Talk:Wikimedia Chapters Association

I'd like to point out a possible problem that I mentioned at the old Meta talk page for the Chapters Council. Discussion should continue there (or be moved here if someone would be bothered to do it). --seav (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

Copied. Tomer A. -- Talk 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

If we have a Chapters Council which has decision-making powers and where each chapter has one vote, then that may unintentionally influence the creation of future chapters and may result in large countries (by land area) having multiple votes in the Council. We already see this in the United States having 2 sub-national chapters and thus the United States would have 2 votes in the Council.

A hypothetical example: If a large country were to decide to follow the US model and create chapters organized on a sub-national basis, then people may suspect that the Chapters Council may be a reason, whether or not that is true.

Local Chapters are created in order to best further the Wikimedia mission in a specific geographical jurisdiction. We leave it to the communities who want to become organized as a chapter to decide the geographical scope of their Chapter as long as they are within a single jurisdiction and there's no overlap with existing chapters. Thus, we have no objections to there being a Wikimedia DC and a Wikimedia NYC. However, if there's a Chapters Council, such future sub-national chapters would have the effect of raising eyebrows and put an additional burden on the Chapters Committee to ascertain if such chapters were created with the Chapters Council in mind. --seav (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Reply

The same issue already exists with the Chapter Selected WMF Board seats. They are selected using a one-chapter-one-vote system, which does give the US two votes. I agree it is a problem. I'm not in favour of sub-national chapters (Hong Kong is a unique situation and I don't object to that chapter). I think the US should just get its act together and create a national chapter like everyone else has done. It's probably not worth worrying about that now, but it is something the council should probably discuss once it is up and running. --Tango (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Reply

I think you're using a wrong example to express a true concern. IMO what you're afraid of are people registering chapters in order to gain political power over a certain scenario (let that be the WCA or the board selection process). I don't think we should be afraid from the sub-national chapters in the US more than we should be afraid of the people in the Benelux area, the Arab league or the jewish folks. Tomer A. -- Talk 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

Well, I would like to dwell on a more fundamental aspect of the WCA's constitution here: You cannot just found a local chapter, each chapter has to be registered with the Wikimedia Foundation. So, the WCA would leave it to the WMF to decide on the WCA's inner balance of votes. I think this is a bad idea indeed. It would be wise to think about some procedure in order to get more independent from the WMF's leverage here. There could be a restriction by country, or, say, even by continent.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

I don't think that's something needs to be decided now. Tomer A. -- Talk 18:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

Certainly not, but in the long run.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hi, We need a logo to be created. --naveenpf (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

+1 Thanks Tango --naveenpf (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

logo is indeed needed. The suggested logo includes one of the WMF trademarks. In order to use it the WCA needs to sign a trademark agreement. This is something we only mentioned but haven't started working on yet. Tomer A. -- Talk 13:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

Indeed - I mentioned on the description page when I created the image that it is for demonstration purposes only until permission is received from the WMF. The WMF seems to be very supportive of the WCA, though, so I don't see getting permission being a problem. The name "Wikimedia Chapters Association" includes one of the trademarks too ("Wikimedia"), so permission will be needed whatever logo is chosen. --Tango (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

Yup. Time is short and work is much Tomer A. -- Talk 16:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

A formal, written trademark agreement between the WCA and the WMF is a lot of work, but I wouldn't worry about that now. Just ask the WMF for interim permission to use the trademarks - they give that permission to chapters so they can start work before all the paperwork is finished, so I expect they would do the same for the WCA. The paperwork can wait until there is a paid secretary-general to do it (they is plenty of other paperwork that you do need to do now!). --Tango (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

I think we can put mail to Geoff -- naveenpf (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

Let's wait a little with this. Tomer A. -- Talk 11:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

A subject best left to the interim SG.Ziko (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

People are correct in pointing out that use of Wikimedia trademarks requires a license from WMF in its capacity as steward of the movement’s marks. This includes any attempt to incorporate under a name using a Wikimedia mark. If you set up a legal entity, we ask that WCA operate under a Wikimedia mark only after it completes the customary steps for recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate. I would suggest that this should involve consultation with AffCom, AffCom’s recommendation to the Board, and the Board approval of AffCom’s recommendation.

WCA is welcome to incorporate under a different neutral name that does not make use of Wikimedia marks. If WCA wishes to use Wikimedia marks preliminarily while WCA is consulting with AffCom, WCA may be able to request a limited, short-term license to legally operate (but not incorporate) as "Wikimedia Chapters Association" until AffCom can make a formal recommendation to the Board. We do encourage WCA to engage in a dialogue with AffCom and WMF and seek guidance for formal recognition by the movement, and we look forward to working with WCA when WCA is ready to request a trademark license.

