Talk:Task force/Movement Roles
Contents
 First page |
 Previous page |
 Next page |
 Last page |
We're being asked what additional structures are necessary to support the Wikimedia movement.
It's obvious that community health is a big challenge for us, and we need to pay attention to it. We want to foster a community that's healthy and happy and effective, so that editors and projects can flourish. I am really glad that the people at the Community Health Task Force are talking about mechanisms for doing this. But I also think that one aspect of community health falls inside our scope: I believe that a meta-structure of people (with responsibility across projects and language versions) would be helpful, to monitor and support community/project health on an ongoing basis. [1]
This structure could bear some resemblance to Lodewijk's Volunteer Council proposal from last year – which was itself of course a variant of an idea that's been kicking around for years.
What role do we think a pan-project, pan-language, meta-level structure could play in advancing the mission by supporting community/project health? How high a priority should this be, and/or should it be a priority at all? One of the Movement Roles recommendations could be something like:
The Wikimedia movement should establish a Volunteer Council, for the purpose of monitoring and supporting community/project health on an ongoing basis.
Should we do that?
[1] I think it would be fairly straightforward to set up qualitative and quantitative metrics to track community/project health. Stuff like number of articles, number of active editors, average article quality, number of new editors who stay past five edits, editors' self-assessment of community health, etc. Some of that tracking is already done here: http://infodisiac.com/blog/2009/10/the-wikimedia-report-card/ But there's not much point in tracking that kind of information, if there's nobody to receive it, think about it, and act upon it. So for example, let's say one language-community experiences a spike in happiness or article quality: ideally somebody would be responsible for noticing that and trying to figure out what other communities might be able to learn from why it happened. Or for example if a language-version suddenly starts to fail: we would want to have mechanisms in place for knowing that, so that we can help.
What would be the primary purpose of such a Volunteer Council?
There are several different directions that such a concept could be taken in, as I read Lodewijk's proposal: (1) something to maintain community health, (2) something to establish Wikimedia-wide project policies and (3) something having a sort of "editorial" role in content matters. I guess we have to determine which of these are we focusing on here.
Yeah. I will write up a post later tonight with some thoughts on this :-)
Okay, I am not sure that LT is the best tool for having this conversation, so I started a page here Task_force/Movement_Roles/Additional_Structures_Rough_Work
I am exhausted now! -- please go edit that page when you have time :-)
Thanks, the purpose of this is rather clearer to me now, and I've also made some comments on that page.
Since the concept of the Volunteer Council does indeed include a sort of editorial role in addition to just furthering "community health" (which would be somewhat of a nebulous goal by itself), I certainly consider this a valuable addition to our Wikimedia structures, and I support this recommendation.
Following Eekim's suggestion, I have now started a short Volunteer Council page to summarize existing discussions on this wiki.
I would like to now propose that we include language for a Proposal:International Wikimedia Chapters Network.
Obviously the real decision on this issue lays in the hands of the various chapters, but I feel that a small boost from this task force could help move this process along.
So, I think we might say:
The Wikimedia movement should establish an International Wikimedia Chapters Network, for the purpose of increasing communication, cooperation and representation, both among the chapters and between the chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation.
Pharos,
This is an idea that really resonates with the research and interviews that I have been doing about other global NGOs and networks and what lessons the Wikimedia movement can potentially learn from their experiences. Every organization I have talked to so far (Habitat, Save the Children, Greenpeace, Medecins Sans Frontieres) has moved in the past 10 years or so to create a central representative entity with many of the roles and responsibilities that you describe here and in the proposal (communication, collaboration, making decisions that impact all chapter, etc). And in many cases (e.g. Habitat), the need for this central entity arose from a situation that seems similar to Wikimedia in many ways: Chapters popped up organically around the world, and the movement became big enough where they realized that they could do more if they worked together.
The accountability questions that you raise are really interesting. It seems like the force of the network's resolutions would be directly related to what it could offer the chapters in return for complying. And maybe there would also need to be some sort of contract or agreement that chapters signed when they joined?
Great to hear that this is something that resonates with the experiences of other movements, and that we're not alone in the task of trying to bring together a movement that has grown in diverse places very organically.
