Hi Lucy,
Just a couple of years ago, when the number of employees in the UK was measured between zero or two, unpaid volunteers like me used to go along and sit in on and give views in parliamentary discussions, meet and share ideas with other unpaid volunteer representatives from advocacy groups such as the Open Knowledge Foundation, Creative Commons etc. This no longer seems to happen, nor does it seem expected. It is still the norm for open knowledge groups apart from WMUK to have unpaid volunteers as their leading advocates and main points of contact.
Considering that the FDC has already stated that:[1] A. "The FDC is concerned about very low targets for WMUK’s program work." B. "The FDC believes that WMUK's advocacy work and work on influencing policy towards Open Knowledge in the UK and EU has potential."
Would you consider keeping the staff focus firmly on delivering more ambitious outcomes in programme work, and stepping back from controlling advocacy work yourself? You could try approaching or encouraging volunteers, such as the couple of trustees that are seen at wikimeets, to take responsibility to push our advocacy for open knowledge forward and enthuse some of their fellow UK Wikimedians. With volunteers taking an active role, this brings relevance and urgency to our volunteer groups and restores the organization to one where the volunteers are central and leading change, rather than joining projects where employees are the default top of the hierarchy.
In terms of meaningful metrics, if hardly any volunteers are interested in finding out more or getting directly involved with suggested political or legislative advocacy even with supporting WMUK employee time, then it seems a poor strategic choice to just proceed with that work regardless.
Links: 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
Thanks, Fae (past trustee and chair for WMUK, no longer a member of WMUK)
On 30 November 2015 at 13:00, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
on hold while we were awaiting the FDC's recommendations for our annual grant from the Wikimedia Foundation; however I'm now hoping to advertise for a new Communications Co-ordinator in the new year. This post will be at a lower level than Stevie - mainly for financial reasons - and will have a slightly different emphasis. The advocacy work that Stevie was managing brilliantly will now be led by me, but will also involve staff from our programmes team as well as an advocacy working group that is being set up.
...
Lucy
Dear Fae
Many thanks for your email and you raise some very valid points. What I meant in my message was that strategic responsibility for advocacy would no longer form part of the communications role, as we are appointing this at a lower level and will no longer have a Head of External Relations. I certainly don't mean that I will be taking on or indeed controlling all advocacy work, as volunteers are (as you've said) crucial in this. As I mentioned, a working group for advocacy is being set up early next year and this will be made up of volunteers, although I will be involved in these meetings at least initially. Whilst this group is likely to focus on public policy, advocacy happens at many different levels and in its widest sense is about changing public perceptions and awareness of free and open knowledge - in which the role of volunteers as advocates and ambassadors is, of course, absolutely vital.
I totally agree that the staff team needs to focus on meaningful programmes that have impact!
Best wishes Lucy
On 2 December 2015 at 12:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lucy,
Just a couple of years ago, when the number of employees in the UK was measured between zero or two, unpaid volunteers like me used to go along and sit in on and give views in parliamentary discussions, meet and share ideas with other unpaid volunteer representatives from advocacy groups such as the Open Knowledge Foundation, Creative Commons etc. This no longer seems to happen, nor does it seem expected. It is still the norm for open knowledge groups apart from WMUK to have unpaid volunteers as their leading advocates and main points of contact.
Considering that the FDC has already stated that:[1] A. "The FDC is concerned about very low targets for WMUK’s program work." B. "The FDC believes that WMUK's advocacy work and work on influencing policy towards Open Knowledge in the UK and EU has potential."
Would you consider keeping the staff focus firmly on delivering more ambitious outcomes in programme work, and stepping back from controlling advocacy work yourself? You could try approaching or encouraging volunteers, such as the couple of trustees that are seen at wikimeets, to take responsibility to push our advocacy for open knowledge forward and enthuse some of their fellow UK Wikimedians. With volunteers taking an active role, this brings relevance and urgency to our volunteer groups and restores the organization to one where the volunteers are central and leading change, rather than joining projects where employees are the default top of the hierarchy.
In terms of meaningful metrics, if hardly any volunteers are interested in finding out more or getting directly involved with suggested political or legislative advocacy even with supporting WMUK employee time, then it seems a poor strategic choice to just proceed with that work regardless.