Thanks, Geoffbrigham (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for pointing that out. We will get in touch with the AffCom immediately for clarification. As there is a strong interest by the WMF that the WCA is established, I do not expect any major difficulties. --Mglaser (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

Goeffbrigham, someone from WMF indicated that the WCA can use the trademark and logo as an extension from the rights already given to the chapters. Could that possibly be an intermediate way of reading the rules unless we have clarification by the AffCom? I am trying to avoid unneccessary delays in the WCA incorporation process. --Mglaser (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

Mglaser, unfortunately not. That would technically be a third-party trademark license, which is not possible under our agreement with the chapters. Thanks for asking. And happy holidays to everyone. Geoffbrigham (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

Hi Geoff, there is something to clarify because the trademark policy says that "We encourage the use of the Wikimedia Marks in not-for-profit publicity activities and for associated non-profit organizations to show their association with the Foundation and its projects" so I don't see any opposition in the use of this mark, in my opinion. The opinion of the Affcom may give more "consistency" to this use because it will be permanent, but I don't see any conflict with the trademark policy because the WCA will be a "no profit" association and it supposed that the WCA will not operate in commercial matters. Regards. --Ilario (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Reply

Reading over your Charter and Standing Orders, it seems like there is too much instability in your organization, which could potentially be exploited. Your Standing Orders could be changed at any time and your Charter doesn't contain sufficient protections. You should have, at minimum:

• An explicit numerical/percentage limit on the fees that can be placed on any chapter by the WCA.

• A right of a chapter to disavow responsibility for any obligations (financial or otherwise) placed on it by withdrawing within, say, 60 days.

• More explicit guarantees that when you "pass whatever resolutions necessary", that these won't interfere in chapters' internal affairs.

I'm sure that those of you actually involved can think up more. Please, don't get so caught up in empowering your new organization that you forget what can happen when the wrong people get into power and things go wrong. Wnt (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

The WCA is supposed to interfere in the internal affairs of chapters. That's its job. The only right member chapters really need is the right to leave. That could perhaps be reinforced. I really don't think we want a "bill of rights". If you have too many rules, you create too much room for decisions to be made by lawyering, rather than based on their own merits (and you end up with things like US healthcare policy being based on how a bunch of lawyers interpret the exact definition of the word "tax"). I think the WCA is much better off leaving itself flexible enough to deal with new situations appropriately rather than trying to set everything down in stone. --Tango (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

The light-on-your-feet approach of being ready to leave at any time seems at odds with a large budget for buildings and personnel. The problem I see here is that I think you could end up stuck with IRL lawyering. I mean, to give an over-the-top example, suppose Romney throws a dart at a map and invades... Macedonia. Some European chapters elect hard-line peaceniks to represent them, who come to the meeting, vote to set aside the Standing Orders and elect a new chairman, then pass a resolution that the American chapters will give three-fourths of their accumulated and incoming funds to the Macedonian chapter to document the horrors of the war on the ground. The chairman doesn't recognize the American chapters' protests and declarations that they're leaving, and says that the agreement they've signed means they're on the hook for the money, and it ends up in court. Of course, I exaggerate, and the real problems would probably be far more subtle, but is there anything in your charter to prevent even this ludicrous example? Wnt (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

I agree it is needed in some way, the second point is one of the reasons that WMSE has not joined the WCA. --Ainali (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

Is it just financial commitments you are concerned about? Those should be fairly easy to sort out. Just require one month's notice of any required contribution and specify that any chapter leaving the WCA within that month doesn't have the pay. The WCA should keep some reserves, as any organisation should, so that it can deal with sudden loss of expected income. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

That's a start. I can't tell you everything you should have. I should disclose that I'm not a member of a chapter, and I hadn't heard of the WCA before it was mentioned on Jimbo's page yesterday and I glanced over the documents you have here. But even if you want to add just this one thing, you'll need to remake your charter to accommodate the change. You might as well think it through carefully and come up with the best "Bill of Rights" you can. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

No, it is not the only concerns the chapter have. My personal view is that the biggest one was clearly illustrated on the pre-meeting this Wednesday where almost 50 % of the chapters said that the most important task for the association would be to act as a united voice against the Foundation. I would rather see that we were working together towards our mission, by sharing knowledge between chapters and helping each other, but when people are talking about what the association should do it rarely comes out as their top priority. Ainali (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

The Charter currently includes some language that limits the ability of the council to unilaterally raise fees on anyone. Specifically, it says "to determine the level of dues from the member Chapters, according to each Chapter's financial status, so the level of dues should be affordable and reasonable to each Chapter", which, at least in my reading of that language, precludes your scenario, at least in theory. In practice, however, the trouble is that there's currently hardly any way to prevent a council from violating the charter (or, indeed, getting any binding interpretation of it). The original draft of the charter included a special body for such disputes (e.g. a dispute between the council and a chapter) but it was removed in Berlin because many felt it was unnecessary. sebmol ^? 15:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

You're right - that's what I was picturing being argued in a court - but it's far too vague. "Affordable" literally means it's something you can pay, not that it is a minor expense. And "reasonable" might mean that you can give a reason behind it... but does it have to be a good one? Reasonable to who? Wnt (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

" It could even do this to all chapters and ruin the WCA."