I think it would be a good step for chapters to sign agreements to invest themselves into what would probably be a pretty lightweight Chapters Network at first, but something that could grow over time in its definition and responsibilities.
I'll add my comment here, as opposed to the redlinked talk page that nobody might read ;)
The Wikimedia movement should establish an International Wikimedia Chapters Network, for the purpose of increasing communication, cooperation and representation, both among the chapters and between the chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation.
I am not sure I understand this proposal. Or rather, the way I understand it, I am rather worried at the results it can yield in the longer run. Reading the (short) discussion, I understand that the proposal aims at looking at organizing the chapters around a "central" kind of piece, which would take care of ensuring communication, collaboration, making decisions etc. However, the way the recommandation is phrased, it seems to me that the task force proposes that the network of chapters be a separate entity from the Foundation. ie. we'd have the chapters on one side (organized, say, à la Greenpeace), and the Foundation on the other. I have studied a bit the governance and structural models of international organisations, and there are none where I have seen two "central pieces" or "international pieces" (formal or informal) or whatever you want to call them.
As such, I am interested to understand better where the Foundation stands were there to be a "network of chapters" as per your proposal. Am I reading this wrong, or is the "network of chapters" meant to develop among chapters and chapters only? I can imagine a "Wikimedia network" developping and increasing communication, cooperation and representation, not a "chapters network" that seems not to fully integrate the Foundation, but rather develop as a counterpart to it. Thanks for your clarifications.
That was actually me Delphine (notafish) 22:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Certainly the WMF and the chapters should be integrated much more fully than they are now. And I don't mean for the described arrangement to imply any sort of forking of paths; I would rather actually see this "network" as a pragmatic first step along the road to organizing some more permanent and integrated institutional arrangement.
Cool. If that's your intent, then what do you think about rephrasing the recommendation along those lines:
The Wikimedia movement should establish an International Wikimedia Network, for the purpose of increasing communication, cooperation and representation, among all Wikimedia organisations, including chapters and Foundation.
We might need to center it more on the part the Wikimedia Foundation would play (something like: "The Wikimedia Foundation should foster, along with chapters, the establishment of an International Wikimedia Network, for the purpose of increasing communication, cooperation and representation, among all Wikimedia organisations."
Have you looked at the details at Proposal:International Wikimedia Chapters Network?
There we have it structured with each chapter designating a single representative for the network; I kind of see this as a pragmatic step to get a body actually operational with the various chapter representatives in the short term, and then in the longer term working toward directly integrating the role of the WMF into these processes.
That said, I would have no problem at all with calling this structure the "International Wikimedia Network" and making other suggested wording changes, in recognition of our goals where we want to be taking this in the future.
As a matter of fact, I have. The points raised in that proposal are important (especially the "delegation" part, which allows for timely decisions), but the issue remains the same. If it's only chapters, we're de facto reinforcing the idea that chapters need to get organized in order to talk to the Foundation. My view is chapters and Foundation need to get organized together, in order to talk to one another (and this means organisation to organisation). It could be called the "International Wikimedia Council", or something like that, it's not so important. What's important, I find, is not to restrict it to one kind of organisation.
Sorry, I think I misunderstand your comment, Delphine. As long as you're OK with keeping the "delegation" part (which I also think is the most important element), I'd be very happy to have some expansions of this organizational idea.
To me, the important part is delegation as in Each chapter will designate a single person (either the chapter's lead officer or another person so designated by the chapter), who will represent the chapter in issues that come before the body.. But it would be even better if that said: Each Wikimedia organisation will designate a single person (either the organisation's lead officer or another person so designated by the organisation), who will represent the organisation in issues that come before the body..
In short, the idea of a "Council/Network/Thing (as De Gaulle put it ;)) is something I totally agree with, just it should be very clear that this "Council" involves all Wikimedia organisations, not just chapters. The phrasing "organisations" is maybe a bit lame, since well, there's only chapters and foundation at this stage, but it has the merit of making clear that we're not having the chapters on one side, the foundation on the other. Mind you, I'm pretty sure we agree on the bottom line and we're just stumbling on words and their interpretation :)
I guess different situations will call for different sets of organizations needing to be represented. Some situations will call for chapters only, some will call for chapters in combination with WMF, some will call for only a subset of chapters, etc.
