rupert THURNER wrote:

i am disappointed personally by you. you as a person, you as an american, and you as a board member of the foundation.

What about Phoebe as a woman? Or Phoebe as a librarian? Or as a brassratgirl? Horrors.

Your unnecessary hyperbole aside, I see Phoebe's role as a Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees member as being a guardian and protector of the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation. Those interests may or may not align with those of Wikimedia or its chapters. It would help if you could extract portions of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_FAQ and make specific and substantive criticisms of pieces you disagree with.

Broadly, if you or anyone else is having difficulty doing Wikimedia-related work (specifically securing funding), please feel free to bring it up on this mailing list. There are a number of ways to receive money from the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia, or other non-profits, depending on the type of project you're working on and your needs.

because "trust" is mentioned: the FAQ and the minutes are written by a lawyer now, who has maximum 300 wikipedia edits as his lifetime achievement.

Sorry, but this seems to be nothing more than scurrilous stupidity. Say what you will about lawyers, but this particular lawyer has over 600 edits to the English Wikipedia and has (in conjunction with his bot) over 175,000 edits to the English Wikisource.

Play nice, Rupert.

MZMcBride

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.comwrote:

pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying: "wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow" "the affiliated organisations are recommended to seek other funding (which the foundation did try and did not succeed very well)" i am disappointed personally by you. you as a person, you as an american, and you as a board member of the foundation. especially about your inability to grasp international cultural differences in terms of funding, fundraising.

I'm sorry you're disappointed in me.

because "trust" is mentioned: the FAQ and the minutes are written by a lawyer now, who has maximum 300 wikipedia edits as his lifetime achievement. https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Just so it's clear -- Stephen *posted* the FAQ and minutes for us -- he helps out the board by posting documents and taking minutes during the meeting -- but the decisions, and the FAQ, were written by members of the board in what I can promise was a highly collaborative process :)

That said, I find it strange that you would accuse him of anything. Not that it matters, but in his free time he's been volunteering with Wikipedia events, coding and editing for years. Regardless, though, he was just doing his job here -- as requested *by the board*, and specifically by me -- so please lay off the criticism of him. I have nothing but respect for our ultra-hard-working LCA team.

-- phoebe

-- phoebe

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Frédéric Schütz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:

On 11/02/14 06:33, phoebe ayers wrote:

...

I want to draw your attention to two Wikimedia Board of Trustees

decisions

...

that were recently published, regarding funds allocated to the FDC/Annual plan grant process and Board approval of chapter/thematic organization status. In a nutshell, the Board decided to allocate approximately the

same

...

amount of funding to the FDC for the next two years.

Some chapters have asked to consider the possibility for multi-year funding, in order to make planning easier. The WMF indicated that it was something difficult to do since the funding of the whole movement is planned on an annual basis. Does it mean that this argument is now moot ?

That's a good point, and a good question. Personally I think we are trying to find a balance between stability and not wildly changing budget allocations, and the fact that yes, we receive revenues and pass a budget on an annual basis.

I hope other trustees can weigh in on this point too though.

...

The Board also decided that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two

years

...

of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally

incorporated

...

entity (either a chapter or thematic organization).

My first reaction to this: why is the WMF board pretending to be more and more a board overseeing the whole community ? I can understand concerns "about new groups legally incorporating before they need to or are ready to", but this remains up to the groups to decide -- and one thing about which there is no doubt is that they will know better than the WMF board if they need to be incorporated and when (if only because they know they local legal landscape much better than the WMF does).

We aren't trying to oversee the whole community. We do have a responsibility for this area though. That's not a change, I think; the Board has always approved chapters.

It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization. However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group actually got there should have no influence on the result.

Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to do stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they will stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove that they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm concerned).

I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not endorsed by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?

So if you had asked the Swiss chapter, for example, we would have mentioned that a "user group" would be close to useless in our country. That would basically be a group of people having meetings in a restaurant once in a while, but it just does not exist as a group: it can not get access to grants (it can not even have a bank account, so any money received would be received by a single member in his own name -- making the user group useless), can not be granted trademark usage. This is why creating an association in Switzerland is an extremely light process: take 2 people, get them to write one page of bylaws and voilà, the association is incorporated and it can open a bank account. So long for "becoming a chapter or thematic organization involves much more corporate overhead".

Sure. See the last faq:

"What if a user group doesn't make sense for us? We want to do a specific project, and really feel we need chapter or thematic organization status for our situation.

Please tell us what part of user group status is problematic, and for what reasons. We do not want to hinder planned or ambitious projects; we also do not know of any current cases where this would be a problem."

Really, if you or anyone is forming a group, has some projects planned, and thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us know. We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us all on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.

It is late and I am going to bed now, but I expect many more interesting questions to come tomorrow, and hopefully other trustees will be able to weigh in too.

best,

Phoebe

* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com *

Dear Frederic,

On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:

On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:

Hi Phoebe,

thanks for your answer !

...

...

It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization. However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group actually got there should have no influence on the result.

Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to do stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they will stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove that they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's the crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm concerned).

What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".

What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic track record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic organization".

How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?

I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track record is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation.

...

...

I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not endorsed by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?

I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever amount of discussion we have) and not before.

Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there is now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic organisation, which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance responsibility.

For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were really the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which were provided by the Affcom and FDC).

<SNIP>

...

thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us know. We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us all on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.

