Advanced
Mailing List Archive

Mailing List Archive

  1. Home >
  2. Wikipedia>
  3. Foundation
1 2  View All
the easy way or the less easy way
Anthere9 at yahoo
Jun 16, 2006, 1:56 AM
Post #1 of 50 (2561 views)
Permalink
Hello

Not sure anyone realise that here, but... my suggestion to go for a
model such as the Apache Foundation is not entirely gratuitious.

2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members.
For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of
you may remember the discussion around the member dues.
That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of
you and I represented no one :-)

At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of
volunteer representative/member representative.

Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally
inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*.
I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole
sections about membership :
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws

Does that section fit with reality ?

---------

Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership
part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.

This new version has a very short "membership section".

The community is still taken into account in ARTICLE II, where a new
section has been proposed (section 4).

Board members selection process is in ARTICLE III, section 3.

The rest of the bylaws are a huge improvement compared to current ones.



ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
The Foundation shall have no members.


ARTICLE II
Section 4. Community.
The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers
throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The
Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various
Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.


ARTICLE IV
Section 3. Selection.
The Trustees shall serve until their successors are elected and
qualified. Selection shall be in the following manner:
(1) Trustees Elected from the Community.
At least two (2) Trustees shall be selected from the Community by vote
of the Community. The Board of Trustees shall determine the dates, rules
and regulation of the voting procedures; they shall appoint two
Inspectors of the Election from the Community to oversee the election
procedures who shall report and certify the results within thirty days
of any vote.
(2) Other Trustees.
The remaining number of Trustees shall be elected by the Board. Names of
individuals shall be nominated for selection by the Board. The Board
shall endeavor to select Trustees who will best fulfill the mission and
needs of the Foundation. Individuals who are not selected unanimously
may be elected by a majority of the Board.


--------

These bylaws have not been approved. They are still in the draft mode.
For all I know, they could stay here forever, because beside myself, I
did not see other board members working on them. And I did not really
see any comments from them either.

I am uncertain whether I should give much energy on new bylaws, even if
the current official ones are nonsense within the current situation.
Uncertain because of the lack of reaction of board members, and the near
lack of reaction of the community.
Being just a board member, I can not *force* the other board members to
vote. I am not in charge of organising meetings where we could vote or
at least discuss together. In short, if a resolution to approve new
bylaws is set up, I have NO certainty this will *ever* result in an
approved resolution.

It takes a lot of energy to work on a topic when it is so pointedly
ignored by peers.

Hence my trying to turn toward you.
How many editors work on the projects ? thousands
How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred
How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens
How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0
How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5

As I said... it takes a lot of energy...

But please, try to see the big picture ...

----------

Our current bylaws describe a very mixed model, which has been much
complained about in the past 2 years (I criticized it myself when it was
originally proposed).
It has 2 members elected by the community, for a limited time
And 3 members, appointed by Jimbo, and permanent till they die or resign
And does not limit members to 5.... but makes no mention of how increase
would be done.



The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki)
is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees
organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation
membership.

Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy
members in the future.
DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very
much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good
part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2
famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only.
Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9.
Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such
case, they would be appointed.

What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would
really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the
community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision.
Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.



The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a
collective running. This is very much the model of our local
associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I
think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european;
whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much
american and hard to understand by europeans.


----------

Which model would be better in our case ?

I dunno really.

One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business
efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more
reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional.
I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4
meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on
their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already
the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the
business. And little by little, disinterest by the community.
But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms,
the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy.
More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.


The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could
expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More
volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise,
because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public
discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due
to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US
business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and
citizens all over the world.
I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of
the boiling culture.



In the end, I think there is both a cultural clash in what we are trying
to set up... and an issue of courage.

If we pick up the first model, I think things can go very quickly and
with little pain. This summer, at Wikimania, we'll meet big names (I say
"we" because Jimbo already have breakfast with them regularly... but the
board should appoint them... so it would be nice that the board members
actually know the people they get recommandation to appoint). We can
think of who would be best asset, just ask him, and by september, we'll
have a nice board with new big names and maybe one community member we
like. And with luck, more money, more introduction and new opportunities.


If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The
community (and not Delphine and I alone :-)) will need to do its
homework. Seriously discuss a mean to select members. Seriously discuss
organisation. And not only stay mute on the list or not only say "this
will never work" or not only blame the board just to be so inefficient
without proposing solutions. We'll need to sweat together. And we'll
need to convince quite a few people that this is the way to go.



I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it
*alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no
*active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned
on the board wiki.


I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models
would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits,
we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who
proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on
volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be
successful ?


As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the
Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an
individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty
(estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one
would be best for you).


I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*.
This model is humiliating to me. The big actors in this model would be
the big names, which I do not have the chance to meet or talk with. The
strategy of the Foundation would be done between Jimbo and the big names
in 5 stars conference halls or in far-away islands, where no one will
ever think of inviting me (eh, best to keep the circle of people small).

I will simply be offered the results of brainstorms of important people
to implement and vote upon (I don't know why I use future, this is
already happening). I will have the great opportunity to prepare the
path of the big people in doing their homework so that they better
shine. Community representatives would be second rate board member.

The other people in the Foundation would be the staff, who would make a
(good) living of what I do full time for free (and who receive the
religious ceremonies from community when the board gets the fire).

I say "I", but I am quite convinced many would feel just the same.

That would leave the benefit of working for a great cause...
But would the biggest cause be the projects ? Or the Foundation ?


--------

Where are we in these models right now ?

In the middle. We have some community representant, but the relations
between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new
appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help
reducing the lack of communication.

But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation
and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.


At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do
a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need
to set up the organisation (on a type of Apache model for example). We
need to convince those who are not convinced.

If you want to do a more Business Foundation, the bylaws are ready to be
voted upon. Members are knocking at the door.

A very bad thing would be to stay forever in the middle of two seats,
with unsuitable bylaws, disorganisation, frustrated community and angry
board members.


Sorry for the long rant.
I hope it clarifies the current situation.

Anthere







_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
meta.sj at gmail
Jun 16, 2006, 8:00 AM
Post #2 of 50 (2494 views)
Permalink
Hiya,

Thanks for the long and insightful posts to this list recently.
Some quick thoughts.

> ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
> The Foundation shall have no members.

Opt-in membership is useful; I always liked the idea, regardless of
whether or how dues were set up.

> ARTICLE II
> Section 4. Community.
> The Foundation acknowledges the valuable contributions of volunteers
> throughout the world for their dedication and tremendous work. The
> Foundation defines as one of its purposes the enhancement of the various
> Wikimedia communities throughout the world in their respective languages.

This would be an unfortunate first sentence. Foundations do not usually
acknowledge the contributions of projects they support. The contributions
of donors, perhaps...

More generally : I am surprised to see the term "volunteer" has come to be
used in these discussions as a way of distinguishing some contributors
form the Foundation; at times in a lightly patronizing context
('volunteer' as opposed to 'professional' / 'expert' / 'dedicated')...
similar to the way "amateur" has come to mean "dilletante" or "unpaid"
rather than "connoisseur".

I expect that Wikipedians of all people have a sense of generativity,
active creation, and public responsibility which transcends the notion of
'volunteering' for a cause.

When one returns home to fix the plumbing in a parents' house, does one
call it "volunteering"? No. Participating in a barn-raising for a
neighbor, or rebuilding one's own community after a storm? Likewise no.
Neither is it "volunteering" to create part of a public art project, tend
a community garden, write the biography of a hero, or spending an evening
in language-exchange.

Wikipedians "contributing" to the public store of knowledge are simply
doing for their own global community what most people on the planet should
come to do -- sharing what they know, and helping others do the same.