Links:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
Thanks, Fae (past trustee and chair for WMUK, no longer a member of WMUK)
On 30 November 2015 at 13:00, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
on hold while we were awaiting the FDC's recommendations for our annual grant from the Wikimedia Foundation; however I'm now hoping to advertise
for
a new Communications Co-ordinator in the new year. This post will be at a lower level than Stevie - mainly for financial reasons - and will have a slightly different emphasis. The advocacy work that Stevie was managing brilliantly will now be led by me, but will also involve staff from our programmes team as well as an advocacy working group that is being set
up. ...
Lucy
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Thanks for the clarification.
I look forward to seeing an advocacy group working at the beginning of 2016. Unfortunately as there is a new requirement that to take part in committees you must be a member of WMUK[2], this ensures that I will be unable to contribute.
Links: 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Committee_Member_Code_of_Conduct/Proposed
Thanks, Fae
On 2 December 2015 at 13:18, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Dear Fae
Many thanks for your email and you raise some very valid points. What I meant in my message was that strategic responsibility for advocacy would no longer form part of the communications role, as we are appointing this at a lower level and will no longer have a Head of External Relations. I certainly don't mean that I will be taking on or indeed controlling all advocacy work, as volunteers are (as you've said) crucial in this. As I mentioned, a working group for advocacy is being set up early next year and this will be made up of volunteers, although I will be involved in these meetings at least initially. Whilst this group is likely to focus on public policy, advocacy happens at many different levels and in its widest sense is about changing public perceptions and awareness of free and open knowledge - in which the role of volunteers as advocates and ambassadors is, of course, absolutely vital.
I totally agree that the staff team needs to focus on meaningful programmes that have impact!
Best wishes Lucy
On 2 December 2015 at 12:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lucy,
Just a couple of years ago, when the number of employees in the UK was measured between zero or two, unpaid volunteers like me used to go along and sit in on and give views in parliamentary discussions, meet and share ideas with other unpaid volunteer representatives from advocacy groups such as the Open Knowledge Foundation, Creative Commons etc. This no longer seems to happen, nor does it seem expected. It is still the norm for open knowledge groups apart from WMUK to have unpaid volunteers as their leading advocates and main points of contact.
Considering that the FDC has already stated that:[1] A. "The FDC is concerned about very low targets for WMUK’s program work." B. "The FDC believes that WMUK's advocacy work and work on influencing policy towards Open Knowledge in the UK and EU has potential."
Would you consider keeping the staff focus firmly on delivering more ambitious outcomes in programme work, and stepping back from controlling advocacy work yourself? You could try approaching or encouraging volunteers, such as the couple of trustees that are seen at wikimeets, to take responsibility to push our advocacy for open knowledge forward and enthuse some of their fellow UK Wikimedians. With volunteers taking an active role, this brings relevance and urgency to our volunteer groups and restores the organization to one where the volunteers are central and leading change, rather than joining projects where employees are the default top of the hierarchy.
In terms of meaningful metrics, if hardly any volunteers are interested in finding out more or getting directly involved with suggested political or legislative advocacy even with supporting WMUK employee time, then it seems a poor strategic choice to just proceed with that work regardless.
Links:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
Thanks, Fae (past trustee and chair for WMUK, no longer a member of WMUK)
On 30 November 2015 at 13:00, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
on hold while we were awaiting the FDC's recommendations for our annual grant from the Wikimedia Foundation; however I'm now hoping to advertise for a new Communications Co-ordinator in the new year. This post will be at a lower level than Stevie - mainly for financial reasons - and will have a slightly different emphasis. The advocacy work that Stevie was managing brilliantly will now be led by me, but will also involve staff from our programmes team as well as an advocacy working group that is being set up.
...
Lucy
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
Hi Fae
Just to clarify even further(!), the code of conduct you're referring to is specifically for non-trustee members of Board Committees, which are currently ARC (Audit and Risk Committee) and GovCom (Governance Committee). Working groups (and the advocacy group will fall into this category) will be much less formal than that and whilst I would obviously hope they would primarily be made up of members of WMUK, I'm not actually sure whether this would be a specific requirement. I will have to look into this and get back to you.