The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get exceptions.

Hmmm…. I would say that 1) We made a decision in which we took several factors into account 2) We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this is the case.

would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback about the decision’s impact in specific cases.

I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing ("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it is bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of the movement ?”)

I really think that the FAQ gives a pretty good indication. What concerns me (and other board members) is the fact that there is a natural tendency to incorporate a group of volunteers into a chapter or thematic organisation even if there is no real track record or a good reason to want to do so (especially since the revised trademark policy gives user groups much more freedom to make use of the trademarks). Chapters and Thematic organisations are an essential part of the movement and we would like each and every one to succeed in furthering the goals of the movement as a whole. Asking these groups to be a user group for the first two years while doing programmatic work really gives a good indication of the ability of the “future chapter/thematic organisation” to succeed.

We also reference the strategic planning which is due to start this summer. One of the things we really have to solve is the roles/responsibilities/privileges of each player in the movement. The basic answer to the questions:

1) What are our long term goals 2) Who is best positioned to achieve these goals

should lead to a “who does what” picture of the movement (and maybe just as important “who will stop doing what”), and it is on the basis of this picture and the underlying goals that we should create and fund different players in the movement. I would argue that at this time the picture is not as clear as it should be before committing the resources we currently commit to it.

(just as a small note: when I talk about movement I mean the range from the individual volunteer to the Wikimedia Foundation itself)

As a side note, this is the only point that I will keep from Rupert's email: this decision completely ignores international cultural differences in terms of funding, fundraising and organization in general. Indeed, in a quote above, you talk about "good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws"; this reinforces the incorrect premise your decision is based on: that incorporation is a complicated and bureaucratic process that should be avoided. And this is something that can not be decided globally.

This is true. But to be clear, its not the possible “bureaucratic” aspect which concerns us greatly (as I mentioned above).

Frédéric

Regards

Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that be, Cynthia? The board's consensus is reflected in the decision. There's almost no public discussion of this outside of this specific thread on a mailing list (a grand total of two comments on the talk page of the FAQ, as I write), so I'm not sure which consensus you're speaking of.

Risker/Anne

On 11 February 2014 12:59, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindamuse@gmail.comwrote:

Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented? If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?

Best regards,

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < jdevreede@wikimedia.org

...

wrote:

...

Dear Frederic,

On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:

...

On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:

Hi Phoebe,

thanks for your answer !

...

...

It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic

organization.

...

...

...

...

However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the

group

...

...

...

...

actually got there should have no influence on the result.

Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to

do

...

...

stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they

will

...

...

stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove

that

...

...

they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's

the

...

...

...

crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm

concerned).

...

What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have

bylaws".

...

...

What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic

track

...

...

record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic organization".

How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?

I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track

record

...

is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation.

...

...

...

I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not

endorsed

...

...

...

by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?

I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever amount of discussion we have) and not before.

Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there

is

...

now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic

organisation,

...

which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance

responsibility.

...

For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were

really

...

the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which were provided by the Affcom and FDC).

<SNIP>

...

...

thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us

know.

...

...

We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us

all

...

...

on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.

The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get exceptions.

Hmmm.... I would say that

1. We made a decision in which we took several factors into account
2. We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have

taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this is the case.

would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback about the decision's impact in specific cases.

...

I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing ("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it is bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of the movement ?")

I really think that the FAQ gives a pretty good indication. What concerns me (and other board members) is the fact that there is a natural tendency to incorporate a group of volunteers into a chapter or thematic organisation even if there is no real track record or a good reason to

want

...

to do so (especially since the revised trademark policy gives user groups much more freedom to make use of the trademarks). Chapters and Thematic organisations are an essential part of the movement and we would like

each

...

and every one to succeed in furthering the goals of the movement as a whole. Asking these groups to be a user group for the first two years

while

...

doing programmatic work really gives a good indication of the ability of the "future chapter/thematic organisation" to succeed.

We also reference the strategic planning which is due to start this summer. One of the things we really have to solve is the roles/responsibilities/privileges of each player in the movement. The

basic

...

answer to the questions:

1. What are our long term goals
2. Who is best positioned to achieve these goals

should lead to a "who does what" picture of the movement (and maybe just as important "who will stop doing what"), and it is on the basis of this picture and the underlying goals that we should create and fund different players in the movement. I would argue that at this time the picture is

not

...

as clear as it should be before committing the resources we currently commit to it.

(just as a small note: when I talk about movement I mean the range from the individual volunteer to the Wikimedia Foundation itself)

...

As a side note, this is the only point that I will keep from Rupert's email: this decision completely ignores international cultural differences in terms of funding, fundraising and organization in general. Indeed, in a quote above, you talk about "good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws"; this reinforces the incorrect premise your decision is based on: that incorporation is a complicated and bureaucratic process that should be avoided. And this is something that can not be decided globally.

This is true. But to be clear, its not the possible "bureaucratic" aspect which concerns us greatly (as I mentioned above).

...

Frédéric

Regards

Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation

...

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Best regards,

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson "Yes. *Her again.*" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindamuse@gmail.com:

Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.

IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with 7-3 and 6-4[1], when you can see that most of the times[2] the vote was unanimous.

Cristian

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11-24#Movement_roles [2] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:

Consensus is not the same as unanimity, and anyone who's crossed a few different Wikimedia projects will know that what is defined as consensus varies pretty widely, from majority +1 to 80% or higher support. For the purposes of board votes, it's majority +1.