On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:

> Hence my trying to turn toward you.
> How many editors work on the projects ? thousands
[over 100,000]

> How many people are registered to this list ? a few hundred
[.only? when was the last time a call for sign-ups went out?]

> How many people are active on this list ? A couple dozens
> How many people from wikitech commented on the Apache model ? 0
> How many people from this list commented on the Apache model ? less than 5
[more coming...]

This model was fascinating, though a lot to digest. (It would be even
more fascinating to see one or two other models, and hear details of how
and why they were set up.)

> ----------
> Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
> Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
> on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business

A pity, for a foundation with as much promise as this one has to change
the world.


> The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
> Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
> garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a

Right.


> ----------
> Which model would be better in our case ?
>
> One model insists more on business. It would certainly be more business
> efficient in the long run. It will certainly be more stable and more
> reliable (only limited turnover in the board). Likely more professional.
> I can envision a group of famous people seating on its board, with 3-4
> meetings per year. Some staying there forever because that looks good on
> their business card, even though they do nothing at all (this is already
> the case of one of our member). A big and well-paid staff to run the
> business. And little by little, disinterest by the community.
>
> But this might be the best choice to create bonds with the big firms,
> the big NGOs, as that Foundation will appear more solid and trustworthy.
> More money... could mean better support of the projects and of our goals.

I don't know. The best support of the projects and goals that I can
imagine doesn't stem directly from money, but from an ever-increasing
community participation; something which Wikipedia and other projects have
enjoyed to date.


> The second model will be more lively. A bazaar of some sorts. We could
> expect the board to get more involved in every-day running. More
> volunteer work probably. It will be much more difficult to organise,
> because of the noises of campaigning from new candidates, of the public
> discussions. It will be more of a social construction. Less stable due
> to turn-over of board members. We would not have such a good image in US
> business, but we might be loved by free-movement organizations and
> citizens all over the world.
> I suppose we'll have less money... but we may have more ideas because of
> the boiling culture.

I wouldn't say "by free-movement organizations and citizens" -- but simply
"by individuals" all over the world. Many people who don't get 'free
culture' or 'FOSS' at all, and don't care, get Wikipedia (great project)
-- and get *really* interested when they find out the extent to which it
is guided by a broad and milling community.

Tangentially, it's not at all clear to me that this would mean less money
in the long run; more to the point, goals of generating and distributing
content may be better served without that intermediary.


> If we pick up the second model, it will be much more painful. The

Also a chance for community members to reflect on the best that they have
gotten from the projects, and the best that they have seen in the world;
regardless of which model is picked, it would be better if a few hundred
community members took this analysis and brainstorming seriously so that
it was a considered choice and not a default one based on what is easiest.


> I thought it over and over. I am not sure which one of the two models
> would be best for the goals of the Foundation. According to our habits,
> we would say "first option". But are we not precisely amongst those who
> proved that a decentralized, transparent model, largely based on
> volunteer work and using the goodwill of non-expert people may be
> successful ?

Not only successful. Exuberantly, outrageously successful, orders of
magnitude beyond the dreams of the initial participants. There are
subtleties in what has worked here that have never before been effectively
explored. Some are still mysterious, which is why small groups of editors
/ meta-editors / policy writers often have trouble tapping them as needed
to work on specific projects.


> I have little interest in the first model as an *individual*.

Do you think it has value for the general good?


> --------
> between community and Foundation are disorganised. We'll soon have new
> appointed board members. I do not expect new appointments to help
> reducing the lack of communication.
>
> But this is a broken system. Balancing between the Business Foundation
> and the Community Foundation, so that no one knows where to put his ass.
>
> At this point, in large part, this now depends on you. If you want to do
> a more Community Foundation, we need bylaws which reflect this. We need

It is hard to get feedback on newly drafted bylaws when they are not
public. How could the community help draft new bylaws that were different
from what has been written?

> Sorry for the long rant.
> I hope it clarifies the current situation.
>
> Anthere


Thanks again.
Catching up on email,
SJ


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
wikilegal at inbox
Jun 16, 2006, 4:36 PM
Post #3 of 50 (2509 views)
Permalink
On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Not sure anyone realise that here, but... my suggestion to go for a
> model such as the Apache Foundation is not entirely gratuitious.
>
> 2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members.
> For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of
> you may remember the discussion around the member dues.
> That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of
> you and I represented no one :-)
>
> At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of
> volunteer representative/member representative.
>
You seem to be implying here that the original bylaws only provided
for "contributing" members. This is incorrect. According to the
original bylaws, "all persons interested in supporting the activities
of the Foundation who have contributed under a user name to any
Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline" are
volunteer members. Angela represented the volunteer members. You
represented both the volunteer members *and* the contributing active
members (of which there were none).

> Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally
> inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*.
> I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole
> sections about membership :
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
>
> Does that section fit with reality ?
>
It provides for a type of member which doesn't exist, and in my
opinion should not exist. It needs to be modified, but it doesn't
*have* to be completely overhauled.

> Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership
> part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.
>
> This new version has a very short "membership section".
>
[snip]
> ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
> The Foundation shall have no members.
>

So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new
bylaws have *no one* as members. Unfortunately, it seems to be
possible for three members of the board to make this change. I urge
all the board members to vote against it. At the very least, I hope
the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to
see what they think about the idea.

> The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki)
> is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees
> organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation
> membership.
>
That is only the reality of the situation because the board has made
it so. According to the bylaws, the membership "shall consist of all
persons interested in supporting the activities of the Foundation who
have contributed under a user name to any Wikimedia project prior to
the election ballot request deadline. The only other qualification for
membership shall be the creation of a user account on some Wikimedia
project. Volunteer Active Members shall have all the privileges of
active members."

Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad.
At the least, one should be required to submit an application
providing ones identity. But to say that the fact that the membership
is defined too broadly is equivalent to there being no membership at
all is not at all valid.

> Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
> Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
> on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
> model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy
> members in the future.
> DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very
> much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good
> part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2
> famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only.
> Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9.
> Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such
> case, they would be appointed.
>
> What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would
> really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the
> community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision.
> Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.
>

Again I think your terminology is confusing. Right now there are 4
members of the board who are part of the community, and there is 1
member who very well might not be on the board much longer. Only 2
members of the board were *voted in* by the community, but that
doesn't mean they are the only members who are part of the community.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It makes absolutely no
sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community.
I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want
that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.

> The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
> Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
> garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a
> collective running. This is very much the model of our local
> associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I
> think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european;
> whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much
> american and hard to understand by europeans.
>

I don't think the American/European dichotomy is a valid one. There
are a large number of membership non-profit organizations in the
United States. In fact, I'd guess most public charities in the US are
membership based organizations.

Now maybe it's true that Europeans don't have very many private
non-membership foundations. I don't know about this.

> I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it
> *alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no
> *active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned
> on the board wiki.
>
I don't think very many of the current members (let's say, everyone
who voted in one of the two elections) are aware that there is
currently a proposal to take away their membership. I'll have to
think about how best to publicise this.

> As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the
> Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an
> individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty
> (estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one
> would be best for you).
>
If the foundation explicitly drops its members I think the community
will grow more and more distant. I think at some point there will be
a fork, and the foundation will lose everything but a couple
now-worthless trademarks.

