Dear Shyamal, and everyone,
I apologize for not responding in a timely manner to your question on the Wikimedia Forum[1]. Since that thread is now archived, and because I don't want to "bury" my respond, I'm responding here, on this list where most of the people who care will read it.
To your question: Vishnu did ask me -- at the time (the delay is all mine) -- about sharing the WMF and CIS agreement publicly. We will not be sharing that agreement, on principle: not because there's anything secret or damning in it, but because we do not want to create a misleading precedent that may set the expectation that all WMF contracts are subject to community review. This isn't, and cannot be, the case. We likewise do not expect chapters or other partners to publicly share contracts.
That said, I am happy to answer the question that prompted you to want to look at the agreement, viz. whether the community "really has the right to complain about things like lack of discussions / transparency etc." -- the answer is: yes, of course! The community is our ally in ensuring meaningful work gets accomplished, in India as in elsewhere in the world. We not only "allow", but _want_ the community to review CIS-A2K's work, just like it reviews WMF's work (on more global/technical matters, e.g. the visual editor), Wikimedia India's work, and any other group operating in or around the Wikimedia projects.
I believe Vishnu and the rest of the A2K team have been receptive to feedback (even when it included abuse and accusations of bad faith), and it seems to me they have been working to address those parts of that feedback that pointed to genuine deficiencies or oversights on their part.
CIS is a grantee of the Wikimedia Foundation; it is an independent organization carrying out work that we want to see done in India, according to an approved work plan. I am the person at WMF responsible for the partnership with CIS, and I am regularly in touch with Vishnu to hear about progress, challenges, and successes.
I encourage all community members to continue to engage with the A2K team in good faith (and patience), on Meta, the different language Wikipedias, and mailing lists, as appropriate, to keep the feedback cycle going.
IF anyone finds that they have reached a dead end in direct dialogue with the A2K team, I certainly want to hear about it, and, if I find merit in the issue, I can certainly bring it up in my periodic calls with Vishnu and ask for it to be addressed. Please don't hesitate to reach out to me personally in such a case, but only if you've first tried discussing it directly with no result.
I hope that answers your question.
Cheers,
Asaf
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2013-08#Terms_.2F_M...
On 1 November 2013 09:17, Asaf Bartov abartov@wikimedia.org wrote:
Dear Shyamal, and everyone,
I apologize for not responding in a timely manner to your question on the Wikimedia Forum[1]. Since that thread is now archived, and because I don't want to "bury" my respond, I'm responding here, on this list where most of the people who care will read it.
To your question: Vishnu did ask me -- at the time (the delay is all mine) -- about sharing the WMF and CIS agreement publicly. We will not be sharing that agreement, on principle: not because there's anything secret or damning in it, but because we do not want to create a misleading precedent that may set the expectation that all WMF contracts are subject to community review. This isn't, and cannot be, the case. We likewise do not expect chapters or other partners to publicly share contracts.
That said, I am happy to answer the question that prompted you to want to look at the agreement, viz. whether the community "really has the right to complain about things like lack of discussions / transparency etc." -- the answer is: yes, of course! The community is our ally in ensuring meaningful work gets accomplished, in India as in elsewhere in the world. We not only "allow", but _want_ the community to review CIS-A2K's work, just like it reviews WMF's work (on more global/technical matters, e.g. the visual editor), Wikimedia India's work, and any other group operating in or around the Wikimedia projects.
Asaf,
One of the reasons I personally would want to push for more visibility on the agreement terms is the spending that is being done on the salaries of the people involved in the Indian program. There's not much disclosure on these if I'm not mistaken. Or point me to it if there's any. Starting from the earlier program director, the salaries allotted were mind bogglingly huge when compared to the salary trends in the non-profits here in India. The impression the volunteers involved in the community would get obviously is that the spending has been free flow, and anything but frugal. And considering the volume of spending, there's an impending question about the fruitfulness of the actual work done on ground.
On 6 November 2013 18:08, Hari Prasad Nadig hpnadig@gmail.com wrote:
Starting from the earlier program director, the salaries allotted were mind bogglingly huge when compared to the salary trends in the non-profits here in India.
In general, salaries at non-profits in India are staggeringly low. So not sure if that's a valid starting point.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://www.akshara.org.in/
On 6 November 2013 18:31, Gautam John gautam@akshara.org.in wrote:
On 6 November 2013 18:08, Hari Prasad Nadig hpnadig@gmail.com wrote:
Starting from the earlier program director, the salaries allotted were
mind
bogglingly huge when compared to the salary trends in the non-profits
here
in India.
In general, salaries at non-profits in India are staggeringly low. So not sure if that's a valid starting point.
Well, salaries upto 2 lakh _per month_ with additional allowances for expenses on domestic and international travel is pretty huge for India. Reading from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF-A2K_Grant_Budget_and_Utilization_...
One of the reasons I personally would want to push for more visibility on the agreement terms is the spending that is being done on the salaries of the people involved in the Indian program. There's not much disclosure on these if I'm not mistaken. Or point me to it if there's any.