I disagree with this interpretation. The major point is "what are the reasons for the dissent?"

2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com:

I'm actually quite pleased that the board has moved away from twisting itself in knots trying to ensure unanimous support of proposals: it led to watered-down, poorly structured decisions that have often left the community confused and uncertain as to their intent.

2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com:

Speaking in my personal capacity, I echo the surprise that the Board has decided to move a motion before they had full or close to full consensus on the issue - which is in general a departure from the usual.

Well, it seems we have two very different ideas here.

C

While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was taken into consideration, but that may give the wrong idea of what happened.

While it is true we provided feedback before the decision was made, I would not consider it consulting with us or even communicating with AffCom in a way that allowed us to provide the level of feedback I think the community has come to expect. Frankly we got a lot of our information second-hand, and am still not sure personally we know the full story. My personal expectation would have involved a lot more communication before the decision was made, and most importantly, some two-way dialogue. At the very least I think the chairs of FDC and AffCom should have been looped into parts of the conversation during the meeting.

I think it is fair to say that AffCom got notice before the broader community, and we had opportunities to express our concerns and objections - however I would not characterize it as a conversation or true feedback gathering. I am not personally convinced it was taken into much consideration as the people proposing this bad idea were physically there to speak to their idea, but no one opposed to it was invited. My understanding is the same was true for FDC - but I obviously cannot speak to that.

Aside from my disappointment in the decision, I am perhaps even more disappointed with the process. Without going into lengthy details, I was not impressed with how AffCom was consulted on this (or not consulted depending on your take) and frankly the board's attitude I think calls into question their true interest in utilizing FDC and AffCom as actual advisors to the board. In a world and movement so woven into technology, the notion that we could not bring some "advisors" in for parts of these meetings just doesn't make sense to me. I recognize that has not generally been done, but that seems like something to change and not a pattern to stay within.

I also want to be clear that I have a lot of empathy for the board, these are difficult roles, and I think the people in them are genuinely trying their best. I like them all on a personal level, and am confident these disagrees won't harm that. I also know that while the board stands united, these decisions are not privately made without debate. However, they are our board and I think sharing concerns like this is a healthy part of the process. Some of the tone people have taken on this thread is less helpful, and I hope we can get it back on a more civil track.

-greg

PS. I send this a volunteer and not wearing any official AffCom or WM anything hat (although that hat obviously formed my opinion).

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson <cindamuse@gmail.com

wrote:

Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented? If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?

Best regards,

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < jdevreede@wikimedia.org

...

wrote:

...

Dear Frederic,

On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:

...

On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:

Hi Phoebe,

thanks for your answer !

...

...

It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic

organization.

...

...

...

...

However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the

group

...

...

...

...

actually got there should have no influence on the result.

Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to

do

...

...

stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they

will

...

...

stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove

that

...

...

they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's

the

...

...

...

crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm

concerned).

...

What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have

bylaws".

...

...

What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic

track

...

...

record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic organization".

How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?

I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track

record

...

is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation.

...

...

...

I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not

endorsed

...

...

...

by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?

I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever amount of discussion we have) and not before.

Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there

is

...

now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic

organisation,

...

which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance

responsibility.

...

For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were

really

...

the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which were provided by the Affcom and FDC).

<SNIP>

...

...

thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us

know.

...

...

We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us

all

...

...

on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.

The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get exceptions.

Hmmm.... I would say that

1. We made a decision in which we took several factors into account
2. We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have

taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this is the case.

would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback about the decision's impact in specific cases.

...

I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing ("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it is bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of the movement ?")

I really think that the FAQ gives a pretty good indication. What concerns me (and other board members) is the fact that there is a natural tendency to incorporate a group of volunteers into a chapter or thematic organisation even if there is no real track record or a good reason to

want

...

to do so (especially since the revised trademark policy gives user groups much more freedom to make use of the trademarks). Chapters and Thematic organisations are an essential part of the movement and we would like

each

...

and every one to succeed in furthering the goals of the movement as a whole. Asking these groups to be a user group for the first two years

while

...

doing programmatic work really gives a good indication of the ability of the "future chapter/thematic organisation" to succeed.

We also reference the strategic planning which is due to start this summer. One of the things we really have to solve is the roles/responsibilities/privileges of each player in the movement. The

basic

...

answer to the questions:

1. What are our long term goals
2. Who is best positioned to achieve these goals

should lead to a "who does what" picture of the movement (and maybe just as important "who will stop doing what"), and it is on the basis of this picture and the underlying goals that we should create and fund different players in the movement. I would argue that at this time the picture is

not

...

as clear as it should be before committing the resources we currently commit to it.

(just as a small note: when I talk about movement I mean the range from the individual volunteer to the Wikimedia Foundation itself)

...

As a side note, this is the only point that I will keep from Rupert's email: this decision completely ignores international cultural differences in terms of funding, fundraising and organization in general. Indeed, in a quote above, you talk about "good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws"; this reinforces the incorrect premise your decision is based on: that incorporation is a complicated and bureaucratic process that should be avoided. And this is something that can not be decided globally.

This is true. But to be clear, its not the possible "bureaucratic" aspect which concerns us greatly (as I mentioned above).

...

Frédéric

Regards

Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation

...