If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will
be a fork. Ultimately I don't know if this is a good thing or not,
though. That depends on how effectively the model is implemented.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
Anthere9 at yahoo
Jun 17, 2006, 7:56 AM
Post #4 of 50 (2517 views)
Permalink
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Hello
>>
>>Not sure anyone realise that here, but... my suggestion to go for a
>>model such as the Apache Foundation is not entirely gratuitious.
>>
>>2 years ago, I have been elected to represent the Foundation members.
>>For a little while, I tried to set up the membership stuff and some of
>>you may remember the discussion around the member dues.
>>That discussion went nowhere. So, for a year, Angela represented all of
>>you and I represented no one :-)
>>
>>At the following elections, we just dropped these two notions of
>>volunteer representative/member representative.
>>
>
> You seem to be implying here that the original bylaws only provided
> for "contributing" members. This is incorrect. According to the
> original bylaws, "all persons interested in supporting the activities
> of the Foundation who have contributed under a user name to any
> Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline" are
> volunteer members. Angela represented the volunteer members. You
> represented both the volunteer members *and* the contributing active
> members (of which there were none).

My memory is that I represented only contributing active...so no one.
But the whole issue has been dropped down anyway, so it does not matter
at all, *except* that this is still what is in the bylaws.

>>Our bylaws are severaly outdated, and on several points, totally
>>inappropriate. In short, they need to be *changed*.
>>I invite you to have a good look at them, and in particular to the whole
>>sections about membership :
>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
>>
>>Does that section fit with reality ?
>>
>
> It provides for a type of member which doesn't exist, and in my
> opinion should not exist. It needs to be modified, but it doesn't
> *have* to be completely overhauled.

True. No more than 50% needs rewritting ;-)

>>Since these bylaws needed many changes (not only on the membership
>>part), a new draft has been proposed and is currently on the board wiki.
>>
>>This new version has a very short "membership section".
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
>>The Foundation shall have no members.
>>
>
>
> So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new
> bylaws have *no one* as members. Unfortunately, it seems to be
> possible for three members of the board to make this change. I urge
> all the board members to vote against it. At the very least, I hope
> the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to
> see what they think about the idea.

What the f*** do you think I am currently doing Anthony ???

It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately
to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you
to have answered.

Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in
discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I
make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the
board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.


>>The second version of the bylaws (the ones standing on the board wiki)
>>is the same (it would make no difference in terms of board of trustees
>>organisation), but for pointing out a reality : there is no Foundation
>>membership.
>>
>
> That is only the reality of the situation because the board has made
> it so. According to the bylaws, the membership "shall consist of all
> persons interested in supporting the activities of the Foundation who
> have contributed under a user name to any Wikimedia project prior to
> the election ballot request deadline. The only other qualification for
> membership shall be the creation of a user account on some Wikimedia
> project. Volunteer Active Members shall have all the privileges of
> active members."
>
> Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad.
> At the least, one should be required to submit an application
> providing ones identity. But to say that the fact that the membership
> is defined too broadly is equivalent to there being no membership at
> all is not at all valid.

I agree.
Now, who is interested in making the application ?
And who is interested in filling up the database of members with the
paper forms ?
These are practical issues.
Another practical issue is that I am currently the only board member
interested in trying to do that. Given that trying to rewrite bylaws is
meant to take a few hours, I'd be happy to know what you guys think and
what other board members think.

And I get mostly silence.

>>Roughly, this model would be what I would qualify as a Private
>>Foundation. Or Business Foundation. It is a Foundation which focus a lot
>>on the efficiency of business (except that there is no business
>>model...but well...) and would privilege addition of famous or wealthy
>>members in the future.
>>DON'T GET ME WRONG ! Right now, the majority of board members wish very
>>much that there be community members on the board... but that's in good
>>part because we are currently still 5 members. Now, imagine we add 2
>>famous guys. We'll have a board of 7 with 2 from the community only.
>>Then, imagine we add 2 other big guys. The community part will be 2/9.
>>Of course, the addition could be of 2 guys from the community. In such
>>case, they would be appointed.
>>
>>What I mean to say is that in this model, the community existence would
>>really be recognised up to 2 people, which would be elected by the
>>community. The rest of the members would come from an internal decision.
>>Self-appointing board... with no terms limit.
>>
>
>
> Again I think your terminology is confusing. Right now there are 4
> members of the board who are part of the community, and there is 1
> member who very well might not be on the board much longer. Only 2
> members of the board were *voted in* by the community, but that
> doesn't mean they are the only members who are part of the community.

I am a bit confused here. I think only JImbo, Angela and myself are part
of the community...

> I've said it before and I'll say it again. It makes absolutely no
> sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community.
> I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want
> that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.

It does make sense to have famous members on the board so as to improve
our image in terms of professionalism. Because these guys may be great
strategists. Because they can bring us the weight of another
organisation which would improve our own standing. Because they could
help us get more funds. Because they could help in bringing another
vision or another perspective that current members of the community do
not have.

>>The Apache model is entirely different. I would call it a public
>>Foundation or a Community Foundation. Majority of members would be
>>garanteed from the community. There would be term limits. It would be a
>>collective running. This is very much the model of our local
>>associations in Europe... and that might be where the problem lies. I
>>think the model of Associations (public/members) is very much european;
>>whilst the model of Foundation (private/upon appointement) is very much
>>american and hard to understand by europeans.
>>
>
>
> I don't think the American/European dichotomy is a valid one. There
> are a large number of membership non-profit organizations in the
> United States. In fact, I'd guess most public charities in the US are
> membership based organizations.
>
> Now maybe it's true that Europeans don't have very many private
> non-membership foundations. I don't know about this.

I know only membership associations in France. Foundations are very very
very unusual in France at least. Usually, there are created by big
bosses who need to use part of their commercial benefits in a charity.


>>I would prefer the second model myself, but I will NOT fight for it
>>*alone*. I will not alone try to push for a system if there is no
>>*active* support. I will not try to set up a scheme to see it abandonned
>>on the board wiki.
>>
>
> I don't think very many of the current members (let's say, everyone
> who voted in one of the two elections) are aware that there is
> currently a proposal to take away their membership. I'll have to
> think about how best to publicise this.

Since there will still be two elected members, I think most would not care.


We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the
board by 2 more members.
Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself.
There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members.
Elected are renewed every 2 years.

My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a
clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the
elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the
ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).

Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of
more.

Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.

My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new
proposition AND that board members vote.
Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.

So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and
5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.

>>As I can not be sure whether it would be the best choice for the
>>Foundation, I tried to see how I would appreciate each model as an
>>individual and I invite you guys to do the same with self-honesty
>>(estimate which one would be best for the general good and which one
>>would be best for you).
>>
>
> If the foundation explicitly drops its members I think the community
> will grow more and more distant. I think at some point there will be
> a fork, and the foundation will lose everything but a couple
> now-worthless trademarks.

If the Foundation explicitely drops members, I think more associations
will erupt. The Foundation will have its own life with big guys, staff
and those of us with clear political goals, and the associations will
have other lives, with the community input.

At least, that is a possibility :-)

> If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will
> be a fork. Ultimately I don't know if this is a good thing or not,
> though. That depends on how effectively the model is implemented.
>
> Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
Anthere9 at yahoo
Jun 17, 2006, 8:19 AM
Post #5 of 50 (2512 views)
Permalink
Anthere wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the
> board by 2 more members.
> Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself.
> There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members.
> Elected are renewed every 2 years.
>
> My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a
> clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the
> elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the
> ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
>
> Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of
> more.
>
> Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.
>
> My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new
> proposition AND that board members vote.
> Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.
>
> So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and
> 5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.

Oh, an important clarification.
Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the
community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least
the majority should be from the community.

The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united
team with complementary skills.
The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit
diversity of view points.

Ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
meta.sj at gmail
Jun 17, 2006, 12:18 PM
Post #6 of 50 (2496 views)
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Anthere wrote:

> make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the
> board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.

I am definitely interested. It would be revitalizing for those who don't
know where they stand vis-a-vis the foundation and are feeling anxious
about it... but want to be involved.


