[Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family

[Fred Bauder]

Laura,

It seems unlikely if only based on "We have no notability requirement."
Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy.

Fred Bauder

> This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF
> family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on strategy
> wiki.  This isn't as coherent as I would like.
>
> To give some back story that might not have been as obvious in our
> initial
> proposal, we were interested in joining the WMF for several primary
> reasons:
>
> 1) Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization where we
> fundamentally
> believe in the objectives of the organization.
> 2) Wikimedia Foundation has credibility that could be extended to our
> project, helping us accomplish our mission.
> 3) Fan History and I feel like we have positive relationships with
> Wikimedia
> Foundation staff, based on our interactions at RecentChangesCamp and in
> various chat rooms like #wiki and #mediawiki on irc.freenode.net.
>
> We have certain things that we want to accomplish that have been detailed
> elsewhere.  We're in the process of looking for and determining if we
> should
> partner with some one to accomplish these goals, what we're looking for
> in
> partnering or being acquired by some one.  Our general criteria have
> been:
>
> 1) Non-profit, no-profit or for profit business where the emphasis would
> be
> on helping us to succeed with our mission.  Monetization of the project
> is
> fine so long as major content focus and creation is focused around
> monetizing.  We see our project as fundamentally for a greater good, to
> preserve and document the history of fan communities, and we don't want
> that
> made secondary to commercial interests.
> 2) Financial issues.  In an ideal world, we would want one or two or
> three
> of our staffers to get some form of compensation for helping to maintain
> the
> content, enforce policies and helping work towards the mission.  We also
> want to make sure that the project has the funding to continue
> indefinetely.
> 3) Fix and improve our back end.  Thankfully, it feels like a fair amount
> of
> this has been addressed in the past two weeks so we're much less stressed
> about this than we were.
> 4) Increase the visibility and credibility of our project.  Get more
> people
> involved.
>
> That out of the way, time to discuss the process of trying to get
> acquired
> by the Wikimedia Foundation.  Simply put, there were three basic steps
> that
> we took:
> 1) Contacted members of the Wikimedia Foundation to ask them if they
> would
> be interested in bringing Fan History into the Wikimedia Foundation
> family.
> Got directed to other people, told not sure who in the organization this
> would be best proposed to, got told that the Foundation itself probably
> wouldn't be interest, finally suggested I post this on the list because
> if
> community consensus is yes than we can go ahead.
> 2) Posted the proposal on the mailing list.  Good feedback.  Suggested I
> post it to the Strategy Wiki.
> 3) Posted to strategy wiki.
>
> Step one is fine.  The only problem I might have had with step one was
> not
> getting out right rejected.
>
> The problem is really when it comes to steps two and three.  To my
> knowledge, all of the projects that are currently part of the Wikimedia
> Foundation are home grown; they did not join as part of any aquisition
> process.  In this regards, our proposal was unique.   Steps two and three
> are kind of where we got hung up: What is the timeline?  What are the
> next
> steps to take after these?
>
> The timeline issue is a big one.  For us, this is not that big of a deal
> necessarily.  We're finacially in a place where we can probably chug
> along
> for a while in that regards.  We're not facing issues of possibly being
> shut
> down because of legal problems or scripting problems.  We do not have
> issues
> that say this is a last resort option for us to keep us open.  In the
> future, others may contact Wikipedia where this may be an issue or where
> the
> founders may see this as the only solution.
>
> I tried to ask various people to get a feel for the timeline that we were
> looking at to, well, know if WMF was interested in acquiring us or
> setting
> up some sort of official relationship.  What I got told by people in the
> know on  #wikimedia-strategy was that we were looking at three to
> eighteen
> months before we got some sort of official response back regarding
> whether
> this was something that the Wikimedia Foundation community was interested
> in.  I was left with the impression that unless I was basically agitating
> and trying to get support on an almost daily basis, the timeline was
> actually closer to eighteen months.  EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
>
> And that eighteen months didn't even factor in under what conditions WMF
> would want us, what we would have to give up, and if we'd even be willing
> to
> accept WMF's offer if they made that decision.  We couldn't get the
> information that we needed to know if we even wanted to work with
> Wikimedia
> Foundation for that long.
>
> That puts us in a bind.  There are other places we would like to
> approach.
> (And if you have ideas for who would be a good fit, please get in touch
> with
> me.)  Is it ethical for us to approach other people and organizations
> while
> we have this on the table with the WMF?  If we approach other people in
> the
> mean time, does that signal that our interest in the WMF is dead?  We
> just
> don't know.  Is it fair to the WMF to basically keep us in limbo for
> three
> to eighteen months?  We kind of don't think so.
>
> Outside of the timeline issue, there is the whole procedural issue.
> Proposal is made.  It is posted to the appropriate places that WMF
> employees
> and volunteers have guided us to.  What are the next steps?  There really
> hasn't been any clarity for us on this.  When we've asked in the chat,
> the
> answer is persistence.  That's not a step and it isn't particularly
> helpful.  Persistence how?  Post repeatedly to the mailing list?  Troll
> talk
> pages of contributors to Strategy Wiki asking for them to vote yes, Fan
> History should be part of the WMF?
>
> Looking around at other new content proposals, Strategy Wiki looks like a
> place where proposals go to die.  There are proposals that have been
> there a
> year, that have no votes, with no comments on them.  There doesn't appear
> to
> be any follow up by 1) the person who posted the proposal, 2) volunteers
> for
> the WMF, 3) WMF employees who are working on strategy wiki.  This is not
> encouraging for several reasons.  If you are really excited about your
> content proposal and it would be a really good fit, you have the time to
> basically put full force into launching the project in the next three to
> six
> months, you've followed the guidelines that I have gotten and the
> procedure
> on the wiki, time and procedure become a huge issue that are potentially
> huge deterrents.
>
> By deterents, I mean that these projects could end up off WMF and you
> could
> lose contributors who can't get past the bureaucracy to accomplish their
> goals, are not insider enough to push to get things done, are going to
> deter
> future proposals and may deter future contributions to Wikipedia and
> related
> projects.
>
> As some one who has proposed a new project for the WMF (which would
> really
> probably be an acquisition if it happened), some changes need to be made:
>
> 1) Clear procedure for what happens step by step in making such a
> proposal.
> Post proposal.  Contact people who support your position to vote in favor
> of
> it using talk pages on Strategy wiki.  After one hundred votes vast in
> favor
> with no more than half that total in opposition, project moves to
> development stages where WMF staff will be in contact with the person
> making
> the proposal.  Something like that.
> 2) Clear timeline of what happens and when so that people can plan
> accordingly
> 3) Expectations regarding exclusivity of proposal to the WMF during the
> proposal process.  Can people propose it elsewhere or seek acquisition by
> others while there is an open proposal on Strategy Wiki?
>
> As for where Fan History's proposal to join WMF stands now, we're not
> sure.
> The mailing list conversation died.  Strategy wiki's only commentary has
> been regarding getting us off the blacklist for Foundation projects.
>
> Sincerely,
> Laura Hale
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>