that brings me to a point of confusion. What should we do to be more transparent? I guess things are getting missed through all these discussions and emails, and I'm not sure what else to do besides this? Suggestions would be welcome.

Conforme : "isso me traz a um ponto de confusão. O que devemos fazer para ser mais transparente? Eu acho que as coisas estão ficando perdidas através de todas essas discussões e e-mails, e eu não tenho certeza o que mais fazer além disso? Sugestões serão bem-vindos".

Olá a todos

A minha sugestão é interromper esse processo de escolha de um diretor nacional de programas e amadurecer com a comunidade o formato mais adequado de funcionamento de um escritório da WMF no Brasil.

Penso que deve ser um Centro de apoio aos voluntários, coordenado por alguém da WMBr.

Por favor, opinem.

Abs, Névio

Em 24 de novembro de 2011 05:49, Everton Zanella Alvarenga <> escreveu:
Hi, Jessie et al,

thanks for your email. I'd like to go further analysing everything,
but I don't have time now. So I will go to two points that aren't
clear to me and maybe go to Abdo's concern and mine as well while we Progra
had our discussion in Haifa, resulting in the letter of agreement you
pointed out. [1]

While I saw this open discussion when Carol was working to WMF, as I
said before, and one of her *proposals* was this office with a
national director, my feeling if that when we talked about this in
Haifa it was an *announcement* of a decision base upon Carol's
analysis - maybe my impression is wrong, others involved, please, tell
me if you agree.

The main points on this of the agreement letter [1] says

* Brazil is a strategic priority for Wikimedia Foundation.

* Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to
stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of
Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the search
for locations, hiring lawyers and the search for a professional to
manage it.

* Wikimedia Foundation understands that the Brazilian community and,
thus, the chapter under formation still doesn't have the capacity to
be completely self-managed.

* Wikimedia Foundation aims to develop the existing programs in
Brazil, like "Campus Ambassadors", though it still doesn't have a
specific development program for Brazil.

The reason for the office, point 2, then, if because of point 3. This
announcement was the main reason I said during this discussion some
decision should be more open and transparent. I repeated this to Barry
after the lunch, because I haven't felt comfortable with that. A
reason I can be missing something is that I was not in Brazil during
the meeting of June with Jessie and Barry and I completely forgot to
ask this in Haifa. (Did I miss something?)

When you both came to Brazil last time (I arrived later on the first
day meeting, tell me if I lost something, please), I was informed
there was not going to have an office anymore. This was the reason for
I have insisted again on the point about transparency and open
discussion just before you and Barry take the taxi to the airport
after your presention at University of São Paulo (do you remember Abdo
was saying to me stop annoying you both? Hahaha!).

And if we go to Barry's note[2], he says

"We will move immediately to hire a qualitative researcher to conduct
analysis of PT:WP. We will also hire a Fellow to start working with
the PT community by October. Our Global Education team is looking for
a consultant to help start preliminary planning for the program in
Brazil with a goal of starting some pilot activities in universities
in the first quarter of 2012."

Then, for me, this other new job position of a national director now
appeared as a surprise. Now we will have a qualitative researcher, a
global consultant and a national director. And the decision of having
again an office (I thought you gave up the idea because of the
progress made by the volunteers to create a legal entity) sound to me
as there were discussions in between we, the Brazilian community, were
left aside.

These are my concerns and points that aren't clear to me. Being
specific, maybe it can be useful to the general Abdo's concern, which
I think important and this open discussion here is important to
clarify all that.





