The board of Wikimedia Sverige resolves:

Wikimedia Sverige recognizes the need for chapters to:
1. Promote the exchange of experiences among the chapters
2. Support and promote the development of chapters as self-sustaining, capable organizations
Wikimedia Sverige prefers a robust, capable, and self-reliant organization with clear and unambigous rules.
Wikimedia Sverige's joining of such organization is dependent on that the rules clearly preserve each chapter's sovereignty.

Detta var tänkt att vara ett klargörande för att vi inte ansåg att stadgarna uppfyllde detta.

I Chapters report i juli rapporterade vi:

Wikimedia Sverige has not joined the WCA, for several reasons. It seems very unclear what the real purpose of it is and the costs associated are uncertain. The chapter will therefore wait and see what development the association takes.

Jag välkomnar ytterligare diskussion på årsmötet, vilket mycket väl kan ge den kommande styrelsen en inriktning på fortsatt handlande. Anser du att frågan är så akut att vi behöver starkare skrivningar än så redan tidigare?

-- 
Jan Ainali

Bli medlem i Wikimedia Sverige: 100 kr till bankgiro 5822-9915 (skriv "Medlemsavgift, namn, adress och epost")

http://se.wikimedia.org

On 7 feb 2013 10:06 "Anders Wennersten" <mail@anderswennersten.se> wrote:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#WMF_Board_letter_regarding_the_Chapters_Association

WCA är en tänkt stödorganisation för Chapters.

Etableringen av organisationen har nu fått en form som lett till att WMF
Board tar avstånd från organisationen i den form som nu planeras, och
själv är jag en av många som är myckett störd på hur detta bedrivs.
Etableringsarbete kännetecknas av hemlighetsmakeri och ointresse hitta
den mest kostnadseffektiva lösningen. Dessutom har man börjat med att
rekrytera personal innan som är praxis man provat ut med frivillig
personal, eller existerande anställd personal från något chapter. Det
finns inte ens en lätttilllgänglig plan vad organisationer rent konkret
är tänkt göra. Förutom till synes mismangement ser jag också detta som
en stor risk för vår image. Tidningen som The Register vill gärna för
fram tendenser att de gåvor som ges missbrukas, och här kan de verkligen
få vatten på sin kvarn, som på sikt kan rikera de frivilliga
donationerna och då hela vår rörelse.

WCA byggs upp på ett mandat från Chapters och jag vill då i första hand
veta ståndpuntken i dn uppkomna frågan från styrelsen för WM:SE. I andra
hand vill jag yrka på att WM:SE tar officiellt avstånd från hur detta
just nu bedrivs, då både i meddelande till the WCA council men också med
ett meddelande på Wimimedia-l

Motionstiden till årsmötet är sex veckor före och det är nu fyra veckor
och två dagar, så det är formellt för sent med en motion i denna fråga
till årsmötet, jag hoppas dock att jag ändå, om frågan itne är löst före
årsmötet, kan föra upp ett yrkande på avståndstagande i enlighet med vad
jag skriver ovan. Och att om det då inte blir en motion att det blir en
officiell fråga under punkten övrigt

Anders Wennersten

Diskussionen bedrivs både på metasidan och Wikimedia-l listan jag
kopierar nedan det jag ser som ett mycket bra sammanfattning från
dariusz, ordförande för FDC

hi Theo,

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Theo10011<de10011@gmail.com> wrote:

Why don't you start by asking those questions to WMF, then WMDE then WMUK
and any other chapter filing a budget with FDC. This organization
just had
the bare minimum personnel spending it needed to accomplish the goals at
the time, but as the Dylan song went, things have changed....

my personal view is that at some stage of development staff indeed does add
value and is necessary for more complex operations. From this point of
view, it is clear that international collaboration, best practices sharing,
cross-border initiatives, etc. (all primarily within the scope of interest
of WCA or any other organization addressing it) do or soon will need some
structure and probably staff support.

