it myself when it was originally proposed). It has 2 members elected by the community, for a limited time And 3 members, appointed by Jimbo, and permanent till they die or resign And does not limit members to 5.... but makes no mention of how increase would be done.
The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki) is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation membership.
Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy members in the future. DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2 famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only. Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9. Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such case, they would be appointed.
What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision. Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.
Yep, that's a perfect reflection of the business mentality. It has worked well that way for centuries, or as some would say, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." ;-)
If you put it all in terms of the World Economic Order the transition from the Davos model to the Porto Alegre model is a difficult and painful one.
The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a collective running. This is very much the model of our local associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european; whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much american and hard to understand by europeans.
This is a plausible analysis.
Which model would be better in our case ?
I dunno really.
It requires a careful weighing of the benefits and defects of each. That alone gives more weight to some hybrid.
One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional. I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4 meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the business. And little by little, disinterest by the community. But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms, the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy. More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.
Do we really want that kind of bigness? Or is it an inevitable development in the life and death of institutions? The whole situatiion smells of stale cigars.
The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise, because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and citizens all over the world. I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of the boiling culture.
In the end, I think there is both a cultural clash in what we are trying to set up... and an issue of courage.
Absolutely! The problem is that most people feel more comfortable in a stable environment, even when it produces inferior results.
If we pick up the first model, I think things can go very quickly and with little pain. This summer, at Wikimania, we'll meet big names (I say "we" because Jimbo already have breakfast with them regularly... but the board should appoint them... so it would be nice that the board members actually know the people they get recommandation to appoint). We can think of who would be best asset, just ask him, and by september, we'll have a nice board with new big names and maybe one community member we like. And with luck, more money, more introduction and new opportunities.
If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The community (and not Delphine and I alone :-)) will need to do its homework. Seriously discuss a mean to select members. Seriously discuss organisation. And not only stay mute on the list or not only say "this will never work" or not only blame the board just to be so inefficient without proposing solutions. We'll need to sweat together. And we'll need to convince quite a few people that this is the way to go.
Serious discussions are a tough thing to get happening. That's not what we have been trained to do all our lives. To make things worse many whose opinions would be very valuable are prone to desire instant mental gratification instead of calm reflective consideration.
I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it *alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no *active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned on the board wiki.
I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits, we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be successful ?
We've gone a long way toward that proof. References to Wikipedia in the media are more frequent and without accuracy disclaimers.
As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty (estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one would be best for you).
I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*. This model is humiliating to me. The big actors in this model would be the big names, which I do not have the chance to meet or talk with. The strategy of the Foundation would be done between Jimbo and the big names in 5 stars conference halls or in far-away islands, where no one will ever think of inviting me (eh, best to keep the circle of people small).
I will simply be offered the results of brainstorms of important people to implement and vote upon (I don't know why I use future, this is already happening). I will have the great opportunity to prepare the path of the big people in doing their homework so that they better shine. Community representatives would be second rate board member.
First rate Board members are the ones who challenge these trends.
The other people in the Foundation would be the staff, who would make a (good) living of what I do full time for free (and who receive the religious ceremonies from community when the board gets the fire).
I say "I", but I am quite convinced many would feel just the same.
That would leave the benefit of working for a great cause... But would the biggest cause be the projects ? Or the Foundation ?
For the person who believes in a cause and ideas being paid is an ethical question
Where are we in these models right now ?
In the middle. We have some community representant, but the relations between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help reducing the lack of communication.
But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.
At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need to set up the organisation (on a type of Apache model for example). We need to convince those who are not convinced.
Let's not put too much emphasis on by-laws and governance models. Such misplaced emphasis could find us doing the same thing we complain about. By-laws should reflect a consensus on what we are all about.
If you want to do a more Business Foundation, the bylaws are ready to be voted upon. Members are knocking at the door.
A very bad thing would be to stay forever in the middle of two seats, with unsuitable bylaws, disorganisation, frustrated community and angry board members.
Sorry for the long rant. I hope it clarifies the current situation.
The apology is not needed when you say what needs to be said.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I think it's sufficient to agree that the by-laws as a whole do not reflect the principles that drew us to this venture.
It might be useful sometime to have a discussion of what specific reasons beyond the big gigantic principals or goals of changing the world people have for being here.
Often people are motivated by extremely different personal goals to participate effectively in a project. If the personal goals are not met for sufficient participation then the project will fail to meet its larger overall goals.
regards, lazyquasar
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I think it's sufficient to agree that the by-laws as a whole do not reflect the principles that drew us to this venture.
It might be useful sometime to have a discussion of what specific reasons beyond the big gigantic principals or goals of changing the world people have for being here.
The goal of changing the world often clashes with the idea of limitless growth
Often people are motivated by extremely different personal goals to participate effectively in a project. If the personal goals are not met for sufficient participation then the project will fail to meet its larger overall goals.
That's a fair observation.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org