[Wikimedia-l] Strange, surprising, bold and unnecessary - reply to the WMF board statement

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Theo,


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Theo10011 <de10011 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why don't you start by asking those questions to WMF, then WMDE then WMUK
>  and any other chapter filing a budget with FDC. This organization just had
> the bare minimum personnel spending it needed to accomplish the goals at
> the time, but as the Dylan song went, things have changed....
>

my personal view is that at some stage of development staff indeed does add
value and is necessary for more complex operations. From this point of
view, it is clear that international collaboration, best practices sharing,
cross-border initiatives, etc. (all primarily within the scope of interest
of WCA or any other organization addressing it) do or soon will need some
structure and probably staff support.

So, all in all, the question is not whether in our movement as a whole we
can rely only and exclusively on volunteers - we know in some things we
can't, and in some it creates more challenges than savings. The question is
whether the problems WCA is going to address can be addressed by already
existing structures (e.g. by relying on one of the already existing
chapters - after all, WCA could be a subproject in an existing budget, and
still be managed by the council for all practical purposes, the issue of
incorporation is a matter of bureaucracy rather than of actual
initiatives fulfillment). If the new structures need to be created (and I
understand there has been quite a bit of thought given to the issue and
legal, accounting and incorporating costs are considered inevitable), the
community at large should probably be given a strong, plausible and
persuasive rationale for this, and also consulted in a typically wikimedic
manner. Instead, the serious wide discussion on WCA starts only now, after
the Board's statement.

The way I understood WCA idea the first time I heard about it was, among
others, reducing bureaucracy, and increasing openness and transparency of
actions. So far, at least on the surface level, the structures dominate
over the actual serving the community (there is a council, there's been a
long process of choosing a place to incorporate supported by professional
consultant(s), there is a secretary general being hired; but there is no
roadmap of what is going to be actually done yet). It may be just a passing
stage, but this is how it looks for now and possibly casts a shadow over
the whole project. Also, the openness and transparency are probably not the
strongest points of the initiative. There is a closed mailing list for
discussions, decision-making is not fully conducted with the input of the
community at large. I understand there may be good reasons for keeping your
strategy closed. I also understand that WCA council/managing board  feels
empowered to represent the participating chapter representatives, the
chapter representatives do feel empowered to represent the chapters, and
the chapters feel empowered to represent the local communities they serve.
But all this, while typical for regular organizations, is not so usual in
Wikimedia movement. Three layers of representation distance the initiative
from regular editors - even more it is needed to consult and discuss the
actions and decisions with the community. I know that WMF was often
 criticized in the past for being too distant from the community in its
planning, too hierarchical, or too bureaucratic - perhaps this could be a
lesson that all stakeholders in Wikimedia movement could learn from, and
actively oppose the detachment in their own business. Openness, minimal
hierarchy, flexibility, goals before structures - these are the values I'd
typically associate with Wikimedia.



> Well, 25000 (USD or CAN) might actually be close to minimum wage for
> Belgium or Switzerland but ok. But it's not for you to decide what is
> appropriate. There can be 100 different opinions about this matter and all
> be right at the same time.
>

Here's the thing: it is difficult to relate to this argumentation when the
community at large has not been offered a possibility to discuss the place
of incorporation, right? Even in Europe there is plenty of countries where
the minimum wage from Switzerland (not existing, AFAIK, but nevermind)  may
be way more than enough to cover the exact same expenses and leave quite a
lot for the others. Why Belgium or Switzerland and not Hungary, Czech
Republic, or Bulgaria? You don't even have to have a strong Wikimedia
chapter in a given country to start operating, what you may need though is
reducing costs whenever possible without a loss to quality, and also to a
lesser extent sending the right message (reaching out across borders,
etc.). Again, I totally understand that Belgium or Switzerland have been
chosen after careful consideration, but the process has not been
transparent and you cannot expect the outcome to be widely accepted and
unquestioned just on the face value. Just saying that "it's not for you to
decide what is appropriate" will not win WCA any community support, while
sharing the reasons for the choices may help build credibility for the
idea.

A similar issue: we've been discussing a number of times two rejected
drafts of WCA budgets. What we have not seen is the actual approved budget
that WCA wants to operate on. In the same time a secretary general is being
hired. It may be my professional bias, or the fact that I don't know WCA
strategy, but I find it at least unusual to start staffing prior to making
plans, strategies, and final budgeting, simply because staff is usually
meant to support concrete initiatives (and it would seem that you believe
this is the purpose for staffing, too). What are those initiatives and why
is there no budget, nor a strategic plan ready? If they are ready, why have
they not been discussed with the community?  Asking about this is not meant
to be overly inquisitive, I'm honestly trying to figure out how it is meant
to work in your view and why it makes financial sense.

I really, really, really would like to see WCA, or a similar initiative,
work - simply because I think our movement needs it direly. But I think I'm
not the only one out here who is surprised by the turn of events, the lack
of discussion or at least detailed reasoning, etc. If you believe that
there is some value in community support at all, now it would be a good
time to work on it. I'm pretty sure WCA has all that is needed, it has just
failed to disclose it to the public.

best,

Dariusz (a.k.a. "pundit")