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Best regards,

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson "Yes. *Her again.*" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Dear members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, dear Wikimedians,

I would like to share a few thoughts and questions with you. Thoughts and questions that I would love to see being addressed when talking about these movement issues. I have the feeling that this substantial decision is coming somewhat out of the blue, without a prior discussion among the broader movement – at least none that I am aware of. It would be helpful if you can provide some insights into the bigger picture or broader evaluation these decisions are based upon.

== User Groups == Not only two years ago, two new movement affiliate models were introduced, resulting from an extensive, transparent and collaborative process that involved all movement stakeholders. The current decision kind of neglects this process, the people involved, and its outcome.

At first sight, I can understand your approach of giving UGs time to develop governance as well as structures and experiment with their capacities. But since there is hardly any structured support for these young and aspiring volunteer groups to grow, to develop and to become trusted partners, I fear that time alone won’t do the trick.

Defining affiliates’ goals and providing guidance for development paths are inevitable tasks for a healthy movement, but it remains completely unclear who has (or should have) a mandate for this support. Without securing this support and empowerment, our movement might miss the unique chance to uncover the treasures of Free Knowledge around the world.

The most pressing question here remains: In an ideal world, how would an organization model for Wikimedia look like? And does the restriction of choices for affiliations' models help us to reach this goal? I’ve got the impression that this step is more a patch for the symptoms, while we as a movement should strive for a fix for a – yet unspecified – “problem”.

== FDC funding == Similar questions arise regarding the FDC freeze. Why now? Wouldn’t it make sense to wait for the FDC Advisory Group, who is charged with reviewing and evaluating the funds dissemination process as a whole? Do we have to understand this decision as a declaration of bankruptcy of the FDC process already? Which data is this freeze based upon?

For a young movement like ours, with a cause that is so new and unique, how can we even dare not to invest into exploring new territory, into finding the right things to do? Why do we not embrace all the exciting projects that the affiliate volunteers and staff are offering to our movement, and which fulfill our common mission? Together, we have to figure out the best balance between effectiveness-driven and money-driven decisions. We need to define what is meant by “healthy growth”, taking different circumstances and stages of development into account. The Wikimedia movement is in the luxury position that our donors generously support our endeavors, they trust us with our efforts to advance our mission, and I wonder if it is reasonable if we artificially limit the support that is available to our global movement.

Our whole grantmaking process is unique, we are pioneers within the non-profit world. And the same goes for the evaluation of our work. Of course, we are all – big and small – facing growing pains and need to scrutinize our processes over and over again. Does retracting from this experiment at such an early stage, without proper assessment and evaluation, reflect our movement’s culture of being bold and innovative?

What also puzzles me is the fact that on the one hand your decision encourages affiliates to seek funding from outside sources, but on the other hand speaks against building structures. One of the reasons for centralizing the fundraising in 2012 was the argument that chapters should focus on their work and leave the collection of funds to the WMF. Now that they have lost their capability and skills for raising funds, you not only ask affiliates and volunteer groups to start building up these capacities again, you also put them in jeopardy of becoming dependent from corporations, governments and other sponsors that we as a movement hardly have any control over. Would it not be a good idea to at least support the process and make WMF funds available to build up structures for a sustainable external fundraising, full of integrity?

== Outlook == My hope is that these decisions can serve as an initial spark to bring all involved parties together and frankly (I mean it!) discuss questions relevant for the future of our movement and the organizational structures that benefit our mission in the most effective way. I see several occasions in the not too distant future, for example:

In the FAQ, you are referring to the strategy process as the place to discuss and solve all these issues. It would be really helpful to know more about this process and the involvement of the different movement stakeholders.

Some of the topics covered in the decisions and FAQs are already on the agenda for the Wikimedia Conference[1], but it is still early enough to adjust the agenda accordingly. The program team is surely happy to help with figuring out how to best address these topics at the conference.

Best regards,

Nicole Ebber

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2014/Programme#Theme_1:...

On 11 February 2014 19:46, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:

that is correct (about the FDC involvement; we have not participated in consulting or idea exchange in any systematic way).

dj "pundit"

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.comwrote:

...

While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was taken into consideration, but that may give the wrong idea of what happened.

While it is true we provided feedback before the decision was made, I would not consider it consulting with us or even communicating with AffCom in a way that allowed us to provide the level of feedback I think the community has come to expect. Frankly we got a lot of our information second-hand, and am still not sure personally we know the full story. My personal expectation would have involved a lot more communication before the decision was made, and most importantly, some two-way dialogue. At the very least I think the chairs of FDC and AffCom should have been looped into parts of the conversation during the meeting.

I think it is fair to say that AffCom got notice before the broader community, and we had opportunities to express our concerns and objections

• however I would not characterize it as a conversation or true feedback

gathering. I am not personally convinced it was taken into much consideration as the people proposing this bad idea were physically there to speak to their idea, but no one opposed to it was invited. My understanding is the same was true for FDC - but I obviously cannot speak to that.

Aside from my disappointment in the decision, I am perhaps even more disappointed with the process. Without going into lengthy details, I was not impressed with how AffCom was consulted on this (or not consulted depending on your take) and frankly the board's attitude I think calls into question their true interest in utilizing FDC and AffCom as actual advisors to the board. In a world and movement so woven into technology, the notion that we could not bring some "advisors" in for parts of these meetings just doesn't make sense to me. I recognize that has not generally been done, but that seems like something to change and not a pattern to stay within.

