Hello, I would like to know: Is the introduction of WMF people on national boards a serious idea, or is it just a whim, a piece of loud thinking, and does not need to be discussed further?
Kind regards Ziko 2011/9/4 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemow...@gmail.com>: > Florence Devouard, 02/09/2011 21:11: > > You seek to remove "perceived" conflicts of interest, even if that means > > creating "real" conflicts of interest ? > > > > Because there would be conflict of interest and rather BIG ONES. > > > > We are facing rather severe challenges right now. Let's say it straight, > > Wikimedia Foundation is simply trying to absorb/control the chapters as > > is they were simple bureaux of the WMF locally and chapters kind of > > disagree with WMF idea that centralization is a good move for the > > mouvement... > > Actually it can be considered quite a coherent plan: if the chapters are > completely controlled by the WMF, like local branches of a corporation > but with more subtle means, then there's no conflict of interest, > perceived (by whom?) or real. > I don't understand, by the way, why the perceived "conflict of interest" > should be perceived as high right now, and in need of being reduced; the > topic seems a bit surreal, Florence gave better examples and context of > real COI issues. > > Michael Snow, 02/09/2011 22:02: >> If the point is to improve communication, then a more practical approach >> might be to designate "observers" who are not given authority but merely >> sit in with a chapter board. > > I don't consider this practical, rather ideal: it's impossible to > appoint voting (and working) board members, as explained by Ilario, > Florence and others; at least observers are ideally possible. Assuming > that they are not spies of another organization (!) but they're there > because they know the language, the chapter and its problems, and they > are willing to help with suggestions, who wouldn't be happy to have > them? But even considering only the language problem mentioned by BYria, > this is going to be quite difficult and the WMF is most likely not able > to find suitable observers; the ChapCom /could/ be able to. I bet that > WMIT board would be super-happy to have e.g. Delphine as observer, if > she wanted to follow yet another mailing list and bunch of meetings; but > despite her preternatural ability to find discussions (among thousands > on our members mailing list) where she can give useful feedback, this > doesn't seem a safe assumption even in this lucky context. > But we're going more and more offtopic. > > Theo10011, 02/09/2011 21:25: > > I > > would argue that the onus is on WMF to aid in communication, there is > still > > not a single dedicated person on staff for chapter coordination/outreach, > > instead most Chapter relation/oversight comes from an unusual overlap of > > Global Development, Communications department and rarely Community > > department. Let me put this in perspective, there are 3 Storytellers, a > > Strategy department, dedicated researchers, full-time on staff but not a > > single person to deal with chapters who have been around for several > years. > > > > If a board of chapters composed of volunteers who have to solely rely > on the > > foundation for activities have to do a better job in communications, the > > Foundation has to do its part first. > > Perhaps this can take us a bit more on topic. > There's indeed a big confusion about WMF staff responsibilities and it > would be interesting to know how the "Outreach" and the "Global South" > departments will work together, why they're separated despite the > overlaps etc. Brasil could be a good example to see whether the local > office will just be yet another layer of complexity or rather a useful > single point of contact and catalyst for the local chapter and community. > > I've been following the WMF Brasil office activities on Meta for several > months now (almost a year) and I don't understand completely how local > activities have been organized and what impact they had so far, so I > don't know what's the best approach, but the letter by Wikimedia Brasil > is very good in its approach if not in the details. To actually involve > the local community and chapter in the activities, besides generic > transparency which often doesn't actually give room to useful feedback, > we could imagine something like an advisory board or scientific > committee (not executive), appointed by the local chapter (and which > could just be the chapter board of trustees, to start with), which would > assist and somehow oversee the local office, with frequent reciprocal > reports and feedback at least. > > Nemo > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Ziko van Dijk The Netherlands http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/ _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l