[Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Seb35]

Le Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:25:16 +0200, Anders Wennersten  
<mail at anderswennersten.se> a écrit:
> MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
>> I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the  
>> decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how  
>> decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual  
>> request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or  
>> is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round  
>> and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public?
> As stated, all seven FDC members before the meeting asses all proposals  
> and write down the sum recommended for each. During the deliberation  
> these seven figures are presented  and they can differ very much, even  
> that for the same proposal some member recommends full funding, others  
> no funding and others partial funding. Seeing these figures, a very  
> intense discussion start where we argue and reason, each fully  
> paticipaing and often very passionate. If the difference still is wide,  
> we then each prepare a new set of figures, which then normally show a  
> level of convergence in recommended funding figures.  In some cases  
> there is still incompatible positions among the FDC members and in other  
> there is mostly then a concern where within a span we should find the  
> recommended figures, which also is discussed and argued. In most cases  
> we then all agree on a recommended figure, and in other we fully agree  
> with some expressing some level of reluctance on the agreed amount. So  
> no votes, and the reason why we manage to come to an agreement is, i  
> believe, that we are used on the way we reach consensus on Wikipedia.  I  
> myself, have in no other of the hundreds of groups I have been involved  
> in, seen the same constructiveness of the participants to come to an  
> agreement with consensus.

So, are there public minutes of the discussions or a public comprehensive  
text about pros and cons of the FDC decision?

>> From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of  
>> text. """ We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring  
>> that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where  
>> staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We  
>> encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and  
>> volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers  
>> leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer  
>> activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff  
>> and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth  
>> rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to  
>> the most impact possible. """ Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia  
>> chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)?
>
> The key word is "coordinating". we want to highlight that employed staff  
> should not be seen to  replace volunteers but support/empower/encourage  
> their efforts. And this is relevant for WMF as well when hey are  
> involved in activities where there are volunteers involved.

I’m not familiar with the case, but I cannot understand, in case of a  
contradictory debate, how the outcome of this debate could be "absolutely  
no money", no even a similar amount than the last year (and the same for  
WMCZ), with simple arguments as "concerns about […] internal governance,  
financial management capacity, and capacity of volunteers to manage a plan  
of this [too big] size" and "not sufficiently demonstrate a […] high  
impact".

As Deryck stated, if volunteers are exhausted with the current workload,  
they obviously cannot do more in these fields, and their proposal of an  
accountant and ED could help improving the situation and by the way free  
time to volunteers to do programmatic activities. By receiving no money,  
they will have to do the administrative stuff themselves (so less time for  
program), find themselves money or support to do programmatic activities  
[by comparison all big chapters have a dedicated staff with this task],  
and if they have time and energy, do some programmatic activities. In  
other words there is probably little chance they will have a professionnal  
system next year as the FDC wants.

So I fully understand Deryck’s decision. When volunteers work hard to try  
to do good job and they are granted nothing, they leave.

Sébastien