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

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Dariusz, thank you for your interesting answer, I learned a lot from
it.

I can imagine that some things will look different when the movement is a
little older, with more former board members who would like to serve in the
FDC.

Kind regards
Ziko



Am Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2013 schrieb Dariusz Jemielniak :

> hi Theo,
>
>
> 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.
> >
>
> You seem to live a false assumption that the FDC does not have elected
> members at all. It does, and their proportion is going to grow in the
> incoming years. But I don't think it matters, anyway - what is more
> important, is the role of the FDC. It is not a decisive body, but an
> advisory one. In all major financial decisions it is good to have a chain
> of decision process, just to avoid groupthink. Moreover, it is quite a lot
> of work, the Board would unlikely be able to tackle on their own, with all
> other responsibilities.
>
>
>
> >   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.
> >
>
> Basing on?... So far in two rounds we have made some recommendations, which
> we had every right to assume that would not have been the most popular ones
> under the sun.
>
>
> > 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. '
> >
>
> If you're saying that the FDC may disagree with the Board and vice-versa,
> that's 100% true. I'm not sure if I would call this a conflict. Drawing
> different conclusions from the same data is not unprecedented in financial
> evaluations. The only thing the FDC and the Board will definitely want to
> avoid (each on their own shift) is to make mistakes. It is actually quite
> good, in my opinion, that there are two stages in this process:
> recommendation and an actual decision. If the Board disagrees with the FDC
> and makes a better, different decision, I think it would be a success of
> this model, rather than its failure.
>
> All in all the Board is accountable to the movement and has actual,
> fiduciary responsibility. Again, you perceive it as a flaw that an advisory
> committee makes recommendations, although is not empowered to enforce them.
> I respect this view, but such an organizational structure solution is quite
> common and your critique applies to the whole concept of advisory
> committees.
>
> 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.
> >
>
> I'm assuming good faith, but your advice and the conclusion seem to be
> contradictory (you say that we should resign, and as a result a new body
> would be created, but it would be identical to the Board). The whole
> purpose of the FDC is to have DIFFERENT people working as a committee and
> advising to the Board. What I read from your comments is that you believe
> that a two-stage decisionmaking process is dangerous, because it may bring
> conflict. Perhaps we simply disagree here - in my view it is better to have
> two different bodies look carefully at proposals worth millions of dollars,
> rather than to rush them through the Board (which, as already noted, has
> other duties, too and would not possibly be able to spend as much time on
> this process, as we do).
>
>
>
> > 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 assuming your comment was sarcastic. Any suggestions for systemic
> improvement are welcome.
>
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> well, as I am one of those, who never participated in any chapter actively
> (full disclosure: I've been signed up as a member of a Polish chapter, but
> I have never gone beyond that in terms of activity; I've never received a
> grant from the chapter, etc.) it is fair for me to comment that indeed
> there is quite many chapter activists in the FDC. I'm not sure if it can be
> avoided though, and if this is necessarily a bad thing, to some limit.
> After all, the FDC has to be composed of people who understand the
> movement, have knowledge and skills in the areas of strategy and financial
> management, and have experience in grant writing and grant evaluating. When
> you combine these with the fact that these people have to volunteer to
> commit a lot of time to Wikimedia movement, quite naturally people who
> already are chapter activists pop up as fitting the profile.
>
> I'm not going to say that the chapters are 100% representatives of the
> larger community. But for good or bad reasons, they are the only ones that
> have the ability to represent Wikimedia communities organizationally. This
> may change e.g. when interest groups across projects and countries develop
> structures, organizations, etc., (and I really hope they will) but as of
> now it is mainly the chapters. It would be unreasonable to ban people with
> experience, knowledge, and will to contribute from the FDC simply because
> they have participated in chapter governance in the past - this is exactly
> the kind of experience that helps in understanding the applications.
>
> However, I agree with you that it would be a good practice to have a mix of
> people with and without chapter board experience.