I also want to be clear that I have a lot of empathy for the board, these are difficult roles, and I think the people in them are genuinely trying their best. I like them all on a personal level, and am confident these disagrees won't harm that. I also know that while the board stands united, these decisions are not privately made without debate. However, they are our board and I think sharing concerns like this is a healthy part of the process. Some of the tone people have taken on this thread is less helpful, and I hope we can get it back on a more civil track.

-greg

PS. I send this a volunteer and not wearing any official AffCom or WM anything hat (although that hat obviously formed my opinion).

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson < cindamuse@gmail.com

...

wrote:

...

Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented? If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?

Best regards,

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede < jdevreede@wikimedia.org

...

wrote:

...

Dear Frederic,

On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:

...

On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:

Hi Phoebe,

thanks for your answer !

...

> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must

have

...

...

...

...

> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic

organization.

...

...

...

> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the

group

...

...

...

> actually got there should have no influence on the result. >

Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group

to

...

...

do

...

...

stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they

will

...

...

stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove

that

...

...

they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's

the

...

...

...

crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm

concerned).

...

What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have

bylaws".

...

...

What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic

track

...

...

record over the past two years, and you have successfully

incorporated

...

...

...

two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract

external

...

...

...

funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the

kind

...

...

...

of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic organization".

How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?

I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track

record

...

is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic

organisation.

...

...

...

...

> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not

endorsed

...

...

> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the > community have a chance to comment on how it should organize

itself ?

...

...

...

I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik,

I

...

...

...

don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change

whatever

...

...

...

amount of discussion we have) and not before.

Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there

is

...

now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic

organisation,

...

which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic

choice

...

...

brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure

will

...

...

help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both

chapters

...

...

and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance

responsibility.

...

For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and

FDC

...

...

into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were

really

...

the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision

which

...

...

was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which were provided by the Affcom and FDC).

<SNIP>

...

...

thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let

us

...

...

know.

...

...

We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get

us

...

...

all

...

...

on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.

The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why

this

...

...

...

proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to

get

...

...

...

exceptions.

Hmmm.... I would say that

1. We made a decision in which we took several factors into account
2. We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have

taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this

is

...

...

the case.

would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback

about

...

...

the decision's impact in specific cases.

...

I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing ("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it

is

...

...

...

bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of

the

...

...

...

movement ?")

I really think that the FAQ gives a pretty good indication. What

concerns

...

...

me (and other board members) is the fact that there is a natural

tendency

...

...

to incorporate a group of volunteers into a chapter or thematic organisation even if there is no real track record or a good reason to

want

...

to do so (especially since the revised trademark policy gives user

groups

...

...

much more freedom to make use of the trademarks). Chapters and Thematic organisations are an essential part of the movement and we would like

each

...

and every one to succeed in furthering the goals of the movement as a whole. Asking these groups to be a user group for the first two years

while

...

doing programmatic work really gives a good indication of the ability

of

...

...

the "future chapter/thematic organisation" to succeed.

We also reference the strategic planning which is due to start this summer. One of the things we really have to solve is the roles/responsibilities/privileges of each player in the movement. The

basic

...

answer to the questions:

1. What are our long term goals
2. Who is best positioned to achieve these goals

should lead to a "who does what" picture of the movement (and maybe

just

...

...

as important "who will stop doing what"), and it is on the basis of

this

...

...

picture and the underlying goals that we should create and fund

different

...

...

players in the movement. I would argue that at this time the picture is

not

...

as clear as it should be before committing the resources we currently commit to it.

(just as a small note: when I talk about movement I mean the range from the individual volunteer to the Wikimedia Foundation itself)

...

As a side note, this is the only point that I will keep from Rupert's email: this decision completely ignores international cultural differences in terms of funding, fundraising and organization in general. Indeed, in a quote above, you talk about "good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws"; this reinforces the incorrect premise your decision is based on: that incorporation is a complicated and bureaucratic process that should be avoided. And this is something

that

...

...

...

can not be decided globally.

This is true. But to be clear, its not the possible "bureaucratic"

aspect

...

...

which concerns us greatly (as I mentioned above).

...

Frédéric

Regards

Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Board of Trustees Wikimedia Foundation

...

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

...

...

mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

Best regards,

Cynthia Ashley-Nelson "Yes. *Her again.*" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

--

---

dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.comwrote:

While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was taken into consideration, but that may give the wrong idea of what happened.

While it is true we provided feedback before the decision was made, I would not consider it consulting with us or even communicating with AffCom in a way that allowed us to provide the level of feedback I think the community has come to expect. Frankly we got a lot of our information second-hand, and am still not sure personally we know the full story. My personal expectation would have involved a lot more communication before the decision was made, and most importantly, some two-way dialogue. At the very least I think the chairs of FDC and AffCom should have been looped into parts of the conversation during the meeting

Hi Greg and all,

This is not a direct reply to your points, but I think it might be helpful in removing the cloak of mystery from all this.

Here is what happened during the board meeting, from my perspective.*

Background context:

* The board has been discussing movement roles for literally years (as have many of the folks commenting!) * The board started discussing the topic again specifically in October; many trustees are interested in broad movement roles questions and it was brought to the table as a broad topic the board should take up. * Various contexts to the discussion include: the need to review new affiliates more thoroughly than we historically have done (as recommended by our legal team, and as indicated by the history of some chapters not staying active); the new trademark and user group policies which make different models for volunteers both possible and easier; and various trustee concerns over our increasing focus movement-wide on incorporation and administration.