Cheers Lucy
On 2 December 2015 at 13:44, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.
I look forward to seeing an advocacy group working at the beginning of 2016. Unfortunately as there is a new requirement that to take part in committees you must be a member of WMUK[2], this ensures that I will be unable to contribute.
Links: 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Committee_Member_Code_of_Conduct/Proposed
Thanks, Fae
On 2 December 2015 at 13:18, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Dear Fae
Many thanks for your email and you raise some very valid points. What I meant in my message was that strategic responsibility for advocacy would
no
longer form part of the communications role, as we are appointing this
at a
lower level and will no longer have a Head of External Relations. I certainly don't mean that I will be taking on or indeed controlling all advocacy work, as volunteers are (as you've said) crucial in this. As I mentioned, a working group for advocacy is being set up early next year
and
this will be made up of volunteers, although I will be involved in these meetings at least initially. Whilst this group is likely to focus on
public
policy, advocacy happens at many different levels and in its widest
sense is
about changing public perceptions and awareness of free and open
knowledge -
in which the role of volunteers as advocates and ambassadors is, of
course,
absolutely vital.
I totally agree that the staff team needs to focus on meaningful
programmes
that have impact!
Best wishes Lucy
On 2 December 2015 at 12:23, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lucy,
Just a couple of years ago, when the number of employees in the UK was measured between zero or two, unpaid volunteers like me used to go along and sit in on and give views in parliamentary discussions, meet and share ideas with other unpaid volunteer representatives from advocacy groups such as the Open Knowledge Foundation, Creative Commons etc. This no longer seems to happen, nor does it seem expected. It is still the norm for open knowledge groups apart from WMUK to have unpaid volunteers as their leading advocates and main points of contact.
Considering that the FDC has already stated that:[1] A. "The FDC is concerned about very low targets for WMUK’s program
work."
B. "The FDC believes that WMUK's advocacy work and work on influencing policy towards Open Knowledge in the UK and EU has potential."
Would you consider keeping the staff focus firmly on delivering more ambitious outcomes in programme work, and stepping back from controlling advocacy work yourself? You could try approaching or encouraging volunteers, such as the couple of trustees that are seen at wikimeets, to take responsibility to push our advocacy for open knowledge forward and enthuse some of their fellow UK Wikimedians. With volunteers taking an active role, this brings relevance and urgency to our volunteer groups and restores the organization to one where the volunteers are central and leading change, rather than joining projects where employees are the default top of the hierarchy.
In terms of meaningful metrics, if hardly any volunteers are interested in finding out more or getting directly involved with suggested political or legislative advocacy even with supporting WMUK employee time, then it seems a poor strategic choice to just proceed with that work regardless.
Links:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/20...
Thanks, Fae (past trustee and chair for WMUK, no longer a member of WMUK)
On 30 November 2015 at 13:00, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: ...
on hold while we were awaiting the FDC's recommendations for our
annual
grant from the Wikimedia Foundation; however I'm now hoping to
advertise
for a new Communications Co-ordinator in the new year. This post will be
at
a lower level than Stevie - mainly for financial reasons - and will
have a
slightly different emphasis. The advocacy work that Stevie was
managing
brilliantly will now be led by me, but will also involve staff from
our
programmes team as well as an advocacy working group that is being set up.
...
Lucy
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Hi Lucy,
Do you have an update on whether UK chapter working groups will be restricted to volunteers that can pay for membership?
Thanks, Fae
On 2 December 2015 at 13:53, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hi Fae
Just to clarify even further(!), the code of conduct you're referring to is specifically for non-trustee members of Board Committees, which are currently ARC (Audit and Risk Committee) and GovCom (Governance Committee). Working groups (and the advocacy group will fall into this category) will be much less formal than that and whilst I would obviously hope they would primarily be made up of members of WMUK, I'm not actually sure whether this would be a specific requirement. I will have to look into this and get back to you.
Cheers Lucy
On 2 December 2015 at 13:44, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.
I look forward to seeing an advocacy group working at the beginning of 2016. Unfortunately as there is a new requirement that to take part in committees you must be a member of WMUK[2], this ensures that I will be unable to contribute.
Links: 2. https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Committee_Member_Code_of_Conduct/Proposed
Thanks, Fae
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org