[Foundation-l] Policy governance ends

[daniwo59 at aol.com]

I don't understand this email. For one thing, there are many different  
"ends," "goals," "objectives," or what have you. Rather than picking a random  
number--four in this case--you might want to consider identifying numerous  "ends" 
and prioritizing them. 
 
For instance, in a worst-case scenario that there is only limited funds to  
adequately cover server costs/bandwidth or wikimania, it remains for the board  
to decide whether it should forego one, or alternately, split costs and do a  
half-assed job with both. By the way, this isn't so far from the truth. If 
there  are multiple ends, some, while important, will always have to be put 
aside  because of other pressing needs. It is not just ends, but priorities. 
 
That said, I would say that the foremost "end" is financial sustainability.  
How much money is needed for minimal operations? Is that coming in? Are the  
sources dependable? Are there alternatives if a source is cut off? What new,  
untapped sources are there?
 
Next I would look at the legal requirements. How are we in securing our  
assets? What else needs to be done? How are we at compliance with government  
regulations for not for profits? What can be improved?
 
Finally, one last question--all of the things you raise, Florence, were  
discussed at the Board-Chapter retreat in Frankfurt this autumn. A series of  
recommendations was made. Why are you reinventing the wheel? Was that  retreat an 
(expensive) exercise in futility? I just don't understand.
 
Danny
 
In a message dated 4/16/2007 6:41:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  
Anthere9 at yahoo.com writes:

Dear  all,

In the past few days, I have explored more systematically the  policy 
governance model, and how it could be implemented.By the way, I  found a 
short article about it on the english wikipedia :  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Governance


One of the  things the board has to design is what is called the ENDS.
In each ends,  the board defines which needs are to be met, for whom, and 
at what  cost.

Let me give you two examples of  ends.
*******************************


The WMF is the host  provider of several websites, referred to as 
Wikimedia project.   Wikimedia websites must be up and running 
efficiently, 24/24 hours, 7 days  a week. That is the priority of WMF.

Needs to be met ?
Information  must be accessible anytime.

For whom ?
Any person with internet  access

At what cost ?
Well, within limits reasonable with the  revenue we have. If we had 
figures to mention, we could say max 1 million  per year.
*******************************


Another  example

The WMF is the organiser of an annual conference,  Wikimania.

Needs to be met ?
Both a scientific conference and a  community event, Wikimania brings 
together members of various Wikimedia  projects in order to exchange 
ideas, build relationships, and report on  research and project efforts.
It also provides an opportunity for  Wikimedians and the general public 
alike to meet and share ideas about  free and open source software, free 
knowledge initiatives, and wiki  projects worldwide.

For whom ?
Primarily for Wikimedians.  Secondarily for the general public

At what cost ?
No cost. WMF  should find sponsors to cover Wikimania costs by  large.
*******************************

Now, these are two easy ends  to define.
What I would like to ask you help on, is to define more ends,  which 
describe what you think the WMF is about. The two ends I mentionned  
above a "long term" ends, they would be listed this year, and then next  
year and probably the year after. Not all ends are this way. We could  
also have an end valid only one year, or only 3 months.
Let us say we  want a BIG technical meeting around Mediawiki to occur in 
the next 6  months, it would be one END.
Or we want to produce a DVD of the english  high quality content, it 
could be another END.
Actually, hiring an ED  could also be an end :-)

Now, before you tell me "eh, we elected you  guys to think of that for 
us", my answer will be "no, you elected us to  represent your dreams 
about WMF, and to make sure your dreams  happen".
So, what I am currently asking you is

"What do you want  Wikimedia Foundation to focus its attention on in the 
next few months, few  years or more".

Whether you are members on the "paper" (bylaws) or not,  morally, you are 
the owners of the organization. I do not think the  editors represent the 
only owners, but the editors definitly are part of  the owners. So, I ask 
you your opinion as owners.

What do you think  we should achieve ? If you had 5 points to list, what 
would they be  ?


ant







************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.