>> Now, admittedly, it was a bad idea making the membership this broad.
>> At the least, one should be required to submit an application
>> providing ones identity. But to say that the fact that the membership
>
> I agree.
> Now, who is interested in making the application ?
> And who is interested in filling up the database of members with the
> paper forms ?
> These are practical issues.

Not quite answering your question, but...

The application need not be complicated;
- user name on a wikimedia project if applicable
- optional contribution*
- real name and address;
- privacy : whether this membership can be made public, whether the real
name can be made public
- spam : whether future emails or updates are desired (note that one
yearly notice will be sent to all members; checkbox for preferring snail
mail or email)

* or, as per the older proposal, how much is being contributed (regular /
discounted dues) with a check of the length and degree of contribution for
the latter

As for who would fill the database, presumably these would be sent to the
foundation office...


>> I've said it before and I'll say it again. It makes absolutely no
>> sense to have any board members who aren't members of the community.
>> I can't for the life of me imagine why the hell anyone would want
>> that, and I haven't heard anyone explain it either.
>
> It does make sense to have famous members on the board so as to improve
> our image in terms of professionalism. Because these guys may be great
> strategists. Because they can bring us the weight of another
> organisation which would improve our own standing. Because they could
> help us get more funds. Because they could help in bringing another
> vision or another perspective that current members of the community do
> not have.

It is entirely possible to have a board of trustees, with executive
duties, and a separate board of advisors; which could provide for image,
strategy, standing, goodwill, fundraising help, and extra perspective.
This has been suggested before; I recall some very old pages on Meta
listing who in the world might make good advisors.


> My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a
> clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the
> elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the
> ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).

Both the overlapping terms and the division of appointment/election sound
fine. It seems that at any rate the bylaws have to be modified...

>> If the foundation adopts a membership model, I don't think there will

The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that
it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not
demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
do this?

SJ
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
bradp.wmf at gmail
Jun 17, 2006, 1:28 PM
Post #7 of 50 (2506 views)
Permalink
On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that
> it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not
> demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
> do this?
>
> SJ
>

I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre.
Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong
to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something. You
give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member. You attend a
meeting of other members, maybe, and perhaps you are part of a particular
local organization of that group. Churches, civic organizations, soup
kitchens, environmental groups, etc., all exist in this paradigm for good
reason; they include as part of their fundamental mission a dichotomy
between those who *are* in the group and those who *are not* in the group.

Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism
and respect for the contributions of *everyone*. There is no us and them -
if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are. It's simple,
and only goes in one direction. If you edit enough, you can vote for a
person you want to see on the board. Without money changing hands, you have
the same representation you would under any other circumstances. The
Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place
indeed. What happens to members who don't pay? Are they prevented from
editing? If there is no meaningful distinction in categorization of either
one or the other, what exactly is the point in the first place, except to
give those who are interested and active another membership ID in their
wallet - and this is the point - which confers no additional rights or
privileges?

As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled
in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the
lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be
respected. As soon as you cross the line into a "real world" membership
situation, that is undermined substantially, if not eliminated. To be sure,
we have anonymous donors now. But that is a quid without a quo - it is a
gift from an unknown individual to an organization they want to support.
Membership cannot be sustained the same way for any valid reason...there is,
again, no meaningful distinction.

The essence of this openness to all will be lost as soon as an us/them
dichotomy is established. It does not exist today, except as a relic of the
bylaws which are long overdue to be changed. The badges of "membership" -
if you give money, if you contribute to projects, if you volunteer for
various positions in the organization - all exist independent of that.
Other than providing a political means for takeover of the organization
directly (and that's a whole other conversation), I don't see the point.

The Apache model has some strengths, but my personal opinion is that the
difference between producing software alone and producing encyclopedias,
news, etc. yields a gap that is difficult to close. My hats are off to the
Apache folks. But they have a much more narrow mission and fewer moving
parts to achieve that mission. Different parts of the free culture movement
are more or less affected by each undertaking of the Foundation, and are of
varying degrees of interest to many. I think the Foundation's mission is
simply too broad to decide to govern it through direct reliance on
formalized elected constituencies. Creating representation from the
existing pattern of projects is also inherently political. If the
Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be towards languages and
projects with many fewer articles and users now, and millions more speakers
and writers worldwide yet to be connected. So, there is a shift ahead no
matter which way you look at it, provided the projects continue to grow as
they have.

Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better
served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion,
as some have done. Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as
to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look
like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on
various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the
conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.

-Brad

--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf@gmail.com
727-231-0101
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
wikilegal at inbox
Jun 17, 2006, 1:42 PM
Post #8 of 50 (2506 views)
Permalink
On 6/17/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
> >>The Foundation shall have no members.
> >>
> >
> >
> > So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new
> > bylaws have *no one* as members. Unfortunately, it seems to be
> > possible for three members of the board to make this change. I urge
> > all the board members to vote against it. At the very least, I hope
> > the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to
> > see what they think about the idea.
>
> What the f*** do you think I am currently doing Anthony ???
>
I think you're trying to get ideas on how to resolve the issue. But
you don't seem to be acting on behalf of the board in doing so.

> It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately
> to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you
> to have answered.
>
> Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in
> discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I
> make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the
> board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.
>
Any chance of getting the board to set up a committee with the task of
recommending a new set of bylaws?

If not, then you're probably right - it's not worth the effort.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
Anthere9 at yahoo
Jun 17, 2006, 4:00 PM
Post #9 of 50 (2505 views)
Permalink
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 6/17/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP
>>>>The Foundation shall have no members.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So the original bylaws had *everyone* as members, and the proposed new
>>>bylaws have *no one* as members. Unfortunately, it seems to be
>>>possible for three members of the board to make this change. I urge
>>>all the board members to vote against it. At the very least, I hope
>>>the board will first poll the current membership (the community) to
>>>see what they think about the idea.
>>
>>What the f*** do you think I am currently doing Anthony ???
>>
>
> I think you're trying to get ideas on how to resolve the issue.

yes

But
> you don't seem to be acting on behalf of the board in doing so.

correct

>>It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately
>>to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you
>>to have answered.
>>
>>Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in
>>discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I
>>make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the
>>board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.
>>
>
> Any chance of getting the board to set up a committee with the task of
> recommending a new set of bylaws?

Dunno

But... one should not set up bylaws and then try to make his view of the
Foundation fit the bylaws. The proper way would be to decide of what we
want... and set up bylaws that makes that possible.

> If not, then you're probably right - it's not worth the effort.
>
> Anthony

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
Anthere9 at yahoo
Jun 17, 2006, 4:29 PM
Post #10 of 50 (2515 views)
Permalink
Brad Patrick wrote:
> On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that
>>it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not
>>demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
>>do this?
>>
>>SJ
>>
>
>
> I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre.
> Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong
> to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something. You
> give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member. You attend a
> meeting of other members, maybe, and perhaps you are part of a particular
> local organization of that group. Churches, civic organizations, soup
> kitchens, environmental groups, etc., all exist in this paradigm for good
> reason; they include as part of their fundamental mission a dichotomy
> between those who *are* in the group and those who *are not* in the group.
>
> Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism
> and respect for the contributions of *everyone*. There is no us and them -
> if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are. It's simple,
> and only goes in one direction. If you edit enough, you can vote for a
> person you want to see on the board. Without money changing hands, you have
> the same representation you would under any other circumstances. The
> Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place
> indeed. What happens to members who don't pay? Are they prevented from
> editing? If there is no meaningful distinction in categorization of either
> one or the other, what exactly is the point in the first place, except to
> give those who are interested and active another membership ID in their
> wallet - and this is the point - which confers no additional rights or
> privileges?