I think the word "ruin" is inappropriate. "Disband" seems more proper. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

I don't understand the intention of this section at all. Why is it necessary to create this picture of opposition when you are talking about the membership in the WCA? --Alice Wiegand (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

This picture should not be created, indeed. But in the discussions of the CMs someone (I believe Michal) expressed his concerns about the fact that the WMF decides what is a chapter and what not. This was already discussed in Berlin in the AffCom meetings. I wanted here to stress out that there is no reason to worry. - What would be a better wording? Ziko (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

I suggest this is cut back. A discussion of what a chapter is, including the role of the WMF in recognizing a chapter, would be better dealt with at Chapters and Local chapter FAQ. If those pages are not enough, they should be made better, rather than repeat information or stray into speculation. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Reply

At our February 2 Board meeting, we spent several hours discussing the proposed Chapters Association and its potential role in the Wikimedia movement.

Despite our initial optimism, we have now reluctantly concluded that the proposed Chapters Association is unlikely to advance the Wikimedia mission significantly. We encouraged the concept in its early stages, but in light of the implementation to date, we regretfully have come to believe it will not be successful.

In our opinion, the Chapters Association hasn’t made a persuasive case that it will be effective. We believe that during its development thus far, it has not consulted sufficiently with movement stakeholders. We are concerned that it will not be equipped to offer oversight, which would be essential for an entity expected to provide governance support and oversight for the chapters. Considering its proposed role in the movement as well as the demand it would place on movement resources, we believe these factors are decisive.

Our reservations about the Chapters Association are serious, and we have difficulty envisioning circumstances in which the Wikimedia Foundation would be able to recognize it. That said, we believe in individuals and movement entities organising themselves to support each other, and that successful models for this exist.

We are acting now because of the recent call for hiring of the Secretary General by the Chapters Association and its apparent plans to incorporate soon.

We acknowledge that significant time and effort have been put into this initiative, and understand that some people will be disappointed by this conclusion. We welcome your comments.

For the Wikimedia board, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

What does this mean for File:Wikimedia Chapters Association.svg? If the Chapters Association is not recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation, can it continue to use this logo? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

(edit conflicted) I'm not a WCA council member, but as a community member I can say that it's surely all been more transparent than the WMF board, here on Meta etc.; I've no idea what "not consulted sufficiently with movement stakeholders" means. Anyway, WMF had already rejected funding and (early use of) trademarks; in light of the above letter, there are additional good reasons to stop waiting and proceed with the chapters association plans. --Nemo 06:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

To summarise, does the fact that "these factors are decisive" mean that the Chapters Association is now officially dis-endorsed (to whatever degree it was provisionally endorsed in the first place) and that the WMF will not recognise the validity of anything said "on behalf of" the CA in the future? Does "successful models for this exist" mean that the WMF would like to see some other form of Chapter-unionisation proposal put forth, just not this one? Does it also mean that the call for a Secretary-General is now futile? Wittylama (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Kat was kind enough to give myself and Ziko sight of this letter yesterday which was much appreciated. Having slept on it, I will be responding in my capacity as the elected Chapters Association Council Chair later today, though my review with the Council Members will not be until our meeting on the 16th & 17th February. Some trustees from the Foundation board have offered to break bread with us over that weekend to help interpret the letter and provide an inside view on the workings of the WMF board of trustees.

In line with our shared values of openness and transparency, Council Members are encouraged to give their thoughts here on meta, though none should yet be interpreted as an agreed Association viewpoint. I have no doubt that we would all rather have an agreed strategy that delivers the long term benefit to the open knowledge movement we are all looking for, rather than "positions". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

• I'd like to share my own view, expressed on my own behalf an no-one else's. I believe that WCA or some other entity of this sort has an important role to play for the movement. There are many things we're already good at, and many we are still learning - collaboration between chapters and across borders is the latter, and so is an effective knowledge transfer, spreading good practices, etc. Also, the chapters could benefit from a strong representation/council, and from some counterbalance to the Foundation. I also have a different opinion on WCA communication with the stakeholders, I believe it has been ongoing, although perhaps more would be better. However, the way WCA has been developing raises my serious concerns. These stem from three areas:

