[Wikimedia-l] letter from the FDC to the WMF

[Nathan]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl>wrote:

>
>
> I have no idea what gave you this impression. The FDC is composed of
> Wikimedia volunteers and serves as an advisory committee by the Board. The
> Board itself is not the foundation, neither - it is a body overseeing and
> supervising it.
>
> If the Board disagrees with the FDC recommendation, it naturally can
> overrule it, but how is this possibility relevant? The FDC at no point is
> inclined to provide rubber stamps to any entity in the process in general,
> and WMF in particular. We use our best judgment, experience, and skills to
> give meaningful evaluations. What possible motivation could we have to do
> otherwise? I strongly believe that none of the FDC members is driven by an
> urge to please anyone (WMF, the Board, the chapters). We are motivated to
> recommend sensible resources allocation within the entire movement. At no
> point do we take part in a popularity contest (and I believe we've shown
> that already). Moreover, keep in mind that even though we only prepare
> recommendations, and decisions are made by the Board, our responsibility is
> to the movement as a whole for our recommendations, and not for what the
> Board does with them. If we recommend cuts and the Board overrules them,
> the community will decide which of these two bodies went wrong.
>
> best,
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit")
>
>
>
I have no doubt about the integrity or intentions of the FDC's members.
Perhaps the FDC will lead an adjustment in the traditional relationship
between the Board and their employees. But the role of the FDC is fraught
with conflicts, perceived, real and potential.

I already mentioned the inherent tension in reviewing the activity and
spending of the Board's employees (it is, in a sense, one delegate of the
Board reviewing another delegate of the Board with at least equal status),
but there are other examples:

Five members are from Western Europe, where the wealthiest chapters are
located, but only one from North America, two from the Indian subcontinent
(but none from the rest of Asia) and no voting member at all from South
America. Only one is not a member of a chapter, and most members have a
history of chapter leadership. Actual conflicts in this situation seem
unavoidable, due to split loyalties between the Board and chapters and a
natural preference for Western European funding proposals. (The FDC members
page even lists chapter affiliations as part of the table of members!).

Of nine voting members, only two are women. I think the problem with that
should be immediately clear - although I realize efforts were made to
recruit more women to the committee.

I hope now you see the source of my impressions of the FDC, and why I am
skeptical about certain parts of its role and execution.