[Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] the easy way or the less easy way

[Anthony DiPierro]

Now I see why my reply kept bouncing...  This was crossposted to
wikipedia-l and my client was trying to reply there.

On 6/17/06, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that
> > it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not
> > demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
> > do this?
> >
> > SJ
> >
>
> I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre.
> Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong
> to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something.  You
> give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member.  You attend a
> meeting of other members, maybe, and perhaps you are part of a particular
> local organization of that group.  Churches, civic organizations, soup
> kitchens, environmental groups, etc., all exist in this paradigm for good
> reason; they include as part of their fundamental mission a dichotomy
> between those who *are* in the group and those who *are not* in the group.
>
> Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism
> and respect for the contributions of *everyone*.  There is no us and them -
> if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are.  It's simple,
> and only goes in one direction.  If you edit enough, you can vote for a
> person you want to see on the board.  Without money changing hands, you have
> the same representation you would under any other circumstances.  The
> Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place
> indeed.  What happens to members who don't pay?  Are they prevented from
> editing?  If there is no meaningful distinction in categorization of either
> one or the other, what exactly is the point in the first place, except to
> give those who are interested and active another membership ID in their
> wallet - and this is the point - which confers no additional rights or
> privileges?
>
Let me give an example from my own experience, which hopefully will
make the concept less bizarre.  I used to be a volunteer firefighter.
I didn't carry any cards in my wallet, and I didn't pay any dues, but
I was a member of the Fire Association, a non-profit organization.

I wouldn't say there were any quid pro quos involved.  I volunteered
my time and efforts, and I got back the satisfaction of helping others
in my community.  The only real distinction as to who was in the group
and who was out of it was that the members had a say in the governance
of the organization.  We got to elect not just the directors, but the
officers, the fire chief, the deputy chief, etc., and we were eligible
to participate in the committees which did things such as proposed the
budgets, proposed modifications to the bylaws, organized the
fundraisers, etc.

I don't think I or many others would have voluntarily put on our
equipment and gone into a burning building on the say so of the fire
chief if he was chosen by a board of directors who was appointed by a
board of directors who was appointed by the guy who started the
organization.  Maybe if we were paid employees, but we weren't.

I'm not sure how that organization fits in to your explanation of
membership organizations, but it seems to differ in many of the same
ways that Wikimedia does.

> Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better
> served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion,
> as some have done.  Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as
> to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look
> like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this.  We may disagree on
> various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the
> conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
>
> -Brad
>

My biggest concern with this is of the scope of the foundation.  Right
now the mission of the foundation is to create and distribute free
content.  However, the creation of the content is not done by the
foundation, it is done by the community.  To me it seems a usurpation
for the foundation to include in its jurisdiction the creation of the
content without giving us the creators a direct voice in the
management of the foundation.

So far the community has been largely self-governing.  Sure, office
actions come "down from above" from time to time, but these are
*mostly* concerning legal issues.  Regarding the legal issues I have
no problem with the foundation taking action on its own, in fact, I
prefer it.  But regarding the issues of content creation, the
community must be allowed to govern itself.

In my mind the most effective way to do that is to have the foundation
governed by its members, with an elected board with limited powers.
The current bylaws don't provide for that, but the new proposed bylaws
that Ant described are even further from that ideal.

The other alternative is to adopt a mission more like the FSF - "to
encourage, foster and promote" the creation and distribution of free
content.  Let the community govern itself, and provide the servers and
bandwidth (and printing presses and CD burners and whatever else is in
the future).

The third alternative is what I described to Ant earlier - "the
community will grow more and more distant [...] at some point there
will be a fork, and the foundation will lose everything but a couple
now-worthless trademarks."

Anthony