• Model of financing: I believe that the chosen model of financing WCA is risky. Membership fees are dangerously close to the tithes. Effectively, when this model is adopted, WCA gets money first and thinks on what to spend it on later. This is a flawed model, as proven in many organizations. A better solution is creating a plausible plan, with SMART goals, milestones, measures of success, and applying for its covering after careful thinking it through (and, after getting the money, reporting on the plan's execution, reflecting on the areas for improvement, lessons for the future, etc.). I believe that the FDC offers such a model and that it would be much better suited for WCA funding, as it would radically increase WCA's accountability, transparency, and also possibly credibility.
• Actual spending: What has appalled me, and as I know from talks to many fellow Wikimedians, it stroke them too, are the levels of planned spending. I understand that everything is planned to be as professional as possible, and hiring a consultant to choose the secretary general, as well as to choose the location to incorporate indicate that the corporate standards are kept in mind. However, I think that especially in a movement such as ours, we need to be extremely frugal whenever possible. It is both an ethical obligation, and also a pragmatic responsibility to our donors and sponsors, who obviously want their money to be spent well. Also, in our decisions we probably should try to send the right message. I understand that the hired (Western) consultant gave a choice of 3 Western European cities to choose from. I have no idea if s/he made an informed decision basing also on his/her knowledge of other European countries laws, or just followed an autopilot (it would be interesting to know not only what s/he chose and why, but also what countries were considered, as surely no-one can be an expert in all). But choosing one of the most expensive cities in the world (sic!), with costs of living more than three times higher than in e.g. Budapest or the Prague (which both are great cities to live in, come from the former Eastern block and reaching across the former divide would be a nice thing to do anyway) does not seem right. Similarly, hiring a really well-paid professional as the secretary general, before the operations start, raises serious doubts, which brings me to the final point:
• Mode of operating: In NGO world especially, but not particularly differently than in the world of business, how things are done is at least equally important as what the actions are. There is also a natural trajectory of organic growth - be it an association or an business start-up (I've founded both kinds more than once, I believe the same general principles do apply). In the case of WCA it would seem that the main focus was on how to start big, rather than on what to do. In other words, most of the efforts have been focused on the salaries, professional recruitment, choosing the city for incorporation, etc. These are not the things that matter most for a good start-up, or a good new association. What matters, though, is addressing the needs of the stakeholders and the people/organizations we serve. Just imagine how much more natural the choice of the managing board would be if WCA incorporated as a result of a successful initiative to organize workshops and conference on wiki loves monuments practices. Or dispute resolution on different wikis. Or privacy philosophy. Or anything else. What I am trying to say is that professionalism does not always mean doing things how the big boys and girls do it, but sometimes how they did it when they were our age. It really is very unusual for any new organization to start from structures, corporate standards, and a bit of red tape - a much more typical and perhaps healthier way is growing from initiatives that serve the community. Let's assume, hypothetically, that the costs of the first year of incorporating WCA are 100k USD (or more like 500k, no matter). Is it better spent on starting the organization up, or on financing initiatives in the movement, which would naturally emerge the leaders (including possibly even the potential secretary general), lead to a more natural emergence of the city if incorporation, and would also do some real impact on the way?

All in all, I have mixed feelings about the Board's decision. I understand the concerns, and as expressed above, I have my own. In the same time, I believe that WCA as an idea is important and needs support. I am also anxious that the results of this decision may be difficult to predict. It may help the WCA idea heal, but it may also lead to WCA being pushed through without reform even more. I hope that some form of WCA will emerge, but I personally would like to see some changes in the ways things are done, so maybe a fresh start would not be such a bad idea after all. Pundit (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

This is a very disappointing letter. It is undeniable that the WCA hasn't got running as quickly as anyone would have liked and it has got a little bogged down in bureucracy, but I don't think you can conclude much about its future success from its initial work in getting set up. How can you possibly know if it will be able to provide oversight? It hasn't even tried yet - it's still getting its own house in order. It is also unclear what this letter actually means. The WMF had never offered any formal endorsement or support for the WCA, as far as I am aware, so nothing has actually changed here other than what the WCA can expect in the future. While the WMF's support would make the WCA's work easier, it is far from essential, so I look forward to them proving you wrong. --Tango (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Comment Why does this costing so much? More than half a million is a huge sum. And what exactly do we as a movement get from this? IMO we do not need more bureaucracy but less. A 100,000ドル for the secretary general, to run an organization that does not even exist yet? What we need is more tech people. While I know all those involved in this are good people why are they not doing this was volunteers? I donate around 250,000ドル worth of my time a year to the movement and still throw in some cash. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Could you explain where you get the "more than half a million" figure from, I've not heard this one before? At the moment the Chapters Association costs have been less than 5,000,ドル even if you tried very hard to count every bus fare and ham sandwich. Consisting of some recruitment consultancy from Stefan Levko to get the Secretary General recruitment underway and a bit of travel for Council members. It would be neat to compare that to the full set up costs of the FDC. The 21 members of the Council are all directors of chapters and cost 0ドル. I would not dare to tot up the full time equivalent value to the Wikimedia movement of the unpaid and unrecognized effort we have put into this since Wikimania last year. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

The letter is not surprising. An association that purports to represent legally independent chapters is in a conflict of interest if at the same time it becomes dependent on the WMF for funding, or even if it feels a need to be a recognized user of the Wikimedia logos. For that matter, in an organization that will operate within a closed group, and that will have only incidental public exposure, logos are not an important consideration. Hiring a Secretary-General at this stage of the WCA's development is a foolish expense with very few prospects for cost-effectiveness. Incorporation is another matter; it really should be done quickly. This, however, has nothing to do with a first-year expense of 100,000,ドル or establishing a physical office, or the salary structure that it will establish for its employees. Payroll taxes for its potential employees do not depend on the jurisdiction of incorporation as long as those employees are no living and working there. The importance of incorporation is to make the association a legal person capable of doing business in its own name. Anything else is optional. Eclecticology (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Sure I support this as a volunteer ad hock group like most other newly formed organizations. I went here [1] where it said draft budget which linked me here [2] which said an equivalent of more than half a million CAD/USD and I lost my mind :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Ah, that explains it. That discussion document from last summer was not supported by the Council. The plan is to ensure we have sufficient budget to cover wind-up costs but then a professional budget to meet the goals of our charter would be proposed to the Council, as the priority of the new Secretary General, rather than unfairly letting more unpaid volunteers burn themselves out trying to put one together for free. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Most of the management of most of our chapters and thematic organizations are carried out for free by volunteers managers / directors. Some of the directors even funds the costs of the organizations they manage and will likely do so into the foreseeable future. Why should this organization be different?