Just to clarify about the original idea which explain the current bylaws.

The idea was that absolutely every editor of any wikimedia project was a
member. This membership was described as "volunteer membership". There
was of course nothing to "give" in terms of money, since the gift was
the gift of one person time, energy and goodwill.

However, Jimbo thought there might be people who would bring other
things than "edits" but who would be valuable enough to find a path to
join as a member. And one of the simplest thing to imagine was simply
money. It was considered that if people gave money to the organisation,
they should be represented by someone as well. Hence the "contributing
membership". This option made it possible for everyone to join the
membership without having to edit.

As for those who both edited and paid, they were offered two representants.

As a deeper background... Jimbo's dream, at the time of bylaws creation,
was that the membership dues would represent a highly significiant
amount of the Foundation revenues.

I am not sure, but I think Jimbo envisionned a huge membership with
paying members spread all over the world. Something such as "if we have
100 000 members and each give 50 dollars...

It was not a dark scheme, there was no notion of removing or not
granting anyone right. The idea was rather to be totally inclusive and
to allow anyone helping, being as an editor or as a payer, to somehow
have a right to impact who was on the board.


What happened next ?

Well, we first met the issue of the dues. Jimbo was suggesting for
example dues of 80 dollars, because it is a very natural amount in most
us organisations. Other positions requested a much lower amount to fit
all countries. Then, we discussed amount per group of countries...per
professional status etc... and it became horribly complicated.

At the same time... some developers indicated that ... they participated
without being editors... so where not counted in the first group.

And some people highly objected to be mandatorily considered as members.
They asked that the memberships be opt-in.

And of course, there was the question of whether someone could be a
member without revealing his true identity. Add a layer of sockpuppetry
on top...



> As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled
> in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the
> lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be
> respected. As soon as you cross the line into a "real world" membership
> situation, that is undermined substantially, if not eliminated. To be sure,
> we have anonymous donors now. But that is a quid without a quo - it is a
> gift from an unknown individual to an organization they want to support.
> Membership cannot be sustained the same way for any valid reason...there is,
> again, no meaningful distinction.
>
> The essence of this openness to all will be lost as soon as an us/them
> dichotomy is established. It does not exist today, except as a relic of the
> bylaws which are long overdue to be changed. The badges of "membership" -
> if you give money, if you contribute to projects, if you volunteer for
> various positions in the organization - all exist independent of that.
> Other than providing a political means for takeover of the organization
> directly (and that's a whole other conversation), I don't see the point.
>
> The Apache model has some strengths, but my personal opinion is that the
> difference between producing software alone and producing encyclopedias,
> news, etc. yields a gap that is difficult to close. My hats are off to the
> Apache folks. But they have a much more narrow mission and fewer moving
> parts to achieve that mission. Different parts of the free culture movement
> are more or less affected by each undertaking of the Foundation, and are of
> varying degrees of interest to many. I think the Foundation's mission is
> simply too broad to decide to govern it through direct reliance on
> formalized elected constituencies. Creating representation from the
> existing pattern of projects is also inherently political. If the
> Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be towards languages and
> projects with many fewer articles and users now, and millions more speakers
> and writers worldwide yet to be connected. So, there is a shift ahead no
> matter which way you look at it, provided the projects continue to grow as
> they have.
>
> Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better
> served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion,
> as some have done. Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as
> to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look
> like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on
> various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the
> conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
>
> -Brad
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
erikzachte at infodisiac
Jun 17, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #11 of 50 (2498 views)
Permalink
Anthere:
> It does not need to do any poll of some sort. I am *trying* desperately
> to make some of you react and help on the matter. Thanks for Sj and you
> to have answered.
>
> Clearly, aside from Delphine basically, no one is interested in
> discussing the Apache model. My question for the next week is whether I
> make the effort to entirely re-write a membership section to propose the
> board. Given to huge interest, I am not sure it is worth the effort.

Anthere, apart from SJ, Anthony, and Delphine others responded as well with
constructive feedback, e.g. Delirium, Michael, Birgitte.
I also plan to respond for sure on the Apache system but it is complicated
matter and needs some careful thought.
Also I have other comittments to honour before I go on holiday for a few
days this week.
Maybe some other people are also tired or occupied elsewhere. Apparently
that goes for other board members as well.
My point, please give it few more days or even weeks, perhaps give yourself
a break as well, before you decide no one is interested.
We don't need to reach a conclusion within a week. Better slow and steady
than hastily and without results.

Erik Zachte












_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
daniwo59 at aol
Jun 17, 2006, 5:26 PM
Post #12 of 50 (2500 views)
Permalink
Right now, it seems that the membership model is so inclusive, it seems more
reasonable to ask who is *not* a member?

This is not so unreasonable a question. Plenty of people contact us daily
about advertising with us, or using us as a place to add links to their sites.
Just Friday I got a call from a PR firm that suggested we pay them to add
content about all of their clients. Are they "members"? (Note that other PR
firms have been making edits and complaining if they are reverted. Are they
members too?)

Willie on Wheels has thousands of "edits." Is he a member?

Some of the most active members on this list make very few real content
edits. Are they members?

Membership in any organization implies a certain level of responsibility. By
granting membership--and with it, the right to vote--we are allowing people
to determine the future direction of the organization. It seems that this
would necessitate something more than just goodwill, presence, or a vested
interest in the course of the foundation.

Danny

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
daniwo59 at aol
Jun 17, 2006, 5:37 PM
Post #13 of 50 (2574 views)
Permalink
P.S. Are the staff members of members of Congress who edit their rivals'
pages also members?

D
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
erikzachte at infodisiac
Jun 17, 2006, 5:38 PM
Post #14 of 50 (2492 views)
Permalink
Anthere
> We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the
> board by 2 more members.
> Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself.
> There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members.
> Elected are renewed every 2 years.
>
> My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones. To have a
> clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the
> elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the
> ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
>
> Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of
> more.
>
> Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.
>
> My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new
> proposition AND that board members vote.
> Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.
>
> So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and
> 5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.
>

Oh, an important clarification.
Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the
community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least
the majority should be from the community.

The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united
team with complementary skills.
The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit
diversity of view points.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
wikilegal at inbox
Jun 17, 2006, 5:45 PM
Post #15 of 50 (2500 views)
Permalink
On 6/17/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
> P.S. Are the staff members of members of Congress who edit their rivals'
> pages also members?
>
> D

According to what should be, what was originally intended, what the
bylaws say, or what the reality of the situation is?

Depending, I'd say no, yes, maybe, or no.

You're on the Wikimedia staff. Are their names in the "membership
book containing, in alphabetical order, the name and address of each
member"? (see the Florida Statutes 617.0601(4) and 617.1601(3)).

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
erikzachte at infodisiac
Jun 17, 2006, 7:01 PM
Post #16 of 50 (2494 views)
Permalink
> > We can expect two resignations in the year coming. And expansion of the
> > board by 2 more members.
> > Last proposal by Jimbo is 2 elected members, 4 appointed and himself.
> > There is no mention in bylaws of way to remove appointed members.
> > Elected are renewed every 2 years.
> >
> > My proposal is to have 4 elected members and 3 appointed ones.
> To have a
> > clear renewal (or removal) of the appointed every 2 years. To have the
> > elected renewed 2 one year, 2 the next year. And preferably to have the
> > ones elected by a sub-group of the community (Foundation members).
> >
> > Angela wishes us to keep some elected members. I am not exactly sure of
> > more.
> >
> > Tim and Michael did not give their opinion.
> >
> > My proposal implies a modification of the bylaws. So, it implies a new
> > proposition AND that board members vote.
> > Jimbo's proposition is consistant with current bylaws I think.
> >
> > So, if there are no new bylaws, by default you may expect 2 elected and
> > 5 appointed soon. Possibly next year, 2 elected and 7 appointed.
>
> Oh, an important clarification.
> Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the
> community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least
> the majority should be from the community.
>
> The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united
> team with complementary skills.
> The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit
> diversity of view points.
>
> Ant
>

Apart from persons named above I believe only Delphine made a strong case in
recent discussions against voting for all board members? Am I right?

