Greetings, Hope my mail finds you in the best of health and spirit. I like to take the opportunity to thank you for a penning a detailed email with clarification. Yes, we all looking forward for a better possible outcome.
Stay healthy and be safe. Best Regards, Rajeeb. (U: Marajozkee) (Sent from my iPhone pardon the brevity) > On 22-Jun-2020, at 6:14 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv <ntym...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March > [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all > the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have > engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who > have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the > Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on > our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear > information to the communities and guidance to the staff. > > In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction, > recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia > projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our > global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan > that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to > understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals. > > In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the > Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long > term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically > convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for > our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on > the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the > Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the > minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a > possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously > considered [3]. > > And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something > like “Wikipedia Foundation” makes a lot of sense, whether or not it makes > sense upon deeper consideration. But, of course, no one was planning to > just rename the organisation, more conversations were needed. It was > convincing enough for us (the Board) to approve the budget for this > initiative. > > The Board has received regular updates about the Brand work along the way, > including approving continued work in the 2019 and 2020 annual plans. > However, the Board has not yet had a very serious, frank conversation about > what the Board will do when the work is finished, including how to balance > feedback from many communities, and the importance of reaching new > communities. The Board also has not yet received a final report, as the > exploratory project was and still is ongoing. > > The process itself, even though the brand project team has designed its > process to be inclusive and transparent, has created bitterness in some > volunteers, some of whom feel they were led on or even actively > manipulated. I am sure there was no intent to do that. But, for instance, > people do point to a reported KPI (key performance indicator) in the > previous survey as an alleged attempt at deceiving either the community or > the Board. The Board did not make its decision to support the brand project > based on that number, nor does the clarification of that number or removal > of that KPI influence the Board’s support for the project. Good-faith > mistakes should not undermine trust in our colleagues’ intentions or the > purpose of an entire process. But this “elephant in the room” feeling is > hurting all of us - both volunteers and staff, so I acknowledge that this > created a lot of bitterness. > > I want us to take a step back and try to have an honest and constructive > conversation on what our future work will be together. I know there is > mistrust towards the Wikimedia Foundation acting in good faith, I also know > the staff members feel intimidated when talking with the communities, so it > is really difficult to have a frank dialog. We are all in this vicious > circle - we do not trust each other, so we do not talk honestly; we do not > talk honestly so we cannot build that trust. I truly want that to change. > So I am going to be as direct as possible about the Board’s perspective. > > The executive statement says, “A rebrand will happen. This has already been > decided by the Board” [4]. What does it mean? The brand project was > approved by the Board in 2018. Rebrand may include: names, logos, > “taglines,” colours, typography, or any combination of the above. An > outcome of the project will be a set of recommended new branding > practices.The Board has not approved any specific recommendations yet. > However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the > name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it > decides. > > Has the Board made the decision to change the name of Wikimedia Foundation > yet? No, the Board has not. In 2018, the Board agreed that the name of the > Wikimedia Foundation does not help us with our strategic goals. From > 2018-2020, the Board has been reviewing research and participating in the > brand process with the goal of finding a better name. The Board has not yet > made a decision to change the name to another name, as the Board has not > yet had a final report on the results of the Brand Project, or the > opportunity to discuss the findings and tradeoffs, and make a decision for > what the Board will do. The Board conversation about this is planned to > happen during the August meeting. > > Did the Board want to possibly have the rebranding (if approved) to take > place before Wikipedia’s 20th birthday in January 2021? Yes, in a way. The > resolution [5] talks about the work being done by then, but it is indeed > unclear whether the changing of the brand was included or just the > completion of the research by the Foundation. The timeline can still change > if the Board decides it. > > Should the Board be clearer in what the Board is directing the Wikimedia > Foundation to do? Yes, I believe so. Some of this unclarity and > misalignment is the cause of all this unfortunate frustration. > > What are the possible outcomes for the August Board meeting on branding? > The Board can 1) stop the project, 2) pause the work being done or 3) > continue with it. > > Does the Board still want you to take the survey [6] then? Yes. The > currently open survey [6] is intended to find the best possible outcome if > the Foundation's (!) branding were centered around Wikipedia, and your > voice is needed. It is an opportunity to provide constructive feedback on > those alternatives. If you are engaging in discussions around it, please be > kind to each other. > > Do all organisations in our movement have to have a uniform name? Per the > Board’s resolution from 2013 > <https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11#Movement_roles> [7] > - yes, but it was a decision made at that time when the Board believed > there was a chance to increase visibility and recognition of Wikimedia as a > brand. It is 2020 now, and it may be the right time to loosen up on this > approach and allow all organisations in the movement to use different names > [8], best suited for their local context. Or keep uniform names, but allow > using any of our brands for fundraising purposes. Or something else. The > Board does have a sense that there is a need to be much more > outward-looking and optimize our key assets, including our brands, for the > challenges to come. > > All across the Movement we have a lot to do to accomplish our 2030 goals > and build out our movement strategy. And that work can be done as the > Wikimedia Movement, Wikimedia communities, and the Foundation even with a > new name, depending on our needs. > > Stay safe, > > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv > > Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees > > > [1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2020-02#Board_Business > > [2] > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Wikimedia_brand_strategy_proposal_for_2030.pdf > > > [3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-11-9,10,11#Branding > > [4] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Executive_statement > > > [5] > https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Brand_Project_Support_(May_2020) > > > [6] 2030 Movement Brand Project: Naming Convention Proposals Survey: > https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD > > [7] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11#Movement_roles > [8] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Naming_guidelines > > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in > advance!* > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l 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>