If volunteers believe strongly in something it will not burn them out. That is what powers Wikipedia. Paying people can change motivation from being intrinsic to being extrinsic and decrease motivation per [3]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

We have thousands of volunteers who donate an equivalent of a full time job or more to Wikimedia causes of huge importance. People who occasionally get burned out and we lose them. Why is this position any different than the thousands of others? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

It is not particularly different to the single Chapter experience of the limitations of being an small but highly effective 'society' of unpaid volunteers, to an organization with an employed office function for administrative tasks that may be less effective but frees volunteers to deliver better value. In the case of the Association, there is a large amount of administration to be managed such as Council process (minutes, logistics, calendars, translations, expenses, budgeting, maintaining standing orders), legal and accounting requirements and simple board governance. In practice, just agreeing a budget was far too much work for unpaid volunteers and these tasks have introduced significant delay to setting up the Association. The most cost effective solution still appears to be to have an employed Secretary General, we have discussed other options, including temporary consultancies, but invariably the costs are far higher than employing one person and ensuring wind-up costs are covered. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

I do not think the major chapters where they are now and the WCA are comparable. What would be comparable to the WCA is Wiki Project Med which is trying to overcome all these same hurtles but with a budget of less than 10 thousand.

If the budget was say 10 thousand it would be much easier for volunteers to agree on. IMO this sort of organization should grow slowly from the ground up gather than attempt to appear fully formed. The latter is to great a risk. Small organization are easier to change if problems occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Comment I should like to congratulate the WMF Board on its decision. WCA has lacked any credibility ever since it elected a Chair who was already in the process of being banned from the English Wikipedia and then failed to remove him. How can an organisation whose chief is banned from the most famous Wikimedia project possibly be an appropriate place to spend Wikimedia money? This is blatant evidence of just the sort of poor governance that is being discussed. There must be better ways to spend the Wiki millions than on a talkign shop that will let anyoen lead it.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

First: No argumentum ad hominem, please. Thank you. Second: I'm a bit suprised that the Board does not support an idea that most Chapters - as shown in the Berlin Agreement - support. And this letter above doesn't explain anything to me. Kind regards, --Kellerkind (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

The support of the majority of chapter representatives does not necessarily mean the support of the majority of the Wikimedia Movement as a whole which is where the WMF should take some of its direction. I think it would be good to clarify what the majority of the Wikimedia Movement thinks of the WCA if they wish recognition by the WMF / funding from the WM movement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Personally I agree with you. Nevertheless the WMF should have an interest to have good relations to the local chapters as well. From this point of view I think this decision is, hm, a bit offensive? Kind regards, --Kellerkind (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

While thankfully we do not pay arbcom and it should stay this way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Fæ, the full set up costs of the FDC definitely have not been trifle and I definitely agree that same principles should apply to the FDC as to the WCA (requiring making a contribution for the cause), although I hope you realize that the whole FDC is also entirely unpaid and involves a huge amount of time. I also agree with the comments of Eclecticology above. The tremendous work you did on making WCA work may be unrecognized simply because you have not advertised the possible benefits and outcomes of the WCA being incorporated. More independence and more power in relations with WMF is clear - and possibly beneficial in some cases. The thing is, what else? It seems you're starting with structure, rather than with ideas/plans upfront (even though I'm pretty sure you do know what you plan to do, you just don't advertise it as effectively as the structure part). I also have to say that the Secretary General's gross salary of 246 thousand dollars (net salary plus taxes) is a really huge sum, two medium chapters could live on that for a year, so it is understandable that there is a need, in a radically transparent movement as ours, for justifying it in the effects it brings. Fæ, out of curiosity, have you even considered incorporating in w:en:Central Europe, in one of the countries with good infrastructure, high quality of life, and much lower costs of running business (and also, much lower taxes in many cases)? Taxes alone take up 160k in your budget, so any optimization there makes a difference. Pundit (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Please note there is no budget for the WCA. The document you are referring to is a draft that was made even before the Washington Meeting in June. It was then rejected. --Mglaser (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Many thanks for clarifying this. Yet, I somehow fail to understand the reasoning behind hiring a professional for quarter million dollars without a concrete plan, budget, and strategy - surely it does exist, but has not been publicized, right? Pundit (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Nobody is being hired for a quarter of a million dollars. At least not by the Chapters Association. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

