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

[Theo10011]

Hi Nemo

I'll get straight to my point here before answering in-line. I see this as
yet another move to change or one-up the power structures at play here. WMF
created this FDC to evaluate chapter finances, FDC is still limited in what
they believe is their scope, WMF still has a great deal of control over it
but the recent comments about its effectiveness, and who knows perhaps even
future dissolution/re-evaluation, might have brought upon this request to
one-up the WMF. For example, in this scenario, accusing a chapter of
corruption or nepotism would exacerbate a given situation, which in return
might allow FDC to say something similar publicly about WMF or disagree
with its requests. Since, the majority of FDC is composed of chapter
specialists, the entire dynamics will get skewed to one side, composed
primarily by chapter members overseeing mostly chapter grants, who will
also have a platform to oppose the board if need be and little in the form
of opposition.

This issue might lay claim to the odd nature of WMF between an Tech/IT firm
internally and the external non-profit part of the equation with chapters
around the world, that have little to do with the online identity. It might
seem ludicrous to think the WMF engineering and tech departments will be
scrutinized by random members of chapters, more so, they might be able to
dictate the terms and influence expense and programs(with little
participation from the largest community), as such, I believe their opinion
should only rest on the same footing as yours and mine. No more-no less.

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  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'm not sure how this matters for this proposal/request by the FDC: do
> such defects exist or apply only to evaluating the WMF budget? If not, how
> do they bring water to the idea of letting WMF be special compared to the
> other entities' funding?


I'm not sure I follow your earlier point there. As for WMF being "special"
- there were extensive debates about this around 2 years ago related to
decentralization. A lot of chapter members apparently saw things as WMF
should be the same as them. I don't believe that can be possible, first an
attempt was made to separate these entities on the basis of "payment
processing", and an independent body dispensing funds while WMF merely
collects and holds them - true to that structure this suggestion might fit
in but It's far too late now. WMF can not be judged by the same logic,
chapter funding is. I'm also not sure if the recent issues Ms. Gardner
alluded to are real with the FDC, but they should offer pause when handing
over control to a body that its creators think is still flawed and broken.
Not to mention, WMF is the only one who actually has full control of the
funds, the servers, the trademarks - basically everything, and FDC derives
its authority from a page on meta.


>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Correct. They can't. :)
> As you say, the FDC's decisions don't exist in the "real world", before
> the WMF board approves them. Nothing happens, from a legal perspective. For
> a "conflict" to exist, you'd need a board resolution rescinding a previous
> board resolution (which happens all the time anyway).



I wasn't alluding to FDC's decisions as much as the FDC itself- for the
purpose of this discussion, its existence is strictly virtual. But the main
point of contention was this would create yet another point of collision
between the board and the community (or a minute part of). The inevitable
expectation as I pointed out in the in-line comments, would be conflict to
arise with a stronger weight against the board. To which I question this
body's legitimacy and authority to have that power, over say, you or me.



>  -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.
>>
>
> Again, I can't imagine any legal consequence. Moreover, if it's so true
> that FDC lacks an USA-centric know-how particularly needed by and abundant
> in the WMF (and viceversa), all the better! It would mean they'll
> complement each other rather than overlapping as you feared above, wouldn't
> it.


Actually more so than the US-centric, it lacks the non-chapter centric
participation which would still make it redundant to the board, the board's
advisory board, and the auditcomm. The US-centric know-how is secondary to
the chapter specific one, then there is the lack of tech expertise, etc..

I'm not sure what is there to compliment in this case. It would be akin to
an AIDS charity somewhere in asia letting a Flower shop in brussels audit
its budget and dictate its future activities. It's a case of apple vs.
oranges. The two are distinctly different and exist fine on their own
without there being a need to tie one to the other.

Regards
Theo