For me the major drawback to "appointed" would be that the community (the
people that made Wikimedia happen) is not acknowledged for what it achieved
so far.
The community has been and is competent enough to build a encyclopedia in a
few years that ranks among the best. The community has been competent enough
to elect two worthy representatives. Most community members have higher
education (unproven, but I doubt many would contest this).

I probably won't make myself more popular with what follows, but I favour
candidness, while being respectful: I think Jimbo is a great guy, with
tremendous vision and drive, and a friendly person. But with all that Jimbo
did for Wikimedia, which is a tremendous amount and which may indeed lead
him to the Nobel Price some day, it is still an undeniable fact that others
(read: the community) did collectively much more, orders of magnitude more.
Jimbo invested huge sums of money. Volunteers might have made huge amounts
of money had they not spent so much of their free time on this project, I'm
sure again orders of magnitude more than Jimbo has. For me it would be great
if Jimbo kept his life long membership to the board, as a sincere token of
appreciation, but I feel it is over the top, if he treats the foundation as
something he has special rights to forever, at least morally.

It can't be that a single person, and members from his close inner circle,
be it business partners or other people he knows and values, formally have a
final say over a global movement indefinitely, and extend their grip on the
organisation through co-optation indefinitely.

I can imagine three reasons why Jimbo would want to bypass elections for at
least part of the board:

1 Concern that the community does not have all required skills, and
therefore experts from outside need to be imposed.
2 Concern that the community does not have all required
information/knowledge to make wise decisions.
3 Concern that the community or possibly a future community does not have
the best of motives and wants to hijack the organisation.

ad 1: It is imaginable that the community lacks certain skills. To me it
would help if the community thinks so too. If this is not the case, and the
board decides to overule the community, how else to call this than
'paternalism'? If board and community agree on this, outside candidates for
the board could be proposed, discussed and elected like any internal
candidates. No need for appointments.

ad 2: This is probably true, and I still fear becomes more true all the
time. I'm cautiously concerned when a non-profit organisation can't discuss
most deals in the open, at least in general terms, and has no approved
guidelines for which issues can be settled behind closed doors. As stated
earlier, to me it would be OK to delegate authority from the community to
the board, but delegation is what mattters here.

ad 3: This would be a major concern for me too. But I tbink reasonable
precautions can be taken to avoid that say Greenland or the veganist society
(to name two unlikely examples deliberately) launches a dedicated attack to
take over the foundation by ordering all its inhabitants/members to sign up
and vote. At least if we discuss this fear in the open we can discuss
appropriate precautions.

Erik Zachte


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
birgitte_sb at yahoo
Jun 17, 2006, 7:55 PM
Post #17 of 50 (2511 views)
Permalink
--- Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf@gmail.com> wrote:
Different parts of
> the free culture movement
> are more or less affected by each undertaking of the
> Foundation, and are of
> varying degrees of interest to many. I think the
> Foundation's mission is
> simply too broad to decide to govern it through
> direct reliance on
> formalized elected constituencies. Creating
> representation from the
> existing pattern of projects is also inherently
> political. If the
> Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be
> towards languages and
> projects with many fewer articles and users now, and
> millions more speakers
> and writers worldwide yet to be connected. So,
> there is a shift ahead no
> matter which way you look at it, provided the
> projects continue to grow as
> they have.

I can agree with your dislike of formalized elected
constituncies. My personal dislike of them is largely
logistical. What I liked about the Apache Model it is
*not* a representaion model. Maybe I read it
differently than everyone else, I don't know. It
seemed to me perfectly scaleable and I envision it as
very suitable for including new languages worldwide.


> Those who are concerned about this kind of
> governance issue would be better
> served, I think, by focusing attention on board
> composition and expansion,
> as some have done. Jimmy and the other board
> members are of an open mind as
> to what the future of the board will be, what it
> will/should/could look
> like, and there is a lot of discussion about all
> this. We may disagree on
> various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope
> everyone agrees the
> conversation is healthy and beneficial to the
> organization.
>

I do not mean to ignore the near-term composition and
expansion of the board by discussing this model. It
is good everyone is examining the possibiliies of the
future Board, but there is a great need for a larger
infrastucture within the WMF (If you only edit at
Wikipedia you probably do not see this need). And it
is not just to know who is member or who may vote in
Board elections.

The expanded Board and expanded commitees even would
not solve the issues as the Apache Model would
regarding communication of needs, repeatedly
duplicating efforts across languages if not projects,
and need for a bottom-to-top chain of authority.
Authority is not the right word but when people need
specific solutions they should not be coming to the
top to get it worked out, but there is no other chioce
right now. For example the issue of guidelines for
acceptable Wikibooks. They come to this list where
most people can't even fully understand the problem
because you have to be familair with Wikibooks to
really understand it. How many people go and
investigate the Wikibooks site, and read deletion
archives before giving there opinion on the matter?
And were the Wikibooks editor ever actually given
useful guidelines at the end of such discussion? Is
any current comittee working on it for them? This
could be handled in a much better fashion if there was
Project Level organization.

This is what I see the Project Level Officers doing
(Now all other Project Level Members are just a pool
of people who can become officers and vote on officers
and maybe start a no confidence vote to bring an early
election, they are not some sort of Parlimentary
Representatives):

*Writing and in the future reviewing blanket common
policies and providing any translations neccessary
through requests at the Foundation level. These
policies are not adopted project-wide but are working
drafts that the language communities can either adopt
as is or modify to their liking.

*Keep an record of difficult project specific
questions that have been asked of proffesionals
(lawyers, developers, etc.) and see that they are
translated for everyone's reference. At Wikisource
this would include a lot of Copyright information.

*Be the help desk for any such questions or problems
in the future and send difficult ones on to
proffessionals at Foundation Level. I think they
should also be given a token amount of attention from
the Foundation for these concerns. For example if
Wikisource officers decide Protect Section is a
priority for Wikisource they should be given some
guarantee of developer attention even though any
Wikipedia related bug has triple the votes. Although
this should have limits of course.

*Be the point of contact for any Foundation level
comittees. Right now people seem to go to whoever is
around IRC at the moment, which is not generally the
most knowledgable person.

*Actively investigate language communities and keep
records of their progress and make recomendations
either to the community itself or any applicable
Chapters that deal with that language regarding growth
and promotion. This will also help indentify any
innovations that can then be shared project-wide and
also notice any problems at an early stage. I do not
know how this would done exactly but it is needed.

*Set quality goals for the project as a whole and
write reccomendations for best practices. Ensure
translation of this of course. This is something that
is being done well in many larger communities (i.e.
en.WP's list of core topics) but smaller langs need
more guidence as they have everyone busy creating
content. Also the Officers could work on some kind of
incentives to encourage editors to work on these
quality issues.


