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@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>