[Foundation-l] Board restructuring and community

[Florence Devouard]

effe iets anders wrote:
> Dear Domas, Florence, Frieda, Kat and Michael, (and maybe Jimmy too)
> 
> Yesterday the Board announced a major change in the bylaws and power
> structure. Although I see some positive aspects in the change from my
> personal point of view (I have still not seen the official changes -
> as you might know by now, I am for balance - so until then I can't be
> definitive about that), let me summarize what is happening here:
> Without asking any feedback from the community before the decision has
> been made, the Board decides to convert two community seats into
> chapter seats (it has always been announced that Domas' and Michaels
> chair were intended to become community seats too) and two expert
> seats were added, bringing down the community share in the board from
> 71% to 50% or 30% (depending whether you count chapter seats as
> community seats) of course assuming that the expert seats will be
> filled too.
> 
> This is quite a huge change with a huge impact on the power structure
> of the Wikimedia Foundation and therefore of the Wikimedia Movement.
> And this has been done without asking even advice to the community or
> the chapters? I find this a very strange procedure for a movement as
> the ours, and I am for the second time in a row very much
> disappointed. This time by all community Board Members, who - all of
> them! - dit NOT contact the community or chapters for a view!
> 
> I would very much like an explanation from every board member why they
> have chosen not to ask the opinion of the community. Because you're
> not going to sell me the story that this idea was totally new on the
> board meeting, and that you had no time. Because this was of course
> already on the agenda of the meeting: "We plan to dedicate saturday to
> board development and governance. This will include relationships and
> contractual agreement between board and executive director, possible
> future council, next elections, professionalization of board, etc..."
> (quote from Florence's email announcing the coming up Board meeting)
> 
> And please don't tell me either that the only "platform" there is, the
> foundation-l, does not function any more. Although that statement
> would be true to some extent, but it would highly puzzle me why the
> heck you have concluded from the new layout of the board to *not* need
> a Volunteer Council of *any* shape any more. Why you do not even want
> to encourage the research after the possibilities any more... Let me
> quote from your FAQ: "* `What does this [The restructuring of the
> board, LG] mean for the 'wikicouncil?' -    The "wikicouncil" and
> "volunteer council" were part of the board discussions about its
> restructure. At this stage, we have decided to not take action on the
> proposal to develop a Volunteer Council. (...)"
> 
> I think this restructuring of the Board only shows once more why we
> need a Wikicouncil. The Board itself is apperently not able to ask
> input herself on big decisions, and this sets a very bad precedent to
> the future. Apperently the Board is in need of some kind of council
> that is, in contrary to the few community members left in the board,
> able to bring through the questions to the communities. Maybe the VC
> would not function perfectly, but from what I am seeing now, it would
> at least do a much better job, because of course this is a very sad
> day for community involvement in the Wikimedia Movement.
> 
> So please, Domas, Florence, Frieda, Kat and Michael, (and maybe Jimmy
> too), let's just be fair and state your opinion. What is *your*
> thought about community involvement. Should community only be allowed
> to say something every two years? Should community only be allowed to
> say something afterwards (the perfect receipe for ranting, btw)? Do
> you think community members could be smart people who have a smart
> opinion about the topics you discuss? Do you think they might come up
> with arguments you did not think of yet?
> 
> If you think so, you should start working, in one way or another, on
> some kind of platform that is able to improve your attempts to contact
> the community on major decisions. And no, I have no ready-boiled plan
> for it, but I do know that there is a catalyst out there, that could
> come up with a nice result. That catalyst consists of a group of
> dedicated people, with a wide range of views, that could maybe come up
> with something that is actually good.
> 
> If you think this all is no longer needed, then please say so, then we
> know what we're up to.
> 
> I know it is not customary (unfortunately) any more that single Board
> members speak up. However, in this case I find it very important not
> to hear the Boards voice any more, but the individual's voice. Because
> that is highly important to be able to choose between people in
> elections and "chapter appointments". Is it not on a short term, then
> it will be in a year, but there will be a moment, and I would like to
> know who I am dealing with here. As I said before, I am disappointed
> in you, and that means that I had a better impression of you.
> 
> Regards, and looking forward to all your replies,
> 
> Lodewijk

Well,

Point by point:

"This time by all community Board Members, who - all of them! - dit NOT 
contact the community or chapters for a view! "

-> Whilst it is true that the issue was not raised on this list, I also 
think there is no way you may know who I am talking to and about what. 
The concept of having chapters have a say in board composition has been 
boiling for many months. I know the proposition did not come out of the 
blue and I know I discussed it with some community members and chapter 
members in the past.
So, whilst I will accept the criticism that we ought to have discussed 
that here or in other places, I will not accept the criticism that I did 
not contact *anyone* for a view.