This was really long and I didn't even talk of
Foundation level stuff. But it is similar, the
members are a pool of people with a low bar for entry
not some kind of representatives. Just people that
are willing to work on Foundation level stuff and can
be appointed to commitees etc. I would imagine the
Foundation basically collects money, deals with
press/outside organizations, and organizes
developers, lawyers, and translators. Of course the
Board sets goals and trys to do what is most useful to
as many projects as possible, but as of now I do not
even know that they are aware what would be most
useful in many cases. This model is basically much
more efficent and acknowledges the reality that each
project has specific concerns that are not understood
by people from other projects.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
eloquence at gmail
Jun 17, 2006, 8:49 PM
Post #18 of 50 (2501 views)
Permalink
On 6/17/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another practical issue is that I am currently the only board member
> interested in trying to do that. Given that trying to rewrite bylaws is
> meant to take a few hours, I'd be happy to know what you guys think and
> what other board members think.
>
> And I get mostly silence.

Perhaps you have a better idea how I feel now. When the committees
first came up, I wrote a detailed summary of my concerns on this list
- zero response. The open meeting, which I put a lot of energy into,
had almost no visible follow-up. Jimmy asked for comments on possible
outside Board members, I made some - no follow-up. In the recent
discussions, most of my longer answers were also ignored, and you
responded to one of them by only labeling it a "campaign platform",
while Gregory has been sniping from the sidelines against
"windbagging" "douchebags".

I welcome your initiative, Anthere. I think the Apache model is a
remix of some ideas that have been discussed before, and will need
some thoughtful consideration. In particular, we definitely need to
figure out who our members are, if anyone -- and fix the bylaws.
"Wiki" philosophy to me means maximizing participation and openness,
but not without safeguards. Having voting members undergo a human
vetting process may work, but the process should be built so that it
doesn't degenerate into the mess RfA on en.wp has become, where every
voter makes up their pet criteria that make up a good Wikimedian. The
criteria of membership should be objective, and objections should be
actionable and reasonable.

I suggest that a workshop be set up at Wikimania to discuss these
things in person; in addition, if you want my personal thoughts on
anything, you can always ask. Based on past experience, I am not
convinced that a continuing discussion on this mailing list makes much
of a difference. I agree with Brad that reforming and expanding the
Board so that it can actually meaningfully engage the community in
these debates is very much needed. At the moment, arguing with the
Board feels like arguing with a one-armed assembly line worker during
the night shift. He just doesn't have a lot of time and attention for
you.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
michael_irwin at verizon
Jun 17, 2006, 10:56 PM
Post #19 of 50 (2516 views)
Permalink
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

>P.S. Are the staff members of members of Congress who edit their rivals'
>pages also members?
>
>
Absolutely! Might want to encourage their debates to move to
Wikiversity if they get too energetic or propagandist for Wikipedia's
dignified sieving for nuggets of neutral knowledge.

Just imagine the draw if a couple of professional windbags like Murtha
and Bush, or key staff members, with all their insider access to
information were to go at it in a Wikiversity War College's political
seminar space.

Besides, all standard catcalling aside, I think you have to be a human
being to collect a paycheck from a Congressman's payroll. Therefore
they are within our stated scope and mission.

regards,
lazyquasar

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
michael_irwin at verizon
Jun 17, 2006, 11:03 PM
Post #20 of 50 (2492 views)
Permalink
Erik Zachte wrote

>Oh, an important clarification.
>Naturally, appointed may be from outside of the community or from the
>community. On this matter, Angela, Jimbo and myself agree that at least
>the majority should be from the community.
>
>The major benefit of "appointed" is there is more chance to get a united
>team with complementary skills.
>The major drawback is to risk similar-thinking people and limit
>diversity of view points.
>
>
Another risk is that the expertise and skills that are available in the
community will view all Wikimedia Foundation activities as the
responsibilities and problems of the Board. Volunteers not happy with
how the governing/management structure is arrived at may simply continue
to decline to participate other than within their chosen spheres of
influence within specific projects.

regards,
lazyquasar

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
michael_irwin at verizon
Jun 17, 2006, 11:05 PM
Post #21 of 50 (2497 views)
Permalink
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 6/17/06, daniwo59@aol.com <daniwo59@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>P.S. Are the staff members of members of Congress who edit their rivals'
>>pages also members?
>>
>>D
>>
>>
>
>According to what should be, what was originally intended, what the
>bylaws say, or what the reality of the situation is?
>
>Depending, I'd say no, yes, maybe, or no.
>
>You're on the Wikimedia staff. Are their names in the "membership
>book containing, in alphabetical order, the name and address of each
>member"? (see the Florida Statutes 617.0601(4) and 617.1601(3)).
>
>Anthony
>_______________________________________________
>
>
Interesting.

I had no idea that membership would be regulated by state law. I will
have to check up on Oregon State Regulations regarding non profits.

Thanks for the info.

Regards,
lazyquasar


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
wikipedia at earthlink
Jun 17, 2006, 11:55 PM
Post #22 of 50 (2510 views)
Permalink
SJ wrote:

> As to anonymity...
>
>> > in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that
>> part of the
>> > lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be
>> > respected.
>
> I don't know anyone actively interested in being a member of the
> foundation (whatever that means) who wants their identity to be hidden
> *from the foundation*. Hidden from other editors and from the general
> public, perhaps. I can imagine the former being the case in a
> theoretical sense; but I would like to know of a single example so
> that we're not setting up a complete hypothetical as a strawman.

There certainly are people sufficiently active to be considered
potential members who have concluded that they do not want to share
their identity with the Wikimedia Foundation. But I don't think that's
really the issue to be concerned about here. It's the much larger number
who want that identity or other personal information hidden, as
indicated, from other editors or the general public. Let me explain.

The Florida statutes governing nonprofit organizations have detailed
requirements, including many tied to legal membership in the
organization. Given that we have the potential for a very large
membership, this could get quite complex. The idea of using membership
dues as a way to generate funds for Wikimedia was a nice-sounding
notion; in reality, complying with the full requirements of a membership
infrastructure would have substantial technical and administrative
overhead. If the developers are offering to create the code to set this
up and people really want to pay membership dues on the scale necessary,
maybe we should, but already some skepticism is warranted.

One point that has been alluded to is that the Foundation would maintain
records of members' names and addresses. Florida law also provides that
members are entitled to inspect and copy various Foundation records.
This includes, significantly, the record of members itself.

The laws regarding "membership" in this context are based heavily on the
equivalent principles for shareholders in for-profit corporations. In
such corporations, participants may have various business reasons to
solicit each other at their addresses (proxies, buying and selling of
shares, etc.). The corporations also have the resources to dedicate to
the system, as well as the motivation, since they're ultimately
dependent on it for capital.

Many of these principles do not translate easily to the nonprofit
context. The legal membership model probably works well for some common
examples, such as a club organization or the homeowners' association for
a condominium complex. I don't know if it suits our community very well.
Not because it's inconvenient for Jimbo and the professional staff,
though it may be, but because if the community is fully informed about
the legal consequences, I'm not so sure we would choose it.

Let me say it clearly for all of you. If you want to participate in
legal membership in the Foundation, considering just how broadly we
contemplate the concept of membership, you are effectively expressing a
willingness for your name and address to become a public record. Any
member can get a Florida attorney (Jack Thompson comes to mind) to
represent them and ask for the membership records on their behalf. And I
don't expect it will be possible to screen out in advance members you
consider undesirable any more effectively than we can do so for project
editors.

Given how strongly attached some of the community is to privacy and
anonymity, I don't know if that's a choice we want to be forcing on
people. Certainly it's not a model we should adopt without making sure
people have thought carefully about it.

Various possibilities lie ahead. One is that we adopt legal membership
with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. If this is done in
the name of remaining "open", it's just as possible that in doing so
we'd be departing from our openness toward those who value their
privacy. Another possibility in the scenario is that depending on how
membership is determined, including cost, we may find that relatively
few people "join". At which point it becomes obvious that despite this
effort, some people will choose to complain that the community is not
represented in Foundation affairs, and it may seem that the entire
exercise was valueless. It should also be observed that any definition
of Foundation membership which is not coextensive with the community
(and I don't see how gaps can be avoided) has the potential to
factionalize people along the lines created by these fissures. A
community divided over member vs. non-member, rich vs. poor, out vs.
closeted, or other potential distinctions is certainly a possibility.