My original suggestion was meant to take care of the simplest case; the set of chapter organizations deciding "chapter issues", because it should be relatively easy in this situation to agree that each chapter has one vote, and that each chapter will be counted equally. So, I hope that for issues of this sort, we can have some kind of de facto chapters network working.
I suppose that for issues that call for a combination of the chapters and the WMF, some more complicated form of organization will be needed, because we presumably wouldn't treat the WMF as simply equivalent to one of the chapters. I'm unsure how that situation should be balanced exactly, but I do think it will require some additional complexity that wouldn't be necessary when dealing with pure "chapters issues".
I just want to make sure that we are able to deal with the simple case first, ie "chapters issues", while also leaving room for finding a balance with WMF+chapters and other combinations.
The question here would be, what are "chapters issues"? To me, there are only "chapters issues" because we keep on thinking chapters vs foundation (or chapters // (parallel) foundation if you want to be less "confrontational"). My take is to say, there are only "organisational issues" and those should be tackled with all Wikimedia Organisations, not by the chapters in their own little corner, nor by the foundation on its own. As for the question of "one chapter one vote", it is probably a whole strategic process into itself ;). You're thinking representation. If there is representation, then this "representative" body must have some kind of final usage/power/strength, whatever you want to call it. A chapters network to makde decision that noone is going to apply is probably useless. Hence the call for making sure that all parties with a stake in those decisions be represented and that decisions made in turn apply to all organisations represented.
Hi everyone,
Over the past few weeks, there's been some great discussions about the task force recommendations. There's some great energy here on this wiki, and I want to start moving toward completion. That includes:
- Integrating the feedback into the existing recommendations
- Filling in gaps (areas such as movement roles, expanding content, and reader conversion)
- Evaluation and prioritizing the recommendations
- Writing a draft plan
To get this work done, I'm proposing the creation of a Strategy Task Force. I hope that you all will read and help refine the proposal, and I especially hope that many of you sign up for the Task Force. Let's also move the discussions there so that we can have a central place to discuss next steps for strategy. Thanks!
It strikes me that one thing we could do is create a list of the most important work that needs to be done, and then assess for each piece of work 1) who currently carries does it, if anyone, 2) who we believe in future is or could be best-positioned to do it, and 3) what its potential is for helping to advance the mission. If we did that, we'd end up with a gap analysis. We could then look at the highest priority / highest potential work, and make a recommendation for change where either nobody is focusing on something important, or the wrong entity is focusing on something important.
That's one idea: there may be better ones :-)
Also FYI, I think Bridgespan is doing some interviews with other international non-profits, to see what models already exist, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. I assume that will be posted when it's ready.
Hi Sue, I like the idea. It goes hand in hand with the list of Foundation's roles above (which I still haven't commented, but will do), but looks at the single tasks without the preset connection to specific roles, groups or institutions. Perhaps we can merge both ideas and start a collection at Task force/Movement Roles/Wikimedia roles with the help of Meetups/Chapters (November 2009) and other ressources.
I have now drawn from the 5 proposed recommendations made on this page to create:
In a couple of cases I have also slightly modified the wording of recommendations, incorporating later suggested amendments.
I have now added a 6th proposed recommendation to Task force/Recommendations/Movement roles.
I would like to now propose that we include language for Proposal:Regional Working Groups.
This proposal was primarily conceived with small sub-national efforts in mind, such as a "Wikimedia Working Group for Tennessee", but it could potentially apply to other cases as well.
So, I think we might say:
The Wikimedia movement should enable volunteers to form Regional Working Groups as a sub-Chapter status under one or more designated organizers, for the purpose of futhering Wikimedia local activities and outreach in areas where full Chapters are not practicable.
I've noticed a lot of good work on relevant pages for this task force on Movement roles. Just wanted to make sure people here are aware of it. Please take a look and help continue to flesh it out. Thanks!
Last week, User:Witty lama had a great post where he wrote:
- At what point is something "controversial"? As far as I can remember there hasn't been a single decision in the history of Wikimedia that has received universal support. Some people will complain no matter what happens. When you're the person doing the complaining it is your POV that the issue is "controversial", whereas when you're the one who isn't complaining then it is your POV that the issue is NOT "controversial" and the complainers are just overreacting.
