[Foundation-l] the easy way or the less easy way

[Gerard Meijssen]

Anthere wrote:
> Erik Zachte wrote:
>   
>> Anthere:
>>     
>
>   
>> My point, please give it few more days or even weeks, perhaps give yourself
>> a break as well, before you decide no one is interested.
>> We don't need to reach a conclusion within a week. Better slow and steady
>> than hastily and without results.
>>
>> Erik Zachte
>>     
>
> My own point is that we may have days, but we may not have weeks.
> I know who is on the board now, I do not know for sure who will be on 
> the board in a few months. By the way, about a good dozen people 
> indicated their interest to be on the board, and some of them gave their 
> opinion on the current topic. Others did not.
>
> I think that it would be interesting that all current candidates 
> actually *give* their opinion publicly on what they consider is 
> membership, on how membership should be taken into account and which 
> type of organisation they envision would be best for the Foundation.
>
> Ultimately, either we together will have to decide which persons should 
> be elected (in case of elections) or I (and other board members) will 
> have to decide which persons to appoint (in case of appointments).
>
> During last elections, some people complained that there has not been 
> much "deep" discussions. To my opinion, membership and organisation are 
> really important topics. There is a pending resolution which aims at 
> appointing a temporary board member. This board member will have a 
> voice, just as current board members have. This person will be able to 
> impact greatly the future of the organisation depending on his/her 
> position. I gather I was elected with the expectation I will make 
> informed decisions with regards to the future of the organisation.
> I do not consider myself informed enough. No decisions is required. But 
> opinions are necessary.
>
> ant
Hoi,
Weighing in on the subject.

The first question to ask is what IS our organisation and what is its 
values, how does it work so far.
Our organisation is the Wikimedia Foundation. Its value is in providing 
an organisational background to several projects that exist in many 
languages. There are a few ground rules that are enforced by the 
organisation. They are NPOV, wiki and Freedom and, they are aspects of 
the mission statement of the WMF. The projects have a specific domain 
and they are organised per language. By and large they are self 
organised. The English Wikipedia serves as a role model for many of the 
projects and the many language versions.

The WMF provides infra-structure; it owns the hardware it provides some 
office functions including legal expertise. When necessary it steps in 
and takes action in order to prevent legal problems. The WMF provides 
the financial underpinnings for the operation of the projects by 
soliciting funds via the projects. There are some meta-functions for the 
projects; OTRS stewards and two developers are paid to oversee the 
smooth development of the MediaWiki software.

The projects largely run themselves. There are opposing faction on 
almost everything. This does not mean that things do not develop. They 
do. People can become relevant in a project and they can become 
irrelevant again depending on the quality of their social skills and the 
recognition of their value to the project, the community. When a choice 
is made for a more formal structure in the projects, it means that the 
current processes are pushed to the side. My expectation is that the 
result will not lead to what some expect ie more stability.

The WMF is very much an enabling organisation. To accomplish this, 
chapters have been started. They too are imho intended to support the 
organisation in countries. When charitable money is solicited, this can 
only be considered charitable (and tax deductible) when it is done 
according to the laws of the land. The chapters are also great to use as 
a vehicle when organising events. In my opinion, it would be good to 
emphasize the organisational nature of the chapters and have strong 
links between the chapters and the organisation.

The consequence of all this is that the WMF is very much about 
organisation. It helps prevent editors falling victim when they behave 
irresponsible by intervening when it is necessary for legal reasons. It 
provides the monetary and organisational background needed for 
activities undertaken by the projects.

When people want to become member, they can. They can become member of 
their chapter. This allows them to find the organisational background 
when something is to be organised from within the projects in their 
country. When there is no chapter yet in a country, this points to the 
immaturity of the community in a country. This immaturity may exist for 
many reasons. One reason may be that there are not many projects 
relevant in a country. When the WMF is of the opinion that it would be 
GOOD to stimulate projects in a country and for a particular language, 
this is something where particularly infrastructural things come to mind.

When people are of the opinion that they want direct influence in the 
WMF, the current representation by board members is one way. It could be 
that chapters are given some visible influence in the WMF.When people 
want influence, they can do what they have done so far; make a lot of 
noise or they can get themselves a reputation of being helpful in 
finding solutions by actively involving themselves (e.g. in the Betawiki)

* I am of the opinion that there should be an US-American chapter. The 
WMF is NOT its chapter and should not play that role.
* I do not like to hear that you are not sure who will be on the board 
in the not so distant future.. I hope to see you there

Thanks,
   GerardM