Or, finally, after considering the benefits and drawbacks of legal
membership, we might choose a path without using it. Certainly the
Wikimedia Foundation needs to incorporate the community into its
functions, but it ought to be possible to do that, formally or
informally, in ways that avoid the drawbacks of the legal regime. We
might even occasionally talk in terms of members, but ultimately should
be careful to disavow the statutory definition if we follow this course.

--Michael Snow
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
kelly.lynn.martin at gmail
Jun 18, 2006, 12:44 AM
Post #23 of 50 (2507 views)
Permalink
On 6/18/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Various possibilities lie ahead. One is that we adopt legal membership
> with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. If this is done in
> the name of remaining "open", it's just as possible that in doing so
> we'd be departing from our openness toward those who value their
> privacy. Another possibility in the scenario is that depending on how
> membership is determined, including cost, we may find that relatively
> few people "join". At which point it becomes obvious that despite this
> effort, some people will choose to complain that the community is not
> represented in Foundation affairs, and it may seem that the entire
> exercise was valueless. It should also be observed that any definition
> of Foundation membership which is not coextensive with the community
> (and I don't see how gaps can be avoided) has the potential to
> factionalize people along the lines created by these fissures. A
> community divided over member vs. non-member, rich vs. poor, out vs.
> closeted, or other potential distinctions is certainly a possibility.
>
> Or, finally, after considering the benefits and drawbacks of legal
> membership, we might choose a path without using it. Certainly the
> Wikimedia Foundation needs to incorporate the community into its
> functions, but it ought to be possible to do that, formally or
> informally, in ways that avoid the drawbacks of the legal regime. We
> might even occasionally talk in terms of members, but ultimately should
> be careful to disavow the statutory definition if we follow this course.

Does Florida law require that member of nonprofits be actual persons?
A nonprofit I used to work for (a national organization) had as its
members the 50 state organizations of which it was comprised. Perhaps
the members of Wikimedia should be the various national organizations
which already exist, as corporate entities.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
phoebe.ayers at gmail
Jun 18, 2006, 1:23 AM
Post #24 of 50 (2512 views)
Permalink
On 6/17/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Those who are concerned about this kind of
> > governance issue would be better
> > served, I think, by focusing attention on board
> > composition and expansion,
> > as some have done. Jimmy and the other board
> > members are of an open mind as
> > to what the future of the board will be, what it
> > will/should/could look
> > like, and there is a lot of discussion about all
> > this. We may disagree on
> > various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope
> > everyone agrees the
> > conversation is healthy and beneficial to the
> > organization.
> >
>
> I do not mean to ignore the near-term composition and
> expansion of the board by discussing this model. It
> is good everyone is examining the possibiliies of the
> future Board, but there is a great need for a larger
> infrastucture within the WMF (If you only edit at
> Wikipedia you probably do not see this need). And it
> is not just to know who is member or who may vote in
> Board elections.
>
> The expanded Board and expanded commitees even would
> not solve the issues as the Apache Model would
> regarding communication of needs, repeatedly
> duplicating efforts across languages if not projects,
> and need for a bottom-to-top chain of authority.
> Authority is not the right word but when people need
> specific solutions they should not be coming to the
> top to get it worked out, but there is no other chioce
> right now. For example the issue of guidelines for
> acceptable Wikibooks. They come to this list where
> most people can't even fully understand the problem
> because you have to be familair with Wikibooks to
> really understand it. How many people go and
> investigate the Wikibooks site, and read deletion
> archives before giving there opinion on the matter?
> And were the Wikibooks editor ever actually given
> useful guidelines at the end of such discussion? Is
> any current comittee working on it for them? This
> could be handled in a much better fashion if there was
> Project Level organization.

<snip>

I like this argument for the Apache model - or something like it -
very much. Having "Project Level Officers" -- people who are both
knowledgeable about and invested in both the projects and the
Foundation -- as a level of organization in between the community in
general and the Board seems like it would not only go a long way
towards helping with communication and responsiveness (two of the
major complaints about the Foundation currently) but also mean the
people dealing with issues on a daily basis have a high level of
knowledge about the projects they work with. Having people at a
project level to liason with the Foundation committees that currently
exist would also be helpful; as Ant pointed out, the Apache Foundation
committees seem roughly equivalant to ours, so this would probably
work fine.

I also agree with Brad, that focussing -- and staying focussed -- on
Board expansion is important if it's going to get done; but discussing
what kind of organizational structures that Board will interface with
over the long term is also important.

There are various goals that a reformation of the organizational
structure of the Foundation would hopefully address -- e.g., spreading
out Foundation-level work, so it becomes less burdensome for any small
group of people; providing for a stable (fiscally and otherwise)
organization; providing a mechanism for visionary leadership (as Erik
eloquently put it); providing community representation in leadership;
providing good communication on decisions reached and in process;
providing a timely response to community and outside concerns
(lawsuits, offers of funding); etc. It would probably be helpful to
agree, if possible, on these broad goals for leadership which have
come up in these threads and others, and evaluate proposals (such as
the Apache model) in light of them.

For instance, as I said above, I think the major benefits of the
Apache model as described and Project Level Officer idea as expanded
on by Birgitte is that it would spread out [the ability to do]
foundation-level work (copyright questions, liasoning with the board),
as well as providing for greater community representation at the
Foundation level. (The original Apache model could also possibly
lessen community representation in terms of voting; it's unclear to me
who gets to vote or nominate for what). If it worked properly,
timeliness and responsiveness would also be improved since there would
be a larger pool of people to contact at the project officer level.
(Though, would the responsiveness/timeliness of the Board be improved?
hard to say). An extra benefit to having this model of organizational
structure is that it might make it less daunting to get involved in
Foundation work. (I can't be the only person in the world who is
interested in Foundation-level stuff, and who makes an effort to
follow discussions etc., but who can't possibly make it a full-time
job -- and thus ends up not saying anything at all, because there's
simply too much traffic (issues, ideas) to follow).

> This was really long and I didn't even talk of
> Foundation level stuff. But it is similar, the
> members are a pool of people with a low bar for entry
> not some kind of representatives. Just people that
> are willing to work on Foundation level stuff and can
> be appointed to commitees etc. I would imagine the
> Foundation basically collects money, deals with
> press/outside organizations, and organizes
> developers, lawyers, and translators. Of course the
> Board sets goals and trys to do what is most useful to
> as many projects as possible, but as of now I do not
> even know that they are aware what would be most
> useful in many cases. This model is basically much
> more efficent and acknowledges the reality that each
> project has specific concerns that are not understood
> by people from other projects.

Yes.

-- phoebe (brassratgirl), catching up on email & diving in, rather long-windedly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: the easy way or the less easy way [ In reply to ]
phoebe.ayers at gmail
Jun 18, 2006, 1:41 AM
Post #25 of 50 (2492 views)
Permalink
On 6/17/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suggest that a workshop be set up at Wikimania to discuss these
> things in person; in addition, if you want my personal thoughts on

Heck yes. Would having it over lunch suit? Otherwise, it would
conflict with sessions (or have to be before or after, on Thur./Mon.)

As ever, such things can be discussed/proposed here:
http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_online

best,
phoebe
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1 2  View All

©2024 GT.net. A Gossamer Threads company.
5th Floor, 455 Granville St., Vancouver, BC V6C 1T1, Canada | Legal