[Foundation-l] Our values

[Ray Saintonge]

Florence Devouard wrote:
> A next step for a non-profit is to define its values. Values are the 
> driving force in a nonprofit.
>   
What are the five pillars if they are not values.  They may also be 
called principles, but I don't see any benefit in trying to analyse the 
difference between values and principles.
> Before you tell me "what's that boring stuff and why on earth would it 
> be useful for", let me explain :-)
>   
Boring?  This is the fun stuff. It makes people think.
> Values represent the core priorities in the organization’s culture, 
> including what drives people's priorities and how they truly act in the 
> organization, etc.
>   
Principles, not priorities.  Priorities have more to do with the order 
in which we want to do things.  It's about what we should be doing now 
and what can wait a while longer to be done.
> I'd like that we establish four to six core values from which the WMF 
> would operate. These values would not only be the values glueing us all 
> together (such as free culture, commitment to diversity etc...), but 
> should also be the values YOU, as an editing community, want the WMF to 
> have toward the community, the readers, the staff, etc...
>   
My first impression, with respect, was to find this last part strangely 
worded, but mostly in terms of who is doing what for whom.  The 
relationship between WMF and the editing communities (plural, not 
singular) is indeed the glue that holds it all together.  The values of 
the WMF should be a synthesis of the values _of_ the communities.  (not 
"towards").  With luck the communities will reflect the values of the 
readers.  Staff that does not have an intimate acquaintance with the 
values should not be hired in the first place. 
> The more we expand the staff, the more chance there is that part of the 
> staff joins WMF with no single idea of our values. So the more it 
> becomes important for us to make sure the staff understand our values 
> and respect them. As such, writing down them will help.
>   
Yes, and if the statement of values is more than one printed page long 
it is too long.  Give a prospective employee a copy of the statement, 
well ahead of time, and make it a talking point in the job interview.  
Once a statement is drafted this should be one of the easier facets of 
the subjec.
> Same for chapters. Until now, we consider that a chapter sharing most of 
> its mission statement with WMF one is a "like minded" organization. But 
> will it always be true in the future when we have 200 chapters ? How 
> will we identify and check that chapters are really on the same "foot" ?
>   
WMF will always retain the right to recognize the chapters, and to 
withdraw that recognition.  The same goes with the licensing of 
WMF-owned trademarks.  Centipedes manage quite effectively to not step 
on their own feet.  I don't see his as a big problem, and hopefully, 
once a chapter is established the checking should not be so detailed as 
to resemble micromanagement.
> Even without going as far, we might meet a problem sooner than we can 
> think of, if a big company just decide to create a BIG encyclopedia for 
> free, which, for whatever reasons, would get good ranks on some search 
> engines.... in this case, what would be important to us ?
> Probably, it will be important that we explain to the world what is 
> truely important to us. What is truely important are values.
>   
Anybody can establish a mirror, and make it available for no cost, and 
perhaps get good rankings.  Is that alone what really worries us?  
Values are important, but having to explain them to the world is 
certainly not as important as living those values.  Being able to 
refresh our thinking, and being able to provide added-value will help to 
keep us ahead of the curve.  Until this other BIG encyclopedia is able 
to compete on that level, and able to provide a comparably dynamic 
product that is being perpetually revised they can't compete.  What 
would it have cost to put Wikipedia together as a proprietary project 
with all the editors being paid a fair wage?
> Be careful to notice the difference between our preferred values and the 
> true values (those actually reflected by members behaviors). 
>   
I don't see this as a helpful distinction.  Values are too fundamental.
> The current values were defined with the help of the advisory board 
> member, during the board retreat immediately before Wikimania.
> More on this here: http://advisory.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meeting_August_2007
>   
No.  The values were already there.  Perhaps they might have been poorly 
codified.  Had they not been there, neither you nor I would have stuck 
around for over five years.

Ec