This is one inherrant problem with COI those who get stuff done are forced to sit out discussions in preference for those who spend all their time talking and producing nothing. What we end up with is not leadership, its not project experience, its bureaucracy with out any true direction where every idea that sounds good, that is well presented gets the go ahead with no understanding of what it takes to make a project work. Because of that we have KPI or metrics that satisfy the bureaucracy, force the organisors to run by the numbers rather than focus on producing real impact results over the longer term.
High impact long term projects take considerable investment of time over time the dont happen in 3, 6, 12 month cycles, look at WLE & WLM its be year in year out commitments by volunteers to build and expand but every year they waste time seeking funding for the year this is where the Grant process should take the lead and just assign a long term budget to be managed by WMF financial staff and let the volunteers concentrate on having impact. Wikidata is in the same boat, its the bureaucratic begging processes that cost most of our volunteers time and produce the least impact. Denny's loss should be awake up call otherwise it'll be repeated continously especially from community selected seats, some where along the way we have created a bureaucracy at the expense of trust and assuming people are acting in good faith for the betterment of the projects On 11 April 2016 at 15:55, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com> wrote: > For denny I see the situation simple and I am only able to write it as I > read his clear email. > > First he is able to influence projects and general direction with his > judgement and expertise. > > Second he has the expertise to get projects done. > > While I find it a real pity that we have less of first when he resigns I > must admit that I consider second even more important. Choosing amongst > proposals is easier than properly proposing. Especially if nobody steps up > for something he feels should get done. For my part, I trust his expertise. > > I admire and find exemplary denny showing backbone here, something we see > not enough. Deciding on this trade off should be possible at any time > appropriate, I do consequently *not* see something went awry with denny, > nor a problem with the process. > > One hole in the process seems to be there though. Should a replacement be > voted now or just the old result be taken. As the situation is new for > every participant I tend to favour a vote. > > Rupert > On Apr 11, 2016 07:56, "jytdog" <jyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Here is a response to Denny's resignation; his email has been sticking to > > me. To provide some context for what follows, I work a lot on COI and > > advocacy issues in Wikipedia, and worked on COI issues professionally at > a > > university for the past 15 years. > > > > The limitations created by managing or eliminating Denny's various > > conflicts of interest, appear to have been surprising to Denny, and were > > definitely frustrating for him. > > > > Surprising and frustrating. This is perhaps the result of a lack of > > process. > > > > The WMF might want to consider putting in place a system of disclosing > and > > managing conflicts of interest for Trustees, before they actually join > the > > board, so that conflict management issues are both clear and acceptable > to > > the new Trustee and the Board at the start. > > > > The process could be the same as it is in many sectors - a confidential > > disclosure of relevant interests, identification of possible and > perceived > > conflicts between those interests and the obligations of a Trustee, and > > then creation of a plan to manage those conflicts (and identification of > > areas where the conflicts can't be managed but need to be eliminated by > > recusal). All done before the person actually joins the board. > > > > Once the person joins, the relevant external interests could be disclosed > > at the board member's profile on the WMF board webpage. The additional > > step of publishing an outline of the management plan (at the same > location) > > would be something very useful in light of the high value that WMF staff > > and the movement places on transparency. > > > > Please consider that. And please pardon me if this is already done, but > > something went awry with Denny. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Denny Vrandecic < > dvrande...@wikimedia.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage. > > > > > > I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to > > > avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to > act > > > extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being > > able > > > to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would > > align > > > very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many > > > constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my > considerations > > > openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of > interests > > - > > > regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current > > > employment. > > > > > > This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to > deal > > > with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best > > > Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous > > > decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, > and > > > refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC. > > > > > > This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a > > > potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and > > even > > > though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had > > to > > > refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence. > > > > > > There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely > > > Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by > Google. > > I > > > would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the > > > feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences, > > > would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the > feeling > > > of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither > was > > > the case. > > > > > > I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not > > appropriate > > > to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his > advice, > > > but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting. > > > > > > As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my > > > actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee > I > > > could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in > > > Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read > as > > > "it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler > > writing > > > that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal. > > > > > > It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had > lunch > > > with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an > > > advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that > only > > > you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to > the > > > creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to > > do > > > myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - > > someone > > > will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and > > > smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was > > back > > > then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain > > > wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen > > > anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade > later, > > > realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not > in > > a > > > reasonable timeframe. > > > > > > And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I > > cannot > > > take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest > will > > be > > > regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do > see > > > that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one > > deciding > > > on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a > > > member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such > > > proposal and its virtues and decide on them. > > > > > > I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the > > > Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual > > > conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It > > > bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures > against > > > exactly the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of. > > > > > > I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential > > Conflict > > > of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to remove the source of the > > > Conflict, or to step away from the position of power. Since the first > > > option is unsatisfying, the second option unavailable, only the third > > > option remains. > > > > > > So I have decided to resign from the Board of Trustees. > > > > > > It was not an easy decision, and certainly not a step made any easier > by > > > the events in the last few months. I understand that I will disappoint > > many > > > of the people who voted for me, and I want to apologize: I am sorry, > > > honestly sorry, but I don’t see that it is me the Board needs now, or > > that > > > the movement needs me in that position. What I learned is that the > > profile > > > that allows someone to win an election is not the profile that makes an > > > effective Trustee. > > > > > > But be warned that you will continue to hear from me, after a > wikibreak. > > > Expect crazy ideas, project proposals, and requests to fund and > implement > > > them. I will return to a more active role within the movement. I will > be, > > > again, free to work on things that are worth doing and that only I can > > do. > > > I think that in that role I can be more effective and more valuable to > > the > > > movement, the Foundation, and for our mission. > > > > > > Be bold, > > > Denny > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: 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, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: 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, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