Em 23 de novembro de 2011 11:12, Jessie Wild <> escreveu:
> Hi Ale and all -
> Thanks for vocalizing your concerns. I'm glad they finally came out here in
> the open because I must admit they take me very much by surprise; I didn't
> realize these were all stirring under the surface – which indicates to me we
> all need a better method of transparency! So let's get started figuring that
> out...
> I want to start by apologizing profusely if anything has come across as
> being secretive or planned in isolation. That is most certainly NOT the
> intent of WMF – there is no desire to try to sneak something in around the
> local Brazilian community; we obviously want the same things: a prosperous
> Portuguese Wikipedia and growth in the Brazilian community. This can only be
> done in conjunction with you all, so there is no intentional effort to
> eliminate you from the process.
> It seems, though, unintentionally we have done so, so let's try to fix that.
> I will say like any organization, things happen about which not everyone can
> be aware – I'm sure you've all experienced this in your work environments
> before; I certainly have experienced this in WMF, Wikimedia, as well as
> other jobs and organizations I have been heavily involved with: sometimes
> thoughts/ideas/notifications go out that slip through the cracks, sometimes
> the act of sending out a notification slips through the cracks! I agree we
> should try to minimize both.
> In terms of communication that has gone out: the work with Michael Page was
> NOT suppose to be done in secret, which is why we talked about it multiple
> times over the past months! It was on a wiki in June[0] and October[1] and
> we also brought up this meeting verbally at all our meet-ups over the past
> months, where we also talked about it openly during Wikimania, WikiSampa8
> and 10[2]. Same with the office, which I thought we were agreed upon based
> on the letter from the community back in August[3].
> So, I guess that brings me to a point of confusion. What should we do to be
> more transparent? I guess things are getting missed through all these
> discussions and emails, and I'm not sure what else to do besides this?
> Suggestions would be welcome. I know language barrier is an issue for some,
> so as Nevio recommended: one step is making sure things are translated
> (thanks to Rodrigo, Beria, Tom, Castelo, Daniela, Mateus and others for
> doing this thus far!).
> There are other topics that are not addressed in this email, and I fear they
> are too much for one email: (1) the hiring process via Michael Page and (2)
> the opening of an office in general. I will expand on those things below
> (“Appendix”) and do want the discussion to move forward on those, but first
> can we tackle how to maintain transparency and strategically deciding things
> together, as you suggest?
> Thanks; and FYI – Barry is on vacation this week, and we have holidays
> (Thanksgiving in the US) the next few days, so we may not be as responsive
> as normal.
> Jessie
> PS sorry if this doesn't make much sense; I'm in an airport waiting for my
> last flight after 30hrs of traveling...6 more to go :)
> [0]
> I'll admit, now looking at this, it appears a bit hidden (listed as “Office
> planning” and you have to scroll down to see, but we got no questions on
> this).
> [1]
> [2] See agenda: ttp://
> [3] see appendix for more details on this office discussion!
> *** APPENDIX TOPICS :) ***
> Re: Hiring with Michael Page
> We have found good success with working with professional search firms both
> for our positions in the US as well as abroad (India), so we engage with
> them – as do MANY other nonprofit firms – as a way of expanding our networks
> into broader areas. The executive search firm in this Brazilian case as
> always does NOT have final say.
> That is very important.
> What we are agreed upon with MP is that they will present a “short-list” of
> candidates for us, and we will take-over from there. MP does not control who
> is selected, and we are certainly allowed to go back to MP and say “these
> people are all wrong!” or the like. It is a good concern, though, about
> whether or not they will be able to find people that match our mission.
> After our first meeting with them, Barry and I were a little skeptical of
> this too. But after a second meeting with them they brought on a new guy
> (Marcelo) to head up the search, who was a lot more connected in are realms
> of social work, and we were a lot more confident and excited about working
> with them. Obviously, though, we are wanting to cast our net as wide as
> possible, though, and want all of your help in advertising the position and
> identifying excellent candidates. Most successful placements in most
> organizations are made by internal recommendation![1]
> Ok so as for the step two of the hiring: “we take over from here.” this part
> is much more tbd, and I am glad we are discussing it now. I love the
> recommendation on having a wiki where applicants put up their ideas
> publicly. Also, we are obviously going to have a couple rounds of interviews
> with panels from the WMF side of things, and WMF wanted to have some
> Brazilian representatives involved with that process as well. None of this
> is finalized yet; let's discuss and come to agreement on the best way.
> Opening of the office
> Ok, I am struggling to know where to begin with this, it is so complex. This
> obviously isn't a new idea, it was identified in the strategic plan in
> 2010[2]. It was talked about openly during all Carolina's work as Tom
> mentioned. It was talked about it in January, June, and October when WMF
> came to meet-ups in Brazil. We even held a special time to talk about it in
> Wikimania 2011, where WMF actually decided to put the idea of starting an
> “office” on hold, based on that feedback at Wikimania.[3]
> In terms of the structure: the two positions posted (Global Ed Person and
> National “Director”[4]) would work completely together. If you read the job
> description for the “Director,” you'll see it involves a lot of other things
> besides just Education. It would incorporate a lot of the partnership type
> building that Kul and I take on at the moment, for example. So, it would for
> now be a two man-team. Again, these things were outlined by Carol in the
> plan and in the note by Barry and in all our verbal conversations.
> Most importantly, though, was the letter issued by the Brazilians – which
> stated:[5]
> “Participant members of the Brazilian community decided to: Support the
> creation of Wikimedia Foundation office in Brazil which, as explained at the
> meeting, will have the goal of fostering the realization of partnerships and
> events with the community and the external audiences, provisionally and
> until the local chapter and even the local chapter have enough structure to
> develop such activities directly”
> I think that is where I get confused, as I thought we were in agreement. So
> is the better process to set up a “voting” page? (note: I'm not sure that's
> the best (or even a good) idea, but I am suggesting for lack of a better one
> at the moment!)
> [1] citation needed :) but that seems the case in my experiences!
> [2]
> [3]
> [4] yes: we can reconsider the title. Please offer suggestions!
> [5]

WikimediaBR-l mailing list

Venha para o Movimento Colaborativo !!