[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia India Program Trust

Wed Nov 16 08:29:54 UTC 2011

Dear Bishakha,

I apologize for intruding in this discussion again as someone who has
little knowledge about India and the local situation.

I'm myself not entirely convinced that there always should be one
organization in one country - but it is out default. That means that if we
want to drift off drom that default, there should be a good reason for it.
That is a different mindset of course than that organizations have
to prove itself.

There are a few things special here however. The first is that one of the
organizations is a membership organization, and the other isn't. To me,
with my limited knowledge and understanding, it would indeed seem logical
given our background to put the membership organization at the center
stage. However, at the same time I can understand that this organization
might not be ready to handle the funds yet that it needs to. But again -
the default would lie imho with the membership organization. If the Trust
wants to deviate that is fine, but ideally that would always happen with
the consent of the chapter.

And of course, now that there *are* two organizations, they should
communicate well with each other. Somehow we should ensure that, and I hope
some good routes are being found to let everyone on the chapter believe
that they are being communicated well with to the full extent. Like was
noted somewhere else in this thread, if there is a paid organization just
doing stuff you'd like to do as a volunteer as well - that can be pretty
darn demotivating. And possibly harmful for the volunteer community in the
long run. Lets just be careful.

Another is the confusing name - both organizations have the words
"Wikimedia India" in their name. Since chapters are usually identified with
Wikimedia Country, this trust is already to me confusing, since it implies
it is set up *by* the chapter. Choosing a different name might resolve some
issues here.

I'm not trying to say here whether those conversations and consent happened
- at the beginning of the discussion I was merely trying to understand the
situation better, to get a better grasp of who talked with who, who were
involved in decision making processes here. From chapters we expect no less
than transparent founding processes on meta, involving the community.
Receiving feedback and even opening up the bylaws for discussion. I have
not seen such a process, but may have missed it. If we are to place the
trust at the center stage (are we? still unclear to me, so not suggesting
anything here) we should *at least* require the same standards as we do for
new chapters.

At least for me this is the major part of why I started off this discussion
in the first place. It is no attack, it has mainly been a set of questions
which have gotten answered in many different ways throughout this
discussion. That alone leaves me to believe that there are ways to improve.

Best regards,

Lodewijk

No dia 16 de Novembro de 2011 04:08, Bishakha Datta <bishakhadatta at gmail.com
> escreveu:

> Dear Hari, Tinu, and Theo,
>
> Thank you for your heartfelt emails; all of them made me think, and want to
> take this conversation forward.
>
> One of the things I do want to say is that despite all the openness within
> the wiki-universe (and there is loads of it, no question), there are
> certain assumptions or 'logics' that are treated as sacred or as givens -
> these assumptions are rarely challenged or questioned, let alone explored
> in any depth. And any attempt to challenge these assumptions is treated
> almost as sacrilege.
>
> One of these assumptions is the idea that once a chapter has started
> operating in a country, no other entity has any business to be there -
> regardless of the size or potential of that country. This has been
> expressed in many emails on this thread, where the India chapter has
> implicitly and explicitly been positioned as legitimate - that which
> deserves to be there - and the program trust as illegitimate (or some sort
> of trespasser or gate-crasher).
>
> A related assumption is that the single-entity model is, by default, and
> without any questioning or critical analysis, the best one for every
> country in the world, including India. (Yes, this model may work for many
> countries - the question is: does it work for all? Is it the only workable
> model?)
>
> For example, the European Union has a population of 502 million (27
> countries, 27 official languages) [1] - and 15-20 chapters if I'm not
> mistaken.
>
> India has a population of 1.2 billion (28 states, 7 union territories,
> atleast 28 official languages) [2], [3] - and 2 entities.
>
> If this data were to be presented to someone outside of the wikimedia
> movement, he or she might actually argue that India needs more entities,
> not less, to accomplish the movement's goal of spreading free knowledge to
> people in India. An outsider may not understand why the arrival of a second
> entity is causing so much angst and anxiety, more so when funding sources
> do not seem to be scarce.
>
> Related to the assumption that a chapter is the only legitimate entity in
> any country is the idea of entitlement. I quote from Hari's email: "...this
> new development seems to indicate that the chapter, which has the potential
> to better represent the community doesn't get to be at the center stage
> anymore."
>
> I am unable to see why the chapter - or for that matter, any entity, should
> feel it is 'entitled' to be centre-stage without doing anything to prove
> that it deserves to be centre-stage. Like any other organization, the
> chapter will have to prove itself, both to its members, and to the
> community. Then, and only then, can it slowly, (if at all), start laying
> any claim to moving towards the centre or the stage.
>
> And yes, in much the same vein, the trust will have to prove itself too -
> via programs that yield measurable results. Not to members, since it
> doesn't have those, but to the movement at large. Then, and only then, will
> it have credibility in a broader sense. (In a related aside, I don't think
> anyone feels that paid staff should be held to lower standards; that would
> be very bizarre. But paid staff should be treated with the same respect
> with which volunteers are treated; they're human too).
>
> So really, what is the problem with these two entities co-existing in
> India? I'm open to being convinced there is a problem - if I can see what
> this problem actually is.
>
> Best
> Bishakha
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union
>
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India
>
> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
>
> [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters#Existing_chapters
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>