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

[Theo10011]

This seems like a preposterous proposition, if not for the distinct
recollection that this might have been insinuated by Ms. Gardner in the
discussion leading up to the formation of FDC. It still reads like a poorly
thought out attempt at some form of a coup or the making of one. This is as
bad an idea, as the actual formation of the FDC.

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013, 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.
>

Actually, no. The board and WMF both have a legal existence and basis. FDC
as a committee, albeit a board mandated one sits on the same or equal
footing as Langcom or Comcom, slightly above OMGcom, as far as I'm
concerned. It has little to no real world existence. Second, the WMF board
members are volunteers as well, quite like you. Unlike the FDC however, the
WMF board has several elected members and has gone through quite a few
iterations and external scrutiny.


>
> 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).


I quite believe the opposite might be true.


> 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.
>

So a direct path of conflict with the board. One can assume you'd expect
the community to side against the board on some or any occasion and
hilarity will ensue.

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj at alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that the problems you're pointing out are non-existent.
> Rather, I'd say that they are likely unavoidable. I'm not certain about
> Western Europeans' solidarity anyway - I have serious doubts if any of the
> Western European FDC members would have any preference for other Western
> European chapters, just as I (coming from Eastern, or, more accurately,
> Central Europe) would not perceive other Eastern/Central European chapters
> as more suited for funding. If you have any thoughts on how should the
> future FDC composition be altered from a systemic point of view (election
> criteria, etc.), I'd be very much interested in learning about them -
> especially if the changes would only improve the results (rather than bring
> other problems on their own).
>

I have one. Resign. Half the of current FDC should resign and open up the
other half to some participation from the larger community - be it through
an open election, arbcomm seat, board seats, then you'd need to add Jimmy
of course - Hey! we can then have the same structure as the board..... so,
another quasi board that really has no legal authority or basis to comment,
just disagree and create more conflict when some chapters don't get their
way. This entire exercise with FDC has been futile, fixing little and
consuming a lot of time and resources.


> As of now, all FDC members exclude themselves in the cases when their home
> chapters applications are considered, irrespective of their engagement in
> the boards.
>

Those are some high standards right there.

--

I'm quite surprised to constantly read FDC is somehow representative of the
larger community and accountable to them. Almost all the current members
were part of chapter leadership and have been quite active within that
circle. I suppose this is the same fiction as chapters inherently being
representatives of the larger community. The FDC is sort of a UN-like
gathering that yet somehow overlooks the largest and most active community
of all.

Perhaps you might want to take a look at the dismal rate of actual
community participation in FDC discussions. An year or so in to its
formation, there isn't exactly a stellar record and high-opinions to go
around. I hope I don't need to point to the recent news articles and
comments about the FDC and possible issues of corruption, which might have
even played a part in.......whatever this is.

I also don't understand why FDC alone should have this right to evaluate
and offer recommendations. Why not the GAC? Arbcomm? or even individuals,
like Risker or Nathan, heck, even my cat should have that right! There is
an Auditcomm kicking around still I think. There is also some conflation in
the comments over how much authority FDC is looking for- is it to merely
offer feedback, suggest increases /decreases - which like feedback, WMF can
reject at will or the authority to go head-to-head with the board, as the
following comments allude to. The latter is quite preposterous, the former
not so much. I suppose sharing the plan with everyone openly, and letting
everyone comment might be the quickest solution there.

Anyway, of the dozen reasons why this is a bad idea here are a few-

-The internal structure - the foundation recently built up and then
expanded a grants department, added to the internal finance department
including some global work, the executive leadership - it would make
somethings redundant, making a whole lot of resources so far wasted.
-The external structure - hierarchy between the board, WMF executives, the
FDC, auditcommittee, the FDC steering committee (if it's still around), not
to mention the external auditors and consultants. Issues of privacy and
control are likely to arise.
-FDC has no real world existence - in the legal sense. There are legal and
fiduciary responsibilities a board and executives have, real world laws
about compliance, contracts, hiring and so on - they can't be abandoned or
handed over to a completely virtual entity with little prior experience,
who live across the world.
-The scale is quite relevant here- the chapters have less than a tenth of
the revenue and access to those fundraising abilities as the WMF. They have
no engineering department, some are starting to hire their first employee
and rent an office.
-WMF and the board, proposed and created the FDC. They set up a steering
committee, dedicated staff, and provided things like the travel budget to
get these members under one roof to actually have, an actual FDC. The board
has representatives who don't vote present within FDC. But it still poses a
whole lot of issues about conflict that might have legal repercussions for
non-profit operating in the US.
-As Nathan pointed out, the FDC has very limited exposure to US laws and
little participation from the US, and by extension the English-speaking
majority. Majority of the members also have little exposure to the
"flagship" project, presenting a gap of expertise and relevance where it
would be needed the most.


best,
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit")
>

my bestest,

Theo