Some people have asked me why I haven't commented on the new board announcement regarding restructuring. Well, the fact is that a few people have done a better job than I ever could, so I advise everyone to read SJ, Birgitte, and David Goodmann's posts, which really hit the nail on the head. I don't think there is much more to add.
Having said that, there was one post that really moved me just now.
Angela wrote in response to SJ's request to forward his message to the Advisory Board: "I have forwarded your email to the advisory board members. However, I should point out that they were not asked about this either and know less about it that readers of this mailing list. All I get from the board of trustees is announcements after they've made their decisions behind closed doors, not any requests for advice."
It is no secret that I do not always see eye to eye with Angela. Nonetheless, her description of the current state of affairs with the advisory board was a bold challenge to what is happening now with the WMF, and I am grateful to her for that.
Especially when there is the attitude: "Almost every volunteer organization has a hierarchy and "gives orders" to its members to some extent. Its members are, of course, free to ignore those "orders", but the organization is then free to disallow them from further participation."
Sorry, but perhaps we forget how these projects got here. "Be Bold" and "Contribute where you want" by volunteers around the world were the very cornerstones of everything the WMF has done. It is not the result of some "received authority" delivered from on high.
P.S. A new petition questioning the Board's actions can now be found on Meta (the WMF's organizational site). I encourage you to sign. If you do not have a meta account, you can sign here.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
With two seats going to the chapters, I see this as distributing power away from US editors, since the us doesn't have a chapter. I'm not quite sure if this is a good thing or bad thing, since the US supplies the largest editor base and, I'm guessing, the largest donor base.
Would you agree with this Danny? Or is my imagination just over stimulated from the bigoted anti-American comments and jokes that slip out onto the mailing lists from time to time.
Yes, I would certainly agree with that. In fact, in my previous post, I defined "chapter appointed" as "non-American." It is unfortunate, because as you say, the US is still the biggest donor base, the biggest contributor base, and I add the biggest readership base, while creating a US chapter poses a lot of the same challenges as creating a pan-European chapter that would stretch from Dublin to Moscow.
Wikimedia sees itself as international, yet it cannot escape the fact it is based in the US, uses English as its basic language, has a largely North American staff, and has a US "founder" sitting on the board. Experts appointed, and available to attend, are very likely to be North Americans too.
Whatever the dismerits of this restructuring (and the lack of consultation is appalling - what's an advisory board for, if it doesn't get to advise?) the notion that this change leaves Wikimedia loaded against US editors is clearly nonsense. There is, and will remain, a systemic US bias, almost certainly over-representing the current contributions of US editors nevermind the international aspirations of the Foundation. Indeed, I thought you guys believed in affirmative action?
Doc
I would suggest that it leaves a bias against all groups, projects, countries, etc. which do not have chapters representing them. The biggest, in terms of readership, membership, and donations is the US, but the same holds true for China and Japan and many, many other projects. In fact, it is giving a greater say in governance to smaller projects, simply by virtue of geography--It is easier to put together a chapter in Serbia than it is to put one together in the US, simply because distances are smaller and people can meet face to face more frequently. On the other hand, I have a problem with people, simply by merit of them living in Serbia, having an opportunity to choose 5 board members while people in Canada (or Japan, or the US) cannot.
That sounds like a bit of a reductio. If that happens, then it can be corrected. At the moment it looks like there's a huge bias towards the US (closely followed by Western Europe) - that's the practical situation. And, do the Serbians get equal chances at the "founder's chair"? Will the board ensure that Americans are not overrepresented in the "expert" seats? When that's happening it is perhaps time to demand that Americans have an equal shot at the chapter seats, not before.
To Anonymous @ 8:34 AM:
Has the (alleged) overrepresentation of the US on the WMF Board ever hurt anything, other than your feelings (and often Gerard Meijssen's)? Has it produced one iota of avoidable negative influence on any project? If not, then I must assume that you are trying to offend US-based community simply for personal enjoyment or vendetta, rather than any concern for the well-being of the WMF.
I don't have any major problem with the US-centric nature of the board. After all, it is centered (or is that centred) in the US.
I'm just saying that when there are US complaints that chapter seats are biased against the US then you need to look at the wider picture.
The restructuring may be a bad idea, but not because of that.
Danny, your quote that you attributed to Michael Snow was written by me. - Anthony
Uh, Danny? Hello?
I urge you all to start developing US chapters. WMF Pennsylvania is stalled out right now, but it can go through with more support from other developing US Chapters.
I've gone ahead and started WMF DC's working group, and I invite you all to not only comment, but to develop your own chapters for your own state/major metro area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Swatjester/WMF_DC
Post a Comment