För att sammanfatta föreningens tidigare agerande i WCA frågan.
I Berlin undertecknades del två av Chartern, det vill säga vi är
intresserade av samarbete men går inte med i detta just nu.
Strax därefter postade vi följande på meta:
The board of Wikimedia Sverige resolves:
1. 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
2. Wikimedia Sverige prefers a robust, capable, and self-reliant
organization with clear and unambigous rules.
3. 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(a)anderswennersten.se>wrotese>wrote:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#W
MF_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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediase-l>