So, all in all, the question is not whether in our movement as a whole we
can rely only and exclusively on volunteers - we know in some things we
can't, and in some it creates more challenges than savings. The question is
whether the problems WCA is going to address can be addressed by already
existing structures (e.g. by relying on one of the already existing
chapters - after all, WCA could be a subproject in an existing budget, and
still be managed by the council for all practical purposes, the issue of
incorporation is a matter of bureaucracy rather than of actual
initiatives fulfillment). If the new structures need to be created (and I
understand there has been quite a bit of thought given to the issue and
legal, accounting and incorporating costs are considered inevitable), the
community at large should probably be given a strong, plausible and
persuasive rationale for this, and also consulted in a typically wikimedic
manner. Instead, the serious wide discussion on WCA starts only now, after
the Board's statement.

The way I understood WCA idea the first time I heard about it was, among
others, reducing bureaucracy, and increasing openness and transparency of
actions. So far, at least on the surface level, the structures dominate
over the actual serving the community (there is a council, there's been a
long process of choosing a place to incorporate supported by professional
consultant(s), there is a secretary general being hired; but there is no
roadmap of what is going to be actually done yet). It may be just a passing
stage, but this is how it looks for now and possibly casts a shadow over
the whole project. Also, the openness and transparency are probably not the
strongest points of the initiative. There is a closed mailing list for
discussions, decision-making is not fully conducted with the input of the
community at large. I understand there may be good reasons for keeping your
strategy closed. I also understand that WCA council/managing board feels
empowered to represent the participating chapter representatives, the
chapter representatives do feel empowered to represent the chapters, and
the chapters feel empowered to represent the local communities they serve.
But all this, while typical for regular organizations, is not so usual in
Wikimedia movement. Three layers of representation distance the initiative
from regular editors - even more it is needed to consult and discuss the
actions and decisions with the community. I know that WMF was often
criticized in the past for being too distant from the community in its
planning, too hierarchical, or too bureaucratic - perhaps this could be a
lesson that all stakeholders in Wikimedia movement could learn from, and
actively oppose the detachment in their own business. Openness, minimal
hierarchy, flexibility, goals before structures - these are the values I'd
typically associate with Wikimedia.

Well, 25000 (USD or CAN) might actually be close to minimum wage for
Belgium or Switzerland but ok. But it's not for you to decide what is
appropriate. There can be 100 different opinions about this matter and
all
be right at the same time.

Here's the thing: it is difficult to relate to this argumentation when the
community at large has not been offered a possibility to discuss the place
of incorporation, right? Even in Europe there is plenty of countries where
the minimum wage from Switzerland (not existing, AFAIK, but nevermind) may
be way more than enough to cover the exact same expenses and leave quite a
lot for the others. Why Belgium or Switzerland and not Hungary, Czech
Republic, or Bulgaria? You don't even have to have a strong Wikimedia
chapter in a given country to start operating, what you may need though is
reducing costs whenever possible without a loss to quality, and also to a
lesser extent sending the right message (reaching out across borders,
etc.). Again, I totally understand that Belgium or Switzerland have been
chosen after careful consideration, but the process has not been
transparent and you cannot expect the outcome to be widely accepted and
unquestioned just on the face value. Just saying that "it's not for you to
decide what is appropriate" will not win WCA any community support, while
sharing the reasons for the choices may help build credibility for the
idea.

A similar issue: we've been discussing a number of times two rejected
drafts of WCA budgets. What we have not seen is the actual approved budget
that WCA wants to operate on. In the same time a secretary general is being
hired. It may be my professional bias, or the fact that I don't know WCA
strategy, but I find it at least unusual to start staffing prior to making
plans, strategies, and final budgeting, simply because staff is usually
meant to support concrete initiatives (and it would seem that you believe
this is the purpose for staffing, too). What are those initiatives and why
is there no budget, nor a strategic plan ready? If they are ready, why have
they not been discussed with the community? Asking about this is not meant
to be overly inquisitive, I'm honestly trying to figure out how it is meant
to work in your view and why it makes financial sense.

I really, really, really would like to see WCA, or a similar initiative,
work - simply because I think our movement needs it direly. But I think I'm
not the only one out here who is surprised by the turn of events, the lack
of discussion or at least detailed reasoning, etc. If you believe that
there is some value in community support at all, now it would be a good
time to work on it. I'm pretty sure WCA has all that is needed, it has just
failed to disclose it to the public.

best,

Dariusz (a.k.a. "pundit")

_______________________________________________
WikimediaSE-L mailing list
WikimediaSE-L@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediase-l