For these two specific decisions:

* The board first discussed the ideas of usergroups-first & capping the budgets in October. This was without any specific proposals or wording. * Later on, before the November meeting, a recommendation to take these decisions was presented in a packet by the WMF Executive Director to the board, along with some context. The packet included a summary recommendation, some arguments pro and con, and emails from Affcom and the FDC, with the proposal as presented by staff to these committees and the committee replies. * we (board members) discussed the recommendations first on our email list for a week or so before our meeting, and then over two sessions in our meeting, over the course of two+ days. On the list and in the meeting, we discussed the arguments as presented as well as arguments that emerged over the course of discussion from our own individual viewpoints, as well as the overall milleux of movement roles.

* Important note that perhaps wasn't emphasized enough in the FAQ: the set of decisions was not meant or presented as major strategy but as a temporary set of decisions, to buy us all some time while we hire a new ED and reconsider movement roles strategy. The new ED point is important; we wanted to try to decide these issues before they start, since they will have plenty of other stuff on their plate to figure out.

* In the meeting, we (the board) wrote and re-wrote the text of the decisions to match our emerging consensus about what we wanted to do. * When we seemed to have reached a stable version of the text, and also to have exhausted our ability to reach further consensus, we voted on these two decisions. I motioned for the vote because I happened to be facilitating the discussion at the time, and it seemed to me that as a group we were ready to vote.

* The no consensus thing: of course we discussed this as well. Like all boards in our movement, I expect, we always have a question of whether we should work towards unanimous consensus or whether we should accept split votes. Personally I think it depends on the context and topic. in general, I think, agreed to accept a split vote on this topic though it was somewhat contentious to do so. Why was the vote split? Each trustee should speak for themselves, but there was a range of arguments and feeling. I can tell you that similar questions to those raised on the list so far were raised.

* After voting and recording the text, we then sent the text of the decisions to Affcom and the FDC, via the Board liaisons. * Then we (board members) wrote the FAQ over the course of several weeks following, trying to answer the questions that Affcom & the FDC raised emails back to us after we shared the published decision with them, and also trying to answer additional questions we thought might arise. * In the course of writing the FAQ and pondering the committee responses, we debated some additional questions, including whether we should reconsider the decisions in the light of AffCom's response. We did not get consensus on the latter question, but considered it serious enough to bring up again in our next in-person meeting, where a majority felt that the decisions should stand (this was not a formal vote, but in the context of a discussion to resolve outstanding issues).

* We finished the FAQ, resolving our last issues and trying to make the wording as clear as possible, asked for it to be published, I sent the letter announcing it to wikimedia-l, and here we are.

I hope this gives some insight. I may have missed something in the above summary and other trustees may have a different take, too.

-- phoebe

* again, this is just my perspective, not a board statement.

Phoebe,

I appreciate you sharing this information - it fills in a few gaps. I am still concerned that there was not more opportunity for input prior to the decision - and that everyone was clearly not on the same page about what was going to be discussed exactly.

Regarding your earlier comments on the funding. I recognize that there are options beyond FDC - however it seems to send mixed messages. Also, did the board discuss capping the other WMF funding options? I still think there is confusion over the incorporated user group concerns - but I will keep that conversation on Meta. Finally, can you speak to any changes the board may be making in future processes and if the community or at least committees will have more input on these types of decisions?

-greg aka varnent PS. Nothing said from any official AffCom or WM related roles.

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:16 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.comwrote:

...

While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am

having

...

a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have

imagined

...

occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was taken into consideration, but that may give the wrong idea of what happened.

While it is true we provided feedback before the decision was made, I

would

...

not consider it consulting with us or even communicating with AffCom in a way that allowed us to provide the level of feedback I think the

community

...

has come to expect. Frankly we got a lot of our information second-hand, and am still not sure personally we know the full story. My personal expectation would have involved a lot more communication before the decision was made, and most importantly, some two-way dialogue. At the

very

...

least I think the chairs of FDC and AffCom should have been looped into parts of the conversation during the meeting

Hi Greg and all,

This is not a direct reply to your points, but I think it might be helpful in removing the cloak of mystery from all this.

Here is what happened during the board meeting, from my perspective.*

Background context:

• The board has been discussing movement roles for literally years (as have

many of the folks commenting!)

• The board started discussing the topic again specifically in October;

many trustees are interested in broad movement roles questions and it was brought to the table as a broad topic the board should take up.

• Various contexts to the discussion include: the need to review new

affiliates more thoroughly than we historically have done (as recommended by our legal team, and as indicated by the history of some chapters not staying active); the new trademark and user group policies which make different models for volunteers both possible and easier; and various trustee concerns over our increasing focus movement-wide on incorporation and administration.

For these two specific decisions:

• The board first discussed the ideas of usergroups-first & capping the

budgets in October. This was without any specific proposals or wording.

• Later on, before the November meeting, a recommendation to take these

decisions was presented in a packet by the WMF Executive Director to the board, along with some context. The packet included a summary recommendation, some arguments pro and con, and emails from Affcom and the FDC, with the proposal as presented by staff to these committees and the committee replies.