That's what I thought but it is good to hear anyway :) Are you able to divulge the planned overall cost (salary + taxes) of the secretary general? It's been my understanding the hiring process is on... Also, can you confirm that you do have a program/strategy of action, but it has simply not been published yet? Finally, could you comment on the location for incorporation and if the considered countries included Central Europe? I'm asking specifically for this, as Soros Foundation operates very effectively in Budapest, Chech Republic has a max. income tax rate of 15% (and so does Lithuania), etc. Geneva, one of the four most expensive cities in the world, seems extravagant to a bystander, that's all. Pundit (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

I don't see where you take the quarter million from. I am aware of one proposal where this sum came up, but this were meant to be the costs for SG, Deputy SG, Chapter development coordinater, Office Manager and PR person. Again, this was a suggestion for a debate and it was rejected. --Mglaser (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Here, in a document which as I understand now is obsolete, there is a sum of 96 thousand Euro for Secretary General's salary, and 86 thousand Euro for Secretary General's taxes on salary, which gives a total of 246 thousand USD of effective cost (based on Belgium taxation though (削除) , but in Geneva it would be roughly similar (削除ここまで)started to read on canton, federal, municipal taxes and not sure of anything there anymore). That's why the location for incorporation has really major financial consequences - Switzerland (and particularly Geneva) is not only expensive to operate in, but also involves taxation levels higher than other countries. Pundit (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Taxation has been considered already and discussed on this very wiki, so if you had suggestions on the topic you should have shared them in advance. Also, Switzerland having high taxation sounds like a very novel concept to my ears, although maybe Luxembourg or the Seychelles would offer higher discounts (with dubious effects on reputation). --Nemo 17:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

As I wrote above, I was unable to immediately see the effective tax rate for this purpose, as Switzerland has both a low general country-level tax, as well as other canton, and city taxes on income; plus e.g. the costs of medical insurance to consider (in many EU countries included in taxes, AFAIK not so in Switzerland). All this is relevant, of course, only if the overall costs of incorporating in Switzerland make sense. Do they? High taxation in Switzerland may sound like a novel concept (and I trust that indeed all tax issues were considered, including what is covered in taxes elsewhere), while the high costs of living in one of the four most expensive cities in the world still sound rather extravagant. Again, I trust there are reasons: could someone state them? Why have not much cheaper countries in EU been considered? Plus the outstanding questions to Fæ above... Replies definitely could help in understanding the decisions and accepting the reasons behind them. Pundit (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

In this very special case I want to have single statements of every individual member of the board, including their vote. Is this possible in general? --Stepro (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1.--Aschmidt (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --Robert Radke (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --Kellerkind (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --Maor X (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --smial (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --Anja Ebersbach (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --David Ludwig (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --Fæ (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --Abbasjnr (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --Andreas JN 466 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --Nemo 16:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 --Der yck C. 16:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

It looks like the vote was unanimous. I very much doubt you'll be able to elicit statements from every Board member (I doubt all of them can even edit Meta-Wiki). It was a bit strange that this letter wasn't posted as a resolution or as a vote of no confidence more formally. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Probably the scope was circumventing the new rule which makes all individual votes public. The WMF board likes to surprise us. ;-) --Nemo 17:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

+1 -- Anthere (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC) individual statements would be lovelyReply

My name is Stu West and I’m one of the Wikimedia Foundation Trustees. I’m happy to respond to this request because I believe that all of us on the organizational side of our movement are here in large part to support you, the editors that create the projects that allow our community to pursue its vision. As it happens, that belief is also the core of my personal concerns with the proposed Chapters Association.

Like many, I am attracted to the idea that cooperative, community-driven groups can play a coaching/mentoring role across our movement. The Chapters Committee (now Affiliations Committee) has made incredible contributions for years, and Iberocoop has been a great model for how our people in our community can support one another.

As discussions around a chapters association took on some momentum a year ago, and particularly during and after the excellent community meeting Wikimedia France hosted in Paris in February of 2012, I was optimistic about the promise for such a group.

Since then, sadly, I’ve become increasingly disturbed by the actions of this nascent organization:

• It selected and empowered as Chair someone banned by our community's largest project, demonstrating a disconnect from and disrespect for our editing community. I don’t personally consider this acceptable for any individual or organization in our movement.
• Its initial proposed budget was larger than that of most of the chapters it purports to represent.
• It pursued legal incorporation and the hiring of an senior staff in an expensive location before demonstrating any contribution to our community. This was even after many (including me) suggested that it pursue some kind of actual work first to test out and better understand the value it could add.
• It selected grandiose titles for its intended staff (e.g. "Secretary-General"), demonstrating a tendency toward power/ego rather than humble (even anonymous) contribution that is the personality of our movement.

As the Foundation’s Audit Committee Chair, and a board member passionate about the organizational side of our movement, I reached out to its Chair and Vice Chair in writing in early October to share my concerns. I even made a trip to London in November and spent some time with its Chair.

Sadly, based on these interactions and on following the wikis, I concluded that the Chapters Association in its current form is not on track to be a constructive part of our community. It’s just not connected with the editors, not respectful enough of them. I’m too concerned that it’s going to be just another layer of bureaucracy and politicization that will at best be irrelevant to the pursuit of our vision and at worst slow it down.

