On 29 April 2014 01:00, Asaf Bartov <abartov(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
1. Chapters are free to set their own course and come
up with their own
strategy, goals, and annual plans. They are thus independent.
2. Chapters that want to avail themselves of _movement funds_ -- a
relatively plentiful and relatively accessible source of funding -- do need
to propose compelling plans with at least a considerable emphasis on the
goals identified as strategic goals for Wikimedia.
Thank you, Asaf. I now understand how this works. So long as a Chapter
is willing to further the WMF's larger strategic vision, they can get
access to WMF funds - assuming, of course, they have a plan and the
proven capability of delivering that. It's this latter bit that the
WMF/FDC has raised questions about?
They are still free to
pursue specific programs and interests that are a good
match for their
context -- regional, organizational, and motivational (i.e. what their own
volunteers are most motivated to work on). The balance between
definitely-strategic and perhaps-less-strategic-but-making-sense-in-context
initiatives needs to be a reasonable one, and to be reasonably argued for,
but it can certainly be done.
3. In my earlier comments, I was suggesting that WMIN _not_ forego movement
funding, because, in my opinion, its actual goals and its volunteer base
_are not_ in fact too divergent from movement goals and WMF's expectations.
I asserted that the abiding disagreement between WMF and WMIN is much more
around the _how_ than the _what_, and that that disagreement can be
surmounted. (I acknowledge, however, that it has so far seen little
positive development: despite much investment of time and effort from both
sides, and multiple channels (including face to face conversations)
attempted, neither side has accepted the other's expectations so far.)
I remain interested, as mentioned earlier on this thread, to engage with
WMIN on a more constructive note, on a path toward greater credibility and
confidence in WMIN from WMF; such a path would need to go through realistic
growth planning, demonstrable community engagement and support, and some
sustained record of success. In a way, the latest round of discussions with
WMIN has resulted in something along those lines, at least in terms of
WMIN's current plans and three short-term focuses (I wonder if they were
shared with this list -- if not, perhaps the EC would consider doing so). I
remain frankly skeptical of WMIN's ability to execute those plans in terms
of volunteer engagement (and even EC/board engagement), but I would be
_delighted_ to be proven too pessimistic. I am happy to discuss more
strategic planning (as distinct from the three short-term focuses) any time,
if WMIN's current leadership would show interest.
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!