• we (board members) discussed the recommendations first on our email list

for a week or so before our meeting, and then over two sessions in our meeting, over the course of two+ days. On the list and in the meeting, we discussed the arguments as presented as well as arguments that emerged over the course of discussion from our own individual viewpoints, as well as the overall milleux of movement roles.

• Important note that perhaps wasn't emphasized enough in the FAQ: the set

of decisions was not meant or presented as major strategy but as a temporary set of decisions, to buy us all some time while we hire a new ED and reconsider movement roles strategy. The new ED point is important; we wanted to try to decide these issues before they start, since they will have plenty of other stuff on their plate to figure out.

• In the meeting, we (the board) wrote and re-wrote the text of the

decisions to match our emerging consensus about what we wanted to do.

• When we seemed to have reached a stable version of the text, and also to

have exhausted our ability to reach further consensus, we voted on these two decisions. I motioned for the vote because I happened to be facilitating the discussion at the time, and it seemed to me that as a group we were ready to vote.

• The no consensus thing: of course we discussed this as well. Like all

boards in our movement, I expect, we always have a question of whether we should work towards unanimous consensus or whether we should accept split votes. Personally I think it depends on the context and topic. in general, I think, agreed to accept a split vote on this topic though it was somewhat contentious to do so. Why was the vote split? Each trustee should speak for themselves, but there was a range of arguments and feeling. I can tell you that similar questions to those raised on the list so far were raised.

• After voting and recording the text, we then sent the text of the

decisions to Affcom and the FDC, via the Board liaisons.

• Then we (board members) wrote the FAQ over the course of several weeks

following, trying to answer the questions that Affcom & the FDC raised emails back to us after we shared the published decision with them, and also trying to answer additional questions we thought might arise.

• In the course of writing the FAQ and pondering the committee responses,

we debated some additional questions, including whether we should reconsider the decisions in the light of AffCom's response. We did not get consensus on the latter question, but considered it serious enough to bring up again in our next in-person meeting, where a majority felt that the decisions should stand (this was not a formal vote, but in the context of a discussion to resolve outstanding issues).

• We finished the FAQ, resolving our last issues and trying to make the

wording as clear as possible, asked for it to be published, I sent the letter announcing it to wikimedia-l, and here we are.

I hope this gives some insight. I may have missed something in the above summary and other trustees may have a different take, too.

-- phoebe

• again, this is just my perspective, not a board statement.

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Quick follow-up question and comment -

Is there any reason for affiliates to feel they should now at least plan for possible caps on other areas? Does that absolutely seem unlikely (granted anything is possible) or not really something the board can comment on more firmly - which I suspect will just keep people concerned about this cap indicating a new trend while new strategic planning under the new ED begins (er..continues..).

I am happy to hear that there is agreement that things should be done better next time. My one comment on the notes is that I hope they are more immediately two-way in nature. While the liaisons and committees are very helpful in many circumstances - the nature of things sometimes causes multiple week gaps between individual notes. That is just my personal reaction.

Also - and sorry if I just overlooked this elsewhere - will the board be discussing or presenting more on this topic at the April conference in Berlin?

-greg

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:19 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Greg!

A few fast notes before I go to bed :)

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.comwrote:

...

Phoebe,

I appreciate you sharing this information - it fills in a few gaps. I am still concerned that there was not more opportunity for input prior to

the

...

decision - and that everyone was clearly not on the same page about what was going to be discussed exactly.

I take your point about wanting more formal committee consultation, for sure, and in hindsight I agree we should have done things differently. (I think writing comments would probably work better logistically than skyping folks in, just for logistical and stylistic reasons, but it's an interesting thought -- perhaps worth a try).

...

Regarding your earlier comments on the funding. I recognize that there

are

...

options beyond FDC - however it seems to send mixed messages. Also, did

the

...

board discuss capping the other WMF funding options?

Nope.

...

I still think there is confusion over the incorporated user group concerns - but I will keep

that

...

conversation on Meta.

I just posted a reply on meta about this, that hopefully will clear up some concerns. Short answer: if you need to incorporate in your country for whatever reason, go ahead and incorporate. You just don't *have* to for wikimedia recognition.

...

Finally, can you speak to any changes the board may be making in future processes and if the community or at least committees will have more input on these types of decisions?

Hmm. I know there is a desire to talk about movement roles strategy in general among several trustees, so we may well talk about related issues, but I don't know if that will be on a meeting agenda in the near future, and we don't have any decisions planned that I know of (though of course issues may be raised that aren't on the agenda now). The April meeting will hopefully mostly be adjusting/approving the annual plan and working on the shift to a new executive director, especially if they are hired and available by then.

-- Phoebe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

One of the (many) problems that I have with this is that it both makes these user groups more dependent on movement funds for a longer period of time, but then caps those funds in the same decision. It is easy to tell the org to just find some outside funding (which is mentioned in the FAQ) - except that the user groups do not have the same legal status and that will make it essentially impossible to get outside funding. So we will either have incorporated user groups, which we seem to want to avoid, underfunded projects, or greater competition for a pool of funds that has increasing demand but no increase in supply. As a professional nonprofit fundraiser, the combination of these two decisions seems so contradictory it makes my head hurt. Asking these groups to become dependent on WMF funds in their first years seems contrary to serving the donors long-term. Shouldn't we be helping these groups diversify their income and become less dependent on movement funds? If that is the cause, then new projects that have a large scope and potential for outside revenue are harmed greatly by this decision.