>
>
> >  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 hope that this comment stems from your misunderstanding rather than a
> will to insinuate some actual corruption, and not just its hypothetical
> risk. The news articles you may be referring to are basically a coverage of
> Sue's reflections from here, so referring to the primary source may have
> more sense
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Annual_report_on_the_Funds_Dissemination_Committee_process_2012-2013#The_WMF_Executive_Director.E2.80.99s_Reflections_on_the_FDC_Process
> The part about corruption states:
>
> * I want to be clear: I am confident that all FDC members put the good of
> the movement ahead of self-interest, including the interests of their
> chapter. But I do also believe that people who are involved in chapter
> organizations (and other Wikimedia organizations) have a particular
> worldview that is in some ways different from that of Wikimedians who
> choose not to become involved with incorporated Wikimedia organizations,
> and I think a healthy funds dissemination process would benefit from
> multiple perspectives. And, although I trust the current FDC members to put
> the interests of the movement first, I believe the FDC process, dominated
> by fund-seekers, does not as currently constructed offer sufficient
> protection against log-rolling <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logrolling>,
> self-dealing <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-dealing>, and other
> corrupt practices. I had hoped that this risk would be offset by the
> presence on the FDC of independent non-affiliated members, but thus far the
> evidence suggests their number will be small and may diminish over time,
> and I do not believe it's reasonable to expect a minority of independent
> members to act as the only failsafe mechanism against corruption*
>
> This is related to the previous paragraph of our discussion and I can only
> say that in essence I agree that multiple perspectives, combining
> Wikimedians with and without a chapter board experience, is better. If I
> were to suggest some composition, perhaps 3 people without the board
> experience,  3 former board members, and 3 current board members would
> sound reasonable... Eliminating current board members wouldn't work simply
> because these are often the organizationally skilled people who are able to
> commit their time to the movement. One idea could be to require resigning
> from the boards upon being elected to the FDC, but I'm not so sure about
> that - one of the movement's problems is a small poll of committed
> activists anyway. Perhaps attracting 1-2 people from outside of Wikimedia
> movement would help? But this could result in problems, too and is not an
> easy or obvious solution.
>
> Per dismay rate of actual community participation in FDC discussion -
> you're 100% right that the participation is small (although I wouldn't say
> that it is decreasing). Yet, when you realize that commenting often
> requires reading the whole projects, it is often the time commitment people
> are not willing to make. I believe there is an area for improvement there,
> though.
>
>
>
> >  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.
> >
>
> If you're asking whether the functions of the FDC could be conducted by
> some other committee - perhaps they could indeed. The idea probably is that
> these bodies already have a lot to do. Just the FDC  is hundreds of hours
> of work, I would imagine that GAC and Auditcomm have full hands, too. As a
> result, if these committees are to be volunteer-driven, it is impossible to
> combine too many responsibilities.
>
> The plans are open for the community to comment, I hope you realize.
>
>
> >  -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.
> >
>
> I've cut out this from your summary, as this point is the only one that
> does not summarize your previous ones, I think. I have no idea why would
> you assume that being a lawyer trained in US law is crucial for the FDC
> (other forms of "exposure to US laws" are perhaps even less important).
>
> Per languages: I hope you realize that only 36% of all Wikimedia editors
> edit primarily in English (per 2011 Editor Survey Report). Incidentally,
> exactly 1/3 of the FDC members come from countries where English is an
> official language. Many of the rest have spent extensive periods in the US
> (although I disagree that the whole point is relevant). I fail to see how
> "exposure" to en-wiki (probably understood as editing, right?) translates
> into a gap of expertise in grant evaluation. If anything, I regret that we
> don't have more members with community experience from more than 4-5
> projects, as being exposed to different communities within the same
> ecosystem,  especially if them come from different cultures, radically
> widens their understanding.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ziko van Dijk
voorzitter / president Wikimedia Nederland

Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
http://wikimedia.nl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------