[Foundation-l] Money, politics and corruption

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The fact that a person that I am completely positive about can lose an
election means that nothing is a given. Our community is able and willing to
make choices. Choices that have a perfect gentleman being replaced by a
perfect lady.

As to Essjay, when it became clear that his credibility was lost, he moved
away / his continued presence became untenable. This was a sad afair on many
levels, but it also showed that such things happen and that appropriate
results were the consequence.

When we learn that certain people, certain practices are damaging our
community, our movement I am consequently sanguine that measures will be
either silently or openly be taken. It is my hope that we will be both clear
and resolute while not losing our compassion at the same time.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 14 July 2010 19:45, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Just look at it dispassionately. Wikimedia has how many chapters? And
> aims to have how many more?  All self-organized, boot-strapped operations
> operating under different systems, in different cultures with varying
> tolerances for mixing self-interest with duty.  The odds dictate that some
> of these organizations will fail.  And there will be some level
> self-interest involved in failure or the floundering of chapters.  This
> should be expected.  The question is what sort of process we should have for
> dealing with chapters that exceed our tolerance for this sort of thing.
>  Ideally we should have such a process in place with clear expectations
> before there is ever any need to use it.
> >
> > But pretending corruption is something that won't happen or can be
> prevented on a absolute level is silly.  I haven't a clue what anyone is
> referring to as current examples.  I don't really care for politics and
> gossip, so I personally don't even want to know.  But it is worth talking
> about what sort of process we should develop to deal with such things for
> its own sake.  We can't simply depend on people being better than human.
>  Given a large enough sample, people will do what they do; what they have
> always done. It shouldn't be controversial to ask for a system to be put in
> place to mitigate the harm from people behaving in such a reliably
> predictable fashion as becoming corrupted by money or power.
> >
> >
> > Birgitte SB
> >
>
>
> I think it will be very difficult to meaningfully mitigate the risks
> of waste, fraud and abuse in national chapters. Ideally the WMF can
> place restraints on its funding by demanding careful vetting of
> officers and strong internal risk controls -- but this places a large
> burden on organizations still in their infancy, and may be a stifling
> factor during a crucial period of expansion. The process for
> requesting funds is not what I would call robust, and the annual
> fund-raising drive (where donors can donate directly to national
> chapters through the WMF front door) seems to be a vector that is
> particularly vulnerable to misuse of funds, but addressing these
> concerns should be balanced with the need for a strong relationship
> with chapters that supports continued growth.
>
> The best prophylaxis against corruption is transparency. The more we
> ask the WMF and the chapters to operate in the open, the less likely
> it is that problems will go long unnoticed. By accepting that chapter
> finances and operations are "private issues", and that corruption or
> accusations of corruption should be handled quietly and internally, we
> leave ourselves open to those who would (through malice or
> incompetence) take advantage of us.
>
> Gerard wrote:
>
> >The problem with behaviour that is not good / acceptable is that at some
> stage it will be recognised and it will kill off the people in a similar
> way
> as to Essjay. The best indication that such things can happen is the upset
> of our capable, competent and upright former chair. I was convinced that he
> would be re-elected and I would have welcomed his re-election.
>
> >When there is substance to "officials" with problematic credentials, it is
> certain that this will be noticed. When the system gets manipulated to keep
> them where they are, it will get noticed. When they are chapter officials
> and they damage the chapter it will be the members of the Foundation that
> have the possibility to force the issue.
>
> Gerard, can you elaborate on what you mean here? I'm not sure I
> understand what you meant to convey. You mention Essjay, problematic
> behavior, problematic credentials... and then refer to Michael Snow.
> Is there some connection here that I'm completely missing, or is the
> apparent implication unintended?
>
> Nathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>