While the board's support for this decision was not universal, opposition to it from AffCom and FDC seems to be pretty universal. I wish that was taken into greater consideration by the board. I know they said they did - but I just don't believe that based on the timeline and what I witnessed personally. As the volunteers who work and deal with these topics weekly, it is very dismaying that our opinions were given second class treatment behind those offered by the staff (or so it appears from my perspective - I would be happy to be corrected on that). I would like for the board at some point to address how it will better handle things like this in the future. I recognize the staff will always have greater access to the board than FDC and AffCom - but what is the point of calling them advisory groups if the board treats them more like grunts and not advisors. I do not accept the premise that this decision would have been delayed, hindered, or harmed in any way by Skyping in the chairs of FDC and AffCom to speak to this topic as it was being presented by the staff. There is still not clarity on how that even happened, or what materials were presented. I am told there was supporting evidence, but I have yet to see it. Why was the documentation presented by the staff not shared with AffCom and FDC while our comments were shared with the staff? Are we misunderstanding how this happened? If so, why has that not been made clearer by now? Was FDC officially asked to provide feedback (AffCom offered it without being asked)? If not, why not? Did the board not think this was a big change? With so much care put into other decisions, why was this one done so quietly and internally?

-greg

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:

Hello Frédéric, a quick comment:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:

...

Your decision is not "you should have a good track record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".

Bylaws are fine, whatever makes sense for each group; just not mandatory. The Board is looking for two years of active work when recognizing entities.

The WMF also wants to let all groups have easier access to trademarks and funds. This is what user groups were designed to allow, with minimal overhead. These two ideas were combined into "be a user group for two years".

Sam.

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On 2/11/14, 9:18 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:

The WMF also wants to let all groups have easier access to trademarks and funds. This is what user groups were designed to allow, with minimal overhead. These two ideas were combined into "be a user group for two years".

This part I do think is a good idea. There are many models of how individuals and groups participate and organize themselves within the global Wikimedia movement besides the umbrella Wikimedia Foundation, and imo the previous organizational/funding focus overlooked those who didn't fit one specific model: national Chapters, i.e. organizations seeking to represent Wikimedia-movement activities in a general sense, within the territory of one nation-state, and usually in a fairly "official" manner (paid staff, boards of directors, political visibility, etc.). I like that initiatives such as the individual-engagement grants, user-group recognition, etc. are opening up more avenues for Wikimedian organizations, organized along different lines, to find a more recognized (and funded) role in the movement.

-Mark

On 2/12/14, 10:55 PM, Mathias Damour wrote:

...

I like that initiatives such as the individual-engagement grants, user-group recognition, etc. are opening up more avenues for Wikimedian organizations, organized along different lines, to find a more recognized (and funded) role in the movement.

I like them too, saved I want it to be supervised by my chapter rather than the WMF !

Mark, may you "disclose" which country you are from/live in ? I am from France, living in France.

Since you asked: I am Greek by ethnicity, I live in Denmark, and I mostly grew up in the USA. So I guess, no one country? That is part of what causes my discomfort with nation-state-based organizations, because I fit in none of them particularly well. Should I orient my activities under Wikimedia Denmark, where I live? But I am not Danish, and I speak the language poorly. Maybe Wikimedia Greece? I don't live there, and haven't really in a long time, though I do speak Greek and have the right genetics. Maybe some kind of Wikimedia USA? I don't live there either, though I used to, and I do speak English well. What I feel most comfortable in is a global movement that does not require me to prove allegiance/membership in any particular country; deciding which country my Wikimedia participation belongs to seems decidedly unhelpful, for me personally.

In other projects this doesn't seem to be as big of a deal. I'm a heavy participant in OpenStreetMap, which is an organization legally based in the UK. That's a country I have no connection to at all. But it doesn't really matter, because the OSM Foundation does things I benefit from, since they aren't really UK-specific: they maintain the servers, maintain and develop the software, look after the legal situation of the project, etc. As a map editor, I have no complaints with their stewardship of the core project. Of course, actual mapping activities happen on a distributed basis (it is difficult to map Denmark well, if you don't live here), but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with letting the UK organization continue to manage maintenance of the servers and software.

-Mark

On 11 Feb 2014, at 20:18, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:

Hello Frédéric, a quick comment:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz schutz@mathgen.ch wrote:

...

Your decision is not "you should have a good track record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws".

Bylaws are fine, whatever makes sense for each group; just not mandatory. The Board is looking for two years of active work when recognizing entities.

The WMF also wants to let all groups have easier access to trademarks and funds. This is what user groups were designed to allow, with minimal overhead. These two ideas were combined into "be a user group for two years".

The board meeting minutes specifically say "unincorporated Wikimedia user group”, though, which makes it sound like you don’t want groups to, well, incorporate. Which means people involved in those user groups take on personal liability for their activities rather than having the protection of a formal organisation, which is really bad for the volunteers should anything go badly...

Thanks, Mike

On 2/11/14, 9:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

There are two areas where the Wikimedia Foundation is active; the USA where it is active through both chapters and the office in San Francisco. The rest of the world where it is active through chapters and whatever.

Well, you did leave out a few of the countries in the WMF is active, mainly by paying staff located there to work on things ranging from the Visual Editor to core MediaWiki development to internationalization to analytics: Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Austria, Australia, UK, Czech Republic, Croatia, Israel, India, Finland...

-Mark