Dear Hari,
The current CIS-A2K Grant budget (including the Team salaries) were openly shared with the community through most of the Indian mailing lists, in June 2013. For the posting on this list see [1].
Also see [2] for original approved budget which was part of the Grant Agreement and see [3] revised budget.
Best, Vishnu
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2013-May/009900.html [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF-A2K_Grant_Budget_and_Utilization... [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CIS-A2K_WMF_Grant_Revised_Budget_%28...
Vishnu,
The salaries of the earlier program director wasn't disclosed. There's not been much visibility there.
Thanks for the links though.
On 6 November 2013 19:11, Vishnu T visdaviva@gmail.com wrote:
One of the reasons I personally would want to push for more visibility on the agreement terms is the spending that is being done on the salaries of the people involved in the Indian program. There's not much disclosure on these if I'm not mistaken. Or point me to it if there's any.
Dear Hari,
The current CIS-A2K Grant budget (including the Team salaries) were openly shared with the community through most of the Indian mailing lists, in June 2013. For the posting on this list see [1].
Also see [2] for original approved budget which was part of the Grant Agreement and see [3] revised budget.
Best, Vishnu
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaindia-l/2013-May/009900.html [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF-A2K_Grant_Budget_and_Utilization... [3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CIS-A2K_WMF_Grant_Revised_Budget_%28...
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
There is certainly some irony in having a 200,000 INR per month salary+perks and encouraging others to contribute voluntarily (worse still to call it staggeringly low). More importantly I think, besides mere envy, that this causes a rift between much of the community that was actually happy being (unpaid) volunteers and those that would rather spend their time jostling to be part of the funded system. Overall it seems funds as opposed to shared resources (examples here being libraries, journal access) have a tendency to affect egalitarian aims, and I suspect the effects are worse in the "Global South". Vishnu or anyone else in such enviable positions might feel apologetic about it but the question to ask is whether it is even possible to find the right balance here.
Considering transparency as setting a bad precedent does not appear healthy either. One of the ideas that I keep pointing out as being a good compass for all projects that involve collaboration/participation is to understand that the term stands for a broad spectrum and it certainly would make sense to aim higher in the rungs of the "ladder of participation" if we are to have truly healthy collaboration. (See Arnstein's Ladder) http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.ht...
best wishes Shyamal
+1 Shyamal
It certainly makes the volunteers to draw a line on what they could volunteer easily and leaves the rest to them (and i have implied earlier about their abilities) and i afraid it's getting worse day by day. A2K might reach to thousands of people, but it is not going to help retain them and the existing users.
If A2K really care about being collaborative with the community and bringing transparency, then why it doesn't seek community's inputs? E.g. AFAIK there was no discussion on hiring an advisor, just an announcement and post-discussions (I had read that wmf had nodded it but why there was no discussion with the community!) I wonder who really needs advice!
My point is rather having a paid advisor, A2K should collaborate with the community; we have experienced volunteers on wiki, on this list, and Chapter members who can advise, we have meta and such sites, where people around the world share their ideas, are great resources. (seeking feedback on already made plans is not enough.) And i know you could say that it won't be good enough. But it should be more than enough if you really care and could do it. If A2K can't seek advise from community members and it needs a paid advisor then it's not good enough for any such tasks that would benefit the movement.
If A2K care on bringing transparency, why the advisor name was not mentioned after several months (since February if i'm not mistaken) till now, for that i had to ask again and again! Why?
So far it looks to me, A2K just want to run the show, no matter how! And i know most of our concerns get ignored, so there is no point raising any. I shall refrain myself from now on. I think it's time the team should care about understanding the system, and how it can get voluntary support and time from the experienced users.
Ansuman
Hi,
//Well, salaries upto 2 lakh _per month_ with additional allowances for expenses on domestic and international travel is pretty huge for India. Reading from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF-A2K_Grant_Budget_and_Utilization_...
So what? An employee working for the same BPO / software company in India gets paid less than his counterpart in US. Even offsetting the lifestyle and cost of living allowances, it becomes like mere outsourcing for cheap labour. Should WMF consider cost cutting and out source this work to some other country :) ? 2 lakh INR comes around 3000 USD which is a decent salary for a mid level employee in US. For a national program like CIS - A2K, salaries in this range is acceptable.
Problem is Indian non-profits usally paying staggeringly low salary. Not WMF approving reasonable salary scales.
So, are we going to ask for the payroll details of all WMF employees and start giving our verdict on who deserves how much?