A cooperative, community-driven body dedicated to supporting our mission and our community could be amazing -- look at what Iberocoop has done, or the ChapCom/AffCom. Unfortunately, that is not the path that the Chapters Association has ended up pursuing. Thus I joined the unanimous Board support for the letter. (PS -- i'm working on a blog post reflecting on the broader organizational issues; look for it in a few days)

Thank you for your statement. The reasons you give for your decision all look very sound.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Too bad that it shows a disconnect from reality, see #Why is AffCom not involved with this decision?. --Nemo 16:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

We discussed asking AffCom or the Foundation staff take the lead on this issue. But this is a really important issue, and a sensitive and emotional one. I think it's appropriate that the Board make the decision and communicate it. One of the core responsibilities of leadership is to take on the hard issues and stand up for what is important.Stu (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

I do not fully agree with all these points. But generally, that statement makes sense. Thanks for sharing. Anthere (talk)

Hi Stu, thanks for being the first trustee to make a statement. I note that you say the Chapters Association (with a Council formed of 21 members put forward by their home chapter boards, chapters who publicly signed up to the charter) "purports" to represent the chapters we represent. Did you intend to claim that this documented representation is false? If so, I believe you should clearly lay out the case for that claim on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Oh, as for the title "Secretary General", I never liked it either, but you know, it was a democratic decision, as was my election, though in that latter case I proposed an early fresh election for the Chair position in March 2013, you can see it was on the agenda last week. I believe I told you that was the plan, during our impromptu personal chat over dinner in January, along with the fact that I was not banned at the time of my election, and the ongoing controversial Arbcom case on the English Wikipedia was well known. Perhaps those facts escaped you. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Thanks for your statement and that you put in time end energy looking into this issue. The risk for us, the movement, to be associated with luxary spending is a real threat and which seems to be the main target from adversaries to us like The Register. The facts that is shown on this thread is all new to me, but gives me a sense of a body loosing control with reality and what we stand for. And whatever the potential for WCA, no body or part of the movement, should be given the leeway to be in conflict with our key values. As a volonteer spending som 1500 hour/year editing in my free timw I thank the Board for this decision.Anders Wennersten (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

The letter from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is a surprise to the Chapters Association Council members. It was created without formally approaching the Chair or the Council members, in the weeks before the planned board meeting for advance consultation, or to arrange a presentation by the Council members, in order properly to respond to trustee perceived issues.

I would like the Council to have the opportunity in our meeting on the 16th February to consider all options and views, so that we can continue our strategy that will deliver a Wikimedia community led initiative for best practice governance, and a well developed fully elected association that embodies a strong community voice. I invite trustees from the Foundation board to freely and openly express their individual and differing viewpoints in advance of that meeting, so that Council Members are clear on the issues and what would be necessary and sufficient to resolve them.

I would ask for timely and open engagement from all interested Foundation board members, should they have continuing concerns, rather than waiting for another board meeting.

I look forward to reaching a consensus with my fellow Council members on delivering our mission, during the coordination meeting on the weekend of 16th February.

Thank you. --Fæ (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Hello Kat,

Originally I wrote an inline comment about nearly every phrase of this WMF board statement concerning the WCA. But then, the statement was published before I could send the comment to you. Here a summary of my original text as reply.

In general, the WMF board statement raises more questions than it answers; it is uncomprehensible to me why such a bold and judgemental statement was found necessary, at this moment, and for what reason.

During the entire year 2012, we heard from the WMF (board and staff) many positive signals about the establishment of a Wikimedia Chapters Association. So I find it very strange to read that in the 'early stages' the WMF board was optimistic but now suddenly fails to 'envision' a positive development.

When I asked WMF vice director Erik Moeller on March 12th, 2012 about the name 'Wikimedia Chapters Association', he was perfectly okay with it. He even copied for me this sentence from a chapters agreement: 'The Chapter is obliged to utilize the Wikimedia logo and name in all their related activities and is hereby authorized to do so by the Foundation.'

All in a sudden, in late December 2012, a message from the WMF Legal Counsel Geoff Brigham admonished that the WCA has to follow the usual steps for recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate. - How came that during roughly nine months the WMF did not think about this? We were given the impression that this was rather a formality.

WCA Council Members did have many, many conversations with the WMF (board and staff), and chapter people. How can anyone say that there has not been enough 'consulting'?

Concerning movement resources – the WCA hasn't spend much money so far, and intends just to have one employee in the nearby future. Considering that the WMF has more than 140 employees, the WMF board statement's remark about movement resources for the WCA looks very disproportional. Our plan, encouraged by the FDC, that in future the WCA would request WMF grants or FDC funds, and at that point the WCA request would have been considered the same way as any other request.

It is true that the developments in the WCA are some months slower than everybody expected in July 2012 in Washington. But in comparison to the early years of the WMF itself, or of many chapters, or of many other organizations, the developments are not particularly slow. Just recently we sent out the Secretary General job offer (which can not have been a surprise to the WMF) and have the final discussions about the incorporation.

