While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that
AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined
occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was
taken into consideration, but that may give the wrong idea of what happened.
While it is true we provided feedback before the decision was made, I would
not consider it consulting with us or even communicating with AffCom in a
way that allowed us to provide the level of feedback I think the community
has come to expect. Frankly we got a lot of our information second-hand,
and am still not sure personally we know the full story. My personal
expectation would have involved a lot more communication before the
decision was made, and most importantly, some two-way dialogue. At the very
least I think the chairs of FDC and AffCom should have been looped into
parts of the conversation during the meeting.
I think it is fair to say that AffCom got notice before the broader
community, and we had opportunities to express our concerns and objections
- however I would not characterize it as a conversation or true feedback
gathering. I am not personally convinced it was taken into much
consideration as the people proposing this bad idea were physically there
to speak to their idea, but no one opposed to it was invited. My
understanding is the same was true for FDC - but I obviously cannot speak
to that.
Aside from my disappointment in the decision, I am perhaps even more
disappointed with the process. Without going into lengthy details, I was
not impressed with how AffCom was consulted on this (or not consulted
depending on your take) and frankly the board's attitude I think calls into
question their true interest in utilizing FDC and AffCom as actual advisors
to the board. In a world and movement so woven into technology, the notion
that we could not bring some "advisors" in for parts of these meetings just
doesn't make sense to me. I recognize that has not generally been done, but
that seems like something to change and not a pattern to stay within.
I also want to be clear that I have a lot of empathy for the board, these
are difficult roles, and I think the people in them are genuinely trying
their best. I like them all on a personal level, and am confident these
disagrees won't harm that. I also know that while the board stands united,
these decisions are not privately made without debate. However, they are
our board and I think sharing concerns like this is a healthy part of the
process. Some of the tone people have taken on this thread is less helpful,
and I hope we can get it back on a more civil track.
-greg
PS. I send this a volunteer and not wearing any official AffCom or WM
anything hat (although that hat obviously formed my opinion).
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson <cindam...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
> hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
> statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of
> these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In
> the Board discussion that took place, were there other options presented?
> If so, can the Board disclose what these were and why they were
> disregarded? How will the implementation of this decision bring about
> progress and benefit the movement on a global basis?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede <
> jdevre...@wikimedia.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Dear Frederic,
> >
> >
> > On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz <sch...@mathgen.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Phoebe,
> > >
> > > thanks for your answer !
> > >
> > >>> It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
> > >>> achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic
> organization.
> > >>> However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the
> group
> > >>> actually got there should have no influence on the result.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Should it not? I think we disagree on that point. We want the group to
> > do
> > >> stuff, to have a great track record, to show some evidence that they
> > will
> > >> stay active if we call them a Wikimedia chapter -- not just to prove
> > that
> > >> they have a good lawyer in the group who can draw up bylaws. (That's
> the
> > >> crux of the matter, not the "user group" label, as far as I'm
> > concerned).
> > >
> > > What you say makes a lot of sense, but it is disconnected from the
> > > actual decision. Your decision is not "you should have a good track
> > > record", it is "you should have a good track record AND NOT have
> bylaws".
> > >
> > > What I understand the board is saying is: "if you have a fantastic
> track
> > > record over the past two years, and you have successfully incorporated
> > > two years ago, and have maybe even managed somehow to attract external
> > > funding to conduct your projects, then sorry, this is exactly the kind
> > > of organization we do *not* want as a Wikimedia chapter or thematic
> > > organization".
> > >
> > > How can this possibly be something positive for the movement ?
> >
> > I think you misunderstand us, can you tell me where you got this
> > impression, because it is the wrong one. We are saying that a track
> record
> > is important, and much more important that the previous focus on having
> > bylaws. This because we know that a proven track record is a very good
> > indicator of the chances of succes of a chapter or thematic organisation.
> >
> > >
> > >>> I see that the WMF ED suggested the change, and that it was not
> > endorsed
> > >>> by the Affcom (which is interesting in itself). But why doesn't the
> > >>> community have a chance to comment on how it should organize itself ?
> > >
> > > I'd love to hear your comment about this point. Agreeing with Itzik, I
> > > don't really understand why we are having this discussion after the
> > > discussion has already been made (and, indeed, will not change whatever
> > > amount of discussion we have) and not before.
