Sorry that somehow went to wrong list.
On Feb 25, 2016 9:29 AM, "Brion Vibber" <bvibber(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Thanks again for your responses, Denny. I think it really helps to get a
clearer
perspective on things "on the inside", and that informs the kind of
things we need to think and talk about as a company and as a movement.
I know it's a super awkward position to be putting all of you in,
especially at
this juncture. I hope we'll all get through this sanely and
we can talk about ways to better align our various structures to our needs
with less immediate stress.
-- brion
On Feb 25, 2016 9:16 AM, "Denny Vrandecic" <dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>
> Thanks to all the answers to my response. I am still reading them, and I
> probably will not be able to answer to all in a timely manner (I have to
> work, after all), but I wanted to make a few things clearer, quickly:
>
> Milos, I indeed do not care about reelection. And if I have to choose
> between truth and political wisdom, I hope to continue to choose the
first.
>
> More importantly, Milos, I did a massive error in my formulation, as I
know
> realize, which lead to a misunderstanding. I have
to apologize for that.
> When I said that the Board has to make a decision in the interest of the
> Foundation when there is a conflict between the Communities and the
> Foundation, I was phrasing myself very badly, I now realize. I actually
did
> not mean a direct conflict between a single
Community and the Foundation,
> i.e. with these two as being directly opposed to each other and fighting
> over something, but rather the more complicated case of a decision where
> there is a conflict of interests between the Foundation and the
> Movement-at-large, the Board is obliged to decide in the best interest of
> the Foundation.
>
> I do not buy in the mythology of an "evil community" at all. I do not
even
> buy into the mythology of a great divide between
the communities and the
> foundation. There are plenty of people who are active and constructive in
> both, and who bridge both. The cases where the Foundation and the
Movement
> are directly opposed to each other should be
extremely rare, and,
> thankfully are. I don't think there was anything even close to that
brought
> to the Board in my tenure so far.
>
> More often though is the case that there is a third-party situation, e.g.
> an imminent and considerable legal threat to the Foundation. In that
case,
> the interests of the Movement at large has to be
secondary for the Board.
>
> I regard the Movement-at-large as much more resilient than any and each
of
> its parts. And I am thankful for that, because I
think our mission is
much
> too important to leave it with a small NGO in the
Bay Area. It has to be
a
> mission carried by every single one of us, it has
to be a mission that is
> inclusive of every one who wants to join in realizing it.
>
> I have overstated my point in my last mail, obviously, and also
> intentionally to make a point (and thanks for everyone to calling me out
on
> that). But as many have confirmed, there is truth
in this overstatement.
I
> don't think that such situations will occur
often. But when they occur,
and
> that is what I said, they will be painful and
frustrating and potentially
> shrouded in confidentiality / secrecy. Therefore it remains my strong
> belief, that reaffirming the current Board as the movement leadership
body
> is a bad idea, because the overstated
incompatibility that I have
described
> remains.
>
> I could imagine with a much smaller Board of Trustees, which itself is a
> constituent of a body representing the whole Movement.
> I could imagine a wholly new body to represent the whole movement.
> I could imagine many, many small new bodies who somehow make local
> decisions on the one side and bubble up to an ineffective, but extremely
> resilient and representative voice.
> I could imagine many other models.
> But I have a hard time to imagine the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
> Foundation sincerely filling out the role of the movement leadership, due
> to the inherent constraints and incompatibilities between these roles. As
> rare as they appear, they do appear.
>
> Dariusz, you say that a disengagement from the Foundation by the
community
> would increase a specific Foundation versus the
rest of the movement
> situation. I don't think that the formal composition of the Board matters
> as much as its role, duties, and obligations.
>
> The German Wikimedia chapter, the one chapter I have a bit experience
with,
> is a membership organization. The Board is elected
by the members in its
> entirety. I don't see any claim of that Board to lead the German
Wikimedia
> communities. I don't see that the German
chapter is significantly closer
to
> the German Wikimedia communities, or that their
relation to the
communities
> is considerably less strained, than the Foundation
is to the overall
> communities (besides the obvious locality of their relation).
>
> Dan, Brion, James, in particular thanks to you for arguing why my
> overstatement was, well, an overstatement. But I still remain convinced
> that the view of the Board as having the role of leading the movement is
> merely an accident of the fact that we have no other obvious leadership,
> and that the Board is being sucked into that vacuum. It is not designed
to
> be so, and, I argue, due to the legal and formal
obligations, it
shouldn't.
>
> MZMcBride, I currently lack the time to answer to your specific and
> excellent points in particular. Sorry. I hope to come back to it.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> djemielniak(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > Thus, not the senate, but assembly is the right form of our
> > > organization: assembly which would select *paid* Board members.
> > > Besides the load, I want Board members to be accountable to
> > > Wikimedians, not to the for-profit or non-profit entities which give
> > > them money.
> > >
> >
> > I am not, and have not been employed by any Wikimedia organization.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Yes, it's scary to be accountable to people you lead. I completely
> > > understand that.
> > >
> >
> > I have no idea where you get this idea from in my letter. I am not
scared
> > to be accountable to people I lead, and I
hope I have stated my
readiness
> > in this department clearly.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The costs of having 100 people assembly won't be significant at all.
> > > First of all, the most of the people in such large body would be
> > > anyways mostly consisted of those going to Wikimedia Conference and
> > > Wikimania. If you really care about money, scale the initial body to
> > > 40-50 and ask all chapters that sending three or more people to those
> > > conferences to contribute expenses for one to such body. If you put
> > > that way, the costs could rise up to ~5%, if they raise at all.
> > >
> >
> > If you envisage a large, 100 people assembly during Wikimania or
Wikimedia
> > Conference, then indeed it is possible to
arrange without significant
> > additional cost. However, I believe this is basically an entirely
different
> > idea than the one Denny described (or at
least the one I understood
we're
> > discussing). An assembly would be a body who
would voice their opinion
only
> > once a year in practice, most likely. I'm
not sure what exactly would
it
> > do, but surely it would be difficult for it
to agree/vote on situations
> > happening within a span of weeks, rather than months.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > So, please, reconsider your ideas on the line: from speaking about
bad
> > > bureaucracy, while in fact increasing
inefficient one -- to thinking
> > > about efficient, democratically accountable bureaucracy, with
> > > everybody content by its construction.
> > >
> >
> > I am not convinced if a body of 100 people meeting once a year is an
> > efficient way to reduce bureaucracy. Of course views may differ.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Said everything above, I have to express that I am pissed off by the
> > > fact that the Board members are constructive as long as they are
under
> > > high level of pressure. Whenever you
feel a bit more empowered, I
hear
> > > just the excuses I've been listening
for a decade.
> > >
> >
> > I am saddened you have this perception.
> >
https://xkcd.com/552/
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Please, let us know how do you want to talk with us in the way that
we
> > > see that the communication is
constructive.
> >
> >
> > That is a good topic for a separate thread! Currently, the list we use
is
> > limited to 1500 English speakers.
> >
> > An idea that I have been trying to champion for a while was also
> > community-liaisons: community elected people whose responsibility is
> > day-to-day communication with the WMF and back. This would not be a
> > decisive role, and it is independent from whether we have a senate or
> > assembly or not, but could at least increase the reach of
communication
and
> > decision making in some areas.
> >
> > Also, discourse is a platform that perhaps will take off at some point.
> >
> > dj
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>