//There is certainly some irony in having a 200,000 INR per month salary+perks and encouraging others to contribute voluntarily (worse still to call it staggeringly low). More importantly I think, besides mere envy, that this causes a rift between much of the community that was actually happy being (unpaid) volunteers and those that would rather spend their time jostling to be part of the funded system. Overall it seems funds as opposed to shared resources (examples here being libraries, journal access) have a tendency to affect egalitarian aims, and I suspect the effects are worse in the "Global South".//
//It certainly makes the volunteers to draw a line on what they could volunteer easily and leaves the rest to them (and i have implied earlier about their abilities) and i afraid it's getting worse day by day.//
Based on the same logic, is the global Wikipedia participation going down and communities getting shrinked because of the amount of spending done by WMF and national chapters?
Speaking from Tamil community's perspective, most of us don't know the existance and spending done by WMF or India chapter or CIS - A2K. Even if we get to know, I am sure that this will have no effect on our community's motivation to contribute.
*Community dynamics will be strained only if direct editing or off wiki outreach or programs is financially supported for a select few. We make sure that it doesn't happen and all community work is totally volunteering. Where is egalitarianism lost here? *
The community should be aware of its strengths, goals and work towards it. Wherever it cannot work efficiently, it should give space for partnering agencies and let them do their work professionally.
This culture of looking up to WMF, chapter and CIS-A2K for community's growth or lack of it is not healthy. We should remember that community came first and all came later. There is still a lot of scope for each community to grow on it's own and make use of grants program when it needs help.
We have every right as a donor to question how WMF and it's partnering agencies spend our money. But that should not be an excuse to address the lack of motivation in our community. If people are really getting de motivated because of this, we just need to attract more people with the right attitude and motivation.
Ravi
On 9 November 2013 13:58, Ravishankar ravidreams@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
//Well, salaries upto 2 lakh _per month_ with additional allowances for expenses on domestic and international travel is pretty huge for India. Reading from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF-A2K_Grant_Budget_and_Utilization_...
So what? An employee working for the same BPO / software company in India gets paid less than his counterpart in US. Even offsetting the lifestyle and cost of living allowances, it becomes like mere outsourcing for cheap labour. Should WMF consider cost cutting and out source this work to some other country :) ? 2 lakh INR comes around 3000 USD which is a decent salary for a mid level employee in US. For a national program like CIS - A2K, salaries in this range is acceptable.
Ravi,
Do you think it is appropriate to compare Wikimedia Foundation or its functioning in India to profit making companies and BPOs?
On 9 November 2013 19:21, Hari Prasad Nadig hpnadig@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think it is appropriate to compare Wikimedia Foundation or its functioning in India to profit making companies and BPOs?
Yes. The goals might be different but they both require qualified, high quality people to make the goals happen. Paying a competitive salary is one way to make that possible.
Indeed, paying more salary is “one” way of making that possible.
To me, it is more than a technical decision. Going for (in my opinion) such a high salary reflects a “choice” by the decision-makers to adopt this particular way of achieving the goals. Now, this is for me in complete contrast to how the wikipedia movement itself works. For a community that is NOT built on achieving competitiveness and quality by paying money, why should the foundation “choose” to take that route to achieve the goals. I am certainly not arguing that the volunteerism should guide such strategic policy initiatives. But, certainly the choices made in the way these policy initiatives are structured should not in reverse affect the “culture” of contribution in the community. If at all, it should inspire it more. And paying this kind of salaries is certainly not in line with the way the community has been evolving.
Regards, Prashanth Disclaimer: My thoughts, although immediately following Gautam John’s response is not a reaction to his mail, although I begin with responding to a part of his email.
On 09-Nov-2013, at 6:56 pm, Gautam John gautam@akshara.org.in wrote:
On 9 November 2013 19:21, Hari Prasad Nadig hpnadig@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think it is appropriate to compare Wikimedia Foundation or its functioning in India to profit making companies and BPOs?
Yes. The goals might be different but they both require qualified, high quality people to make the goals happen. Paying a competitive salary is one way to make that possible.
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
On 9 November 2013 23:38, Prashanth Nuggehalli Srinivas prashanth.ns@gmail.com wrote:
contribution in the community. If at all, it should inspire it more. And paying this kind of salaries is certainly not in line with the way the community has been evolving.
In general, we seem to be fixated on the inputs. Measuring those is kind of pointless, IMO. Why not measure the output and hold them accountable to that? Secondly, to see if the output would have been achieved without their intervention and whether the impact of the output is important too.
Well. I agree with this. But, I think there is an additional argument, beyond accountability to outputs, which is the culture-maintaining spirit of the movement. I think there is something to be said of that. On 09-Nov-2013, at 7:11 pm, Gautam John gautam@akshara.org.in wrote:
Why not measure the output and hold them accountable to that? Secondly, to see if the output would have been achieved without their intervention and whether the impact of the output is important too.
On 9 November 2013 23:44, Prashanth Nuggehalli Srinivas prashanth.ns@gmail.com wrote:
Well. I agree with this. But, I think there is an additional argument, beyond accountability to outputs, which is the culture-maintaining spirit of the movement. I think there is something to be said of that.
I do agree with you on this. It's a fine line and a very delicate balance.
Thank you.
Best,
Gautam ________ http://www.akshara.org.in/
wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org