Please keep in mind that democratic processes take longer than deliberating within a small group. It was the will of more than 20 chapters representing several thousand Wikimedians to establish a Wikimedia Chapters Association, which of course still exists, even if the WMF withdraws the name 'Wikimedia'. Especially in the recent development, with a number of new movement entities, this is a strange, surprising and more than premature decision.

It would be in the interest of the whole movement to come to a trustful and cooperative relationship between the WMF and the chapters. The last months we have seen so many positive signals, such as the FDC Round 1. The WMF board statement concerning the WCA insinuates that it has to protect the movement and the trademarks from harm but leaves it unclear exactly how and why the WCA is harmful. Why this attitude of distrust regarding the WCA and the chapters, with no clear justification?

I, personally, have so often defended the WMF, I have assumed good faith where many others were suspicious. The WMF board statement makes now undue assumptions about an organization that is not even one year old. After such a statement, I honestly ask myself what should be my assumptions about the WMF board and its true intentions.

Yours sincerely,

Ziko van Dijk

Deputy Chairman of the WCA Council
Wikipedia editor since 2003
Ziko (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

I have one fundamental question about the statement: why is this a WMF board statement, rather than an AffCom recommendation? There is no reference to the involvement of AffCom in the statement above, from which the only sensible conclusion is that they haven't been consulted, despite the decision being one that relates purely to movement organisation affiliation. I can't help but to see hypocrisy in Stu's praise for AffCom above, and to see this statement as yet another move by WMF to undermine the credibility of volunteer-led initiatives in the Wikimedia movement. Der yck C. 16:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

(edit conflicted) The AffCom has already been declared redundant when Geoff announced that it's no longer going to be the body managing early trademark authorisation and that the Legal department will no longer work with and in the AffCom but rather make its case to the board directly (as allowed by the secretary of the board having unlimited access to the board itself).[4] As I said earlier this morning, the AffCom should be disbanded for the benefit of clarity and transparency. --Nemo 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

While this budget [5] has been rejected. Before I would feel comfortable weighting in further I would like to see how this organization is planning on funding itself? If its a group of volunteers with minimal cost it has my support otherwise I would need to see an excellent argument. Anyway back to what I get paid to do :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Per "Possibly the new FDC will support the WCA directly or indirectly."? What is the plan if the FDC / WMF does not agree to fund either directly or indirectly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

If we are planning on creating a new major organization to represent the WM movement funded by the movement should we not have general consensus from the movement through a RfC? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Correction: this organization is aimed at representing the WM Chapters, not the WM movement. Secondly, I am very surprised that you are asking these questions _now_: you are the President of Wikimedia Canada, and should have been aware of the WCA discussions...Abbasjnr (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Yes but the chapters represent the movement and thus the movement generally should be asked to comment on a major decision like this. WMCA is neutral in this proposal.

Additionally it is the movement that creates the content which brings in the donations. If the money is coming from this pot should the community not be asked to comment? If the funding is coming from outside the movement than yes we need not ask them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Indeed such a question is surprising from a chapter president: you should be aware that chapters are democratic organisations which democratically represent thousands of members, way more than the numbers any WMF board election or RfC ever had (except the re-licensing referendum some years ago). The consensus and representativeness of the Wikimedia movement is therefore apparent, unless you're accusing the chapters' boards and presidents (i.e. yourself?) of misrepresenting the will of their members. I don't remember the details for every chapter, but WMDE discussed the topic at their assembly and the CA council member for WMIT is elected by the assembly; if your chapter has internal democracy issues, please fix them. Cheers, Nemo 16:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Of course I subscribe the passages on democracy in the #Reply from the Deputy Chair, which perfectly reflect what I wrote here. --Nemo 16:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

I'm not quite sure James and you are talking about the same thing, actually. I might be wrong but he seems to be looking at how many people are actually involved in things. If you go with that: the chapter volunteer with the biggest democratic mandate I ever came across has been Ralf of WMDE with 243 votes (out of a membership of ~2400 (likely more; I don't have the actual membership size of the election day on hand) 257 voted on his position; 50+ WMDE members actually turn up on an annual assembly while others seem to hand in a reply-letter to the assembly files once a year. 218 votes by letter in Ralf's case named). That's, by the turn-out stick, less than the least popular successful ArbCom-candidate got in the last election on en.wp (271), significantly less than the number of folks bothering to vote on any candidate in the last WMF board election, and broadly in line with a modestly popular de.wp-community vote (fair to note that WMDE membership and de.wp's editing community partially overlap). Your argument seems to go in quite another direction - being based on the number of members in general, right? If so, the two of you are talking both about different concepts of representation and about different sets of people to be represented by whoever is supposed to represent them somehow (or not), best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply

Of course I'm referring to members: that's what everyone does when speaking of an association, as it's the whole point of associating. Members are all represented because they have the possibility to change any decision they don't agree with: as you kindly note, reinforcing my argument, there's big space and ease to organise and amend any decision in the assembly, just with numbers. Compare the WMF where community members don't have any voice and not even a process to propose something to the board is in place. --Nemo 18:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Reply