[Foundation-l] Chapters as intermediaries between WMF and communities (was Re: Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation)

[Sebastian Moleski]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2009/8/28 Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>:
> > First because it requires the chapter to actually agree to a certain
> > degree with the action of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> I would prefer it if the WMF didn't do things the chapters don't agree
> with. If the chapters make their decisions based on community opinion
> (I think all chapters have elected boards, so presumably they will)
> then the WMF should make its decisions based on chapter opinion.
>

I keep reading such statements and I'm having to admit: I have more and more
problems following your logic. Let's take this apart:

"I would prefer it if the WMF didn't do things the chapters don't agree
with."
Each chapters as well as the Wikimedia Foundation are distinct
organizations, each with their own stakeholders to server and interests to
protect. While the general goal and mission of these organizations are the
same, there are also differences that need to be accounted for. This
diversity is a good thing, in fact, because it prevents a sort of thinking
that the best solution to any significant problem is the one everyone can
agree with. That doesn't mean that there should be no conversations between
individual organizations. But it does mean that each organization, in the
end, makes its own decision on how to best fulfill its mission.

"If the chapters make their decisions based on community opinion (I think
all chapters have elected boards, so presumably they will)"
This statement presupposes that an elected chapter board is equivalent to it
representing community opinion. It also presupposes that there's such a
thing as "community opinion". The first part doesn't carry really if one
considers that chapter boards tend to be elected by the chapter's members.
Now, the sets "chapter members" and "community" may be overlapping but
they're not identical. In fact, if "community" means those contributing to
Wikimedia projects, there may well be a significant number of chapter
members who are not part of the community. There's thus no good reason
assuming or expecting that a chapter's board "represents" community opinion.

But even if all chapter members were also members of the community, it would
still be very shortsighted to expect a chapter's board to base its decision
solely on community opinion (whatever that would be). A chapter's board has
a fiduciary duty to that chapter. The community certainly is one of the
chapter's stakeholders, it's not the only one though. Aside from the
community, there are other stakeholders to consider and it may very well be
that a chapter has to make decisions for which widespread community support
may not exist. It might be that your "based on" already accounts for this
sort of differentiation; it's not clear to me that it does though.

"then the WMF should make its decisions based on chapter opinion."
The same arguments above for chapters can be applied here too. The job of
the Foundation's board is to act in the best interest of the Foundation.
Now, paying attention to the wishes and expecations of the community can
reasonably be expected to often be part of that. I would not support the
notion, however, that it's always the case.

When I re-read your statement and prior ones, there appears to me some sort
of "unity theory" that (1) there's a discernabe "community opinion" and (2)
chapters and foundation should follow whatever that "community opinion" is.
It feels like a sort of majoritan dictatorship where change becomes
dependent on (1) broad support for that change and (2) coming through the
community. The corollary appears to be that, if one cannot convince the
community of a necessary change, you're out of luck. It just doesn't seem to
leave much room to diversity in approach or pluralism in activities but
rather cement much of the reluctance to reform/conservatism already manifest
on some of the Wikimedia projects.

Please, do correct me if I'm misinterpreting your words. I would, in fact,
be very glad if I am misinterpreting because this sort of vision would not
be something I want to have a part in.

Best regards,

Sebastian