> >
> > Its not like the community does not have a chance to comment on how it
> > should organise itself. There are several ways to organise yourself
> > (including the user group entity which can benefit greatly from the
> > recently improved trademark policy). The board has indicated that there
> is
> > now an additional requirement for becoming a chapter/thematic
> organisation,
> > which is just ONE way of organising yourself. The chapter/thematic choice
> > brings with it a lot of responsibility and we feel that our measure will
> > help us fulfil our responsibility of being able to approve both chapters
> > and thematic organisations while adhering to our governance
> responsibility.
> >
> > For the record: The board took the feedback from both the AffCom and FDC
> > into account and then made its decision, based on factors that were
> really
> > the responsibility of the board. I respect the volunteers within both
> > committees tremendously, but it in the end it really was a decision which
> > was taken while taking into account the entire picture (pieces of which
> > were provided by the Affcom and FDC).
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > >>
> > >> thinks the user group framework absolutely won't work -- well, let us
> > know.
> > >> We are not unreasonable heartless people! But we are trying to get us
> > all
> > >> on a different footing in how we view incorporation of groups.
> > >
> > > The burden of the proof should be on the WMF board to explain why this
> > > proposal makes sense, and what positive outcome it brings to the
> > > community -- not on motivated community members who have to beg to get
> > > exceptions.
> >
> > Hmmm.... I would say that
> > 1) We made a decision in which we took several factors into account
> > 2) We recognise that there might be situations which we might not have
> > taken into account and we invite you to let us know it you think this is
> > the case.
> >
> > would be better than the alternative of not being open to feedback about
> > the decision's impact in specific cases.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I don't think I have seen much concrete rationale for this decision
> > > beyond vague comments and concerns which I can only call patronizing
> > > ("hey, users, we know how you should spend your time and organize
> > > yourself; no, no, don't think about creating a formal structure, it is
> > > bad for your health. And bad for the movement; will anyone think of the
> > > movement ?")
> >
> > I really think that the FAQ gives a pretty good indication. What concerns
> > me (and other board members) is the fact that there is a natural tendency
> > to incorporate a group of volunteers into a chapter or thematic
> > organisation even if there is no real track record or a good reason to
> want
> > to do so (especially since the revised trademark policy gives user groups
> > much more freedom to make use of the trademarks). Chapters and Thematic
> > organisations are an essential part of the movement and we would like
> each
> > and every one to succeed in furthering the goals of the movement as a
> > whole. Asking these groups to be a user group for the first two years
> while
> > doing programmatic work really gives a good indication of the ability of
> > the "future chapter/thematic organisation" to succeed.
> >
> > We also reference the strategic planning which is due to start this
> > summer. One of the things we really have to solve is the
> > roles/responsibilities/privileges of each player in the movement. The
> basic
> > answer to the questions:
> >
> > 1) What are our long term goals
> > 2) Who is best positioned to achieve these goals
> >
> > should lead to a "who does what" picture of the movement (and maybe just
> > as important "who will stop doing what"), and it is on the basis of this
> > picture and the underlying goals that we should create and fund different
> > players in the movement. I would argue that at this time the picture is
> not
> > as clear as it should be before committing the resources we currently
> > commit to it.
> >
> > (just as a small note: when I talk about movement I mean the range from
> > the individual volunteer to the Wikimedia Foundation itself)
> >
> > >
> > > As a side note, this is the only point that I will keep from Rupert's
> > > email: this decision completely ignores international cultural
> > > differences in terms of funding, fundraising and organization in
> > > general. Indeed, in a quote above, you talk about "good lawyer in the
> > > group who can draw up bylaws"; this reinforces the incorrect premise
> > > your decision is based on: that incorporation is a complicated and
> > > bureaucratic process that should be avoided. And this is something that
> > > can not be decided globally.
> >
> > This is true. But to be clear, its not the possible "bureaucratic" aspect
> > which concerns us greatly (as I mentioned above).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Frédéric
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jan-Bart de Vreede
> > Chair Board of Trustees
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cynthia Ashley-Nelson
> "Yes. *Her again.*"
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
_______________________________________________
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>
