Hi Denny and all,
I have to register disagreement with the idea that the WMF board is
duty-bound to serve the Foundation over the Wikimedia movement.
The whole purpose of the Foundation is to serve the Wikimedia free
knowledge movement, as stated in the bylaws. This does not mean that WMF
board members must constantly poll Wikimedia movement members on what to
do, or only consider what is popular at the time.
I believe the WMF board is indeed duty-bound to support the goals the
Wikimedia movement, in the way that they feel these goals would best be
served over the long-term. Of course, their opinions on the best methods
to achieve these goals may well differ from the majority of rank-and-file
movement members at times, but it is also part of their duty to pursue what
they feel is best for achieving basic movement goals.
Brion is also right that at some point in time, when the goals of the
Wikimedia Foundation and movement are "accomplished", if the free knowledge
paradigm is so successfully distributed throughout academia and society
that it no longer makes sense to continue as a corporate entity, it would
make sense to wind it up. (I don't foresee this happening for decades.)
Perhaps this is merely a translation issue of what "Movement" means in
different languages, but I thought it was an important point that needed to
be stated.
Also, I think the possible models on how to achieve these goals are indeed
more diverse than just those on offer in San Francisco and Berlin.
Thanks,
Pharos
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:16 PM, 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>