> <
ashwin.baindur@gmail.com <mailto:
ashwin.baindur@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The national chapter recently informed the community about its
> Membership and Community engagement plan -June 2011.
>
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2011-June/003346.html
>
> In that document, the regulatory framework for conduct of
> Wikiconferences was released.
>
>
http://wiki.wikimedia.in/India_Wiki_Conference_Framework
>
> Shortly thereafter, a clarification was issued.
>
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2011-June/003378.html
>
> Members of the community must be puzzled at the need for
> clarification from the Chapter on the issues of its regulatory
> framework when there was no discussion online. This is because
> the recent announcement of the framework, in conjunction with
> other issues, led to the community believing that the chapter
> had forsaken it.
>
> A little history - the idea for a Wikiconference was mooted
> way back in March by the Mumbai community and they asked the
> Pune community to co-host it to which the Pune community
> agreed. As India now has a national chapter, we naturally
> asked for their support more than two months ago. For more
> than two months they were silent. Yesterday, they responded
> saying that the community was invited to submit their
> proposal, duly modified as per the said framework, and
> resubmit it for consideration with other bids. The cavaliar
> treatment of the serious efforts put in to date by the
> communities and the contents of the Framework of Regulations
> were disturbing to the community.
>
> At the face off it, one may just consider the Regulatory
> Framework as just another logical and reasonable document, but
> its language, text and subtext upset the community, in light
> of Chapter's attitude.
>
> The first and over-riding issue was the type of language used
> and its indication of the relation between chapter and
> communities. We all know that the Wikimedia Foundation
> encourages national chapters so that the community and
> creation of knowledge by them is facilitated. However, the
> language herein clearly gives a message - that the Indian
> chapter is boss and all Indian wikimedian communities are
> subservient to it.
>
> While that is a great inequity in itself, the community was
> also aggrieved that the framework has been foisted on them
> without discussion, without any attempt to get them to
> participate and buy in into the plan, without community
> consensus and without any consideration of the community's
> interests. This feudalistic attitude is considered to be an
> anachronism in volunteer driven communities of the 21st
> Centuries especially in India. So, no matter whether the
> framework is good or bad, sensible or not, the approach to the
> community taken by the chapter is to be firmly objected to and
> resisted.
>
> The Mumbai & Pune community supports the chapter, and have
> defended the chapter on number of occasions in email
> discussions. Members of the two communities have
> enthusiastically joined the chapter once membership opened. A
> member of the Mumbai and a member of the Pune community are
> the first two members to join by NEFT and physical cheque. To
> the best of my knowledge 24 members from Pune joined the
> chapter in response to Arjuna Rao Chavala's appeal for member
> ships when he came last month to our Pune meetup.
>
> We earnestly believe that India needs an active, sympathetic,
> facilitative and supportive chapter. We look forward to
> heartily cooperating with such a chapter - alas, the chapter's
> latest tune was nothing of that kind. It seemed to be
> indicative of wanting power and to dominate.
>
> The third issue, were the "black" provisions of the framework.
> Each of the sentences seemed to imply negative connotations
> for the community.
>
> To give you some examples of the "black" provisions -
>
> Example one - Finance
>
> The responsibilities of the Host city team included "Fund
> raising", whereas the corresponding responsibility of the
> Chapter Team was "Responsible for facilitating financial
> operations and accountability for finances for the event".
>
> The message conveyed was that the community was responsible
> for raiising funds but only the chapter was allowed to decide
> how it was spent. No commitment of raising monetary support
> was made by the chapter for the event.
>
> Example two - Logistics
>
> The responsibility for the "Host city team" is mentioned as
> being "responsible for City logistics in terms of Venue, local
> transportation, stay assistance". However, the city community
> was to be given no say in the decision-making i.e.
> organisation of the programme, guest list, expenditure etc.
> The OC head was to be some person of chapter Executive
> Committee. That meant, the community had to do the hard work
> but the chapter would take credit. If the conference
> succeeded, it was the chapter's moment of glory. Whereas if
> the conference failed, the communities would be blamed.
>
> Example three - Venue
>
> After three months of spade work by Mumbai-Pune, when no other
> city had shown any inclination to take up the project, the
> chapter thanked the city community for the "proposal", came up
> with this framework, asks the city to make changes as per the
> framework and resubmit it for consideration within two weeks
> or so. Then, all proposals/bids would be considered by the
> chapter and the decision communicated.
>
> For two months, the community waited with bated breath for the
> chapter's response and was floored when it eventually came.
> There were no emails of encouragement, no saying "we support
> you", no saying "great job guys, lets give it to Mumbai-Pune
> this time, next time, cities can bid". The community, not
> surprisingly, were forced to construe such a response as lack
> of support by the chapter.
>
> So what was to be done? The community was furious at being
> treated this way. They could not acquiese to this kind of
> 'fatwa' type of decision-making by the chapter. It was felt
> that if the community accepted this state of affairs this time
> around, it would act as a precedent and set the tone for all
> future interactions between community and chapter.
>
> So, we indicated to the chapter informally through various
> people that this sort of thing just will not do. We were
> prepared for a confrontation on matter of principle. However,
> thanks to various third party back-of-the-scenes attempts, the
> chapter is now beginning to realise this. A member of the
> chapter Executive Committee has given a clarification. You can
> read it here -
>
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2011-June/003378.html
>
>
> The community's demands are few and equitable.
>
> Firstly, treat us like equals and stakeholders. Amongst us,
> chapter will then be first among equals. The community will
> not accept any other form of relationship.
>
> The second request is always ask our opinion before issuing
> policy especially for a thing like Wikiconference which has
> not been conducted before. The chapter must be consultative
> and facilitative of the community. The community will not
> accept orders by fiat.
>
> Lastly, this present framework will not do. We need a
> framework which gives autonomy to the Organising Committee to
> successfully pull off an event of this scale and nature. While
> organising this Wikiconference, the community is willing to
> develop a sensible, practical framework which can be debated
> and finalised after the event is over. In this manner best
> practices and lessons learnt will be incorporated.
>
> We felt that you as a community member should know what was
> going on and what happened and how we responded to it. Our
> next step is to list the issues concerning how the
> Wikiconference should be conducted and discuss them on the
> list. At present, an active discussion on this is going on
> between Pune and Mumbai communities off-list. In the meantime,
> we invite the chapter to Mumbai where these issues can be
> discussed amicably face to face and resolved.
>
> We thank all those who spoke out in favour of the community.
>
> Please write back with your views and support as this concerns
> every one of us.
>
> Ashwin Baindur
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
>
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org