-------

"Should community only be allowed
 > to say something every two years? Should community only be allowed to
 > say something afterwards (the perfect receipe for ranting, btw)? Do
 > you think community members could be smart people who have a smart
 > opinion about the topics you discuss? Do you think they might come up
 > with arguments you did not think of yet?"

-> I think my frequent attempts to raise issues on this list are 
sufficient to answer these questions.
Some of my attempts were successful, some were near flops.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Values&action=history
It takes a quite serious energy to keep informing and asking for 
feedback when most of the time, there is little comment.

-------

"you should start working, in one way or another, on some kind of 
platform that is able to improve your attempts to contact the community 
on major decisions"

-> Given that I was the one to revive the wikicouncil discussion several 
times in the past, I think that it is could be sufficient as an answer. 
I also several times pointed out that we needed a better plateform for 
discussion. And no, unfortunately, I have no secret recipe either. I 
wish I have. I still like the wikicouncil idea and I hope it will happen 
in the future. If not globally, wikicouncil per project might be cool.

-> On another note, we have indicated several times in the past our need 
for a poll plateform. If my memory is good, Erik is working on 
something. But yeah, we still have no poll plateform. Now, the question 
is as to whether this is the job of the board to develop such a 
plateform, or if the community could somehow participate to the effort.
I am very happy to see "reactions" today. It would be great of 
"reactions" would also transform in "actions".

-> I also remember with great delights the email sent to be the 
wikicommons wishlist (technical features). I was amazed and impressed. 
And I invited each community to do the same. Again, a flop. We did not 
receive anything. One may argue that "why would we write a wish list 
when features are not implemented afterwards" ?
I would answer that communication is never easy. It takes efforts and 
efforts should come from all parties. Sometimes the effort lead nowhere. 
Sometimes, it goes somewhere but with delay (much delay, eg the SUL). 
And sometimes it generates something wonderful.

-> A long time ago, Sj and I started the Quarto. We have received help 
from many individuals and it was great working together. But let's face 
it, this type of initiative can only work if enough people are 
sufficiently committed to them, so that the workload is evenly 
distributed. We stopped because of unsufficient human support.

-> More recently, last winter, Erik set up a fundraising blog. As far as 
I could say, it was very successful. There were many posting and many 
many comments. Following this path, Jay set up a staff blog where news 
are announced and people have the opportunity to comment.
My main two criticisms about that blog is 1) that it is in english only, 
and 2) that posting on it should go through the filter and correction of 
the staff (which is why I will probably not post). But this is another 
venue proposed, and if I look at the amount of comments, it has not met 
much interest yet. But I am pretty sure it will over time.

-> In the past year and a half, there has been one board retreat, during 
which people others than board members were invited. We also held an 
advisory board meeting last summer and another is planned. There were 
also various opportunities to meet face to face, in particular during 
chapter meetings, where some board members made the efforts to travel 
away from their home to meet editors. All these are difficult to handle 
both because board members have a private life (limited time 
opportunities) and it of course cost money (and is belatedly criticized 
by the community), but they are very cool opportunities to discuss 
things. Far beyond this very mailing list.

What else could we do ?
Surveys...
Create an island on Second Life...
Set up a forum (rather than a list)...
Re-create some committees...

etc.

There are many ideas. But only so much time available. And some much 
energy. There are two main problems in my view.

One is that some board members hardly every communicate with the 
community. If these were elected community members, I would dare to say 
that this is the responsibility of the community to make sure they elect 
members with good communication skills. And the responsibility of the 
community to contact the board member if they feel the communication is 
not sufficient.

The second is a way to not only communicate with community, but to make 
sure that the answer we get is really representative of what the 
community think. And not simply the grumbles of 2-3 isolated 
individuals. Discussion on this list provides me with good ideas and 
allow me to feel very unpopular decisions, but it does not provide me 
with a good and accurate measure of what the community really think 
globally. Neither would a wikicouncil.

Ant