There seems to be an ongoing paralysis to try things, because people are waiting for feedback from "the community", and they don't necessarily know how to get it or how to interpret it. My questions are:
- What are our current mechanisms for understanding what "the community" wants?
- Are there other potentially better mechanisms for polling "the community"?
- How good do our mechanisms for community feedback need to be before we can rely on them for decision-making?
An obvious example is advertising, but I'm sure there are many others. Would be interested in people's thoughts.
I think the best proposed solution so far to the community paralysis issue has been Lodewijk's idea of a "Volunteer Council", taken up by Sue here as a recommendation for this task force.
The Volunteer Council would of course be a broadbrush multi-project Wikimedia group, though, and we would have to look at more specific, possibly analogous, arrangements to deal with issues affecting individual projects such as the English Wikipedia.
It would be great if someone could actually articulate what the Volunteer Council idea is: What purpose it would serve, and so forth. If there are links to existing information on this, could you post them to Volunteer Council? Thanks!
Good point, I have now summarized the existing material and provided links to the relevant discussions at the Volunteer Council page.
I'm curious to know whether we believe we should invest in accelerating chapter development.
Currently there are 27 chapters, which means that about 14% of the world's countries have a Wikimedia chapter. More than half are in Europe – typically, generally, chapters have developed most naturally and easily in rich countries, with good educational systems and internet penetration, lots of leisure time, and a history of free speech.
There is no real consensus about the role of the chapters, although many have focused on public outreach work (for example, Germany, Sweden, Israel, Poland, Argentina, have all staged Wikipedia Academies), and many handle media relations inside their country (for example, I know that Germany, the UK and Israel do this,and I assume lots of others do as well).
James Owen and I did a rough projection which suggests that, if chapter development continues to progress at its current rate, then we will have 100 chapters by 2023 -- covering roughly half the world's countries.
So I am curious to know what we think about that.
- What role do we think the chapters currently play in advancing the mission, and what role do we think they might theoretically play in future.
- How high a priority should accelerating chapter development be, and/or should it be a priority at all?
One of the Movement Roles recommendations could be something like this:
The Wikimedia movement should invest in stimulating the development of more chapter (or chapter-like) organizations.
Should we do that?
I agree that accelerating chapter development should be a high priority.
Raw chapter numbers are not everything, though. There should also be a focus on the further development of existing chapters, which often still have a far way to go to realize the potential of something like Wikimedia Deutschland.
Yep, I agree. I am not sure that all the chapters actually aspire to develop though.
Which to me raises the question of what is the core purpose of a chapter: for example, what distinguishes a chapter from a WikiPod?
Well, I would say that what distinguishes a chapter is an exclusive geographical remit. There can only be one Wikimedia France, for example, and other Wikimedia-oriented groups in France should be looking toward the Wikimedia France chapter.
The "WikiPod" concept is a useful one, though I can't say I'm a big fan of the too-cool-for-school name :)
Applying it to groups at, say a university level (leaving out the idea of applying this concept to a national-scale entity, which I somewhat disagree with), a team like this would be one of any number of potential Wikimedia-oriented university groups throughout a particular chapter's region. Also of course, it would not have to be a legal entity, but there is no reason why some of these university level groups (eg, a Wikimedia Colunbia University) might not evolve into legal entities with time.
I would suggest that this recommendation could be augmented with some specifics of ways for the WMF to accelerate chapter development, particularly with Sue's idea of seed funding for chapter staff, and perhaps also some other ideas in this thread:
#What costs should each group - chapters and the Foundation - be responsible for covering?
What costs should each group - chapters and the Foundation - be responsible for covering?
Starting thread with this question, which we've been asked to answer.
The WMF has always covered the cost of hosting and bandwidth. The chapters have been working on the things they consider important in their realm which typically is geographic. For many geographic areas there is no chapter and consequently the needs for these areas has largely not been addressed. When money is allocated for such areas it has defaulted to the foundation.
As we grow our chapters, our foundation, more activities can be started. Depending which board (WMF or chapter) has the will and the funding these activities can be funded. There is much more that will directly help our projects that can be funded and that will have a big beneficial impact. Thanks,
Yep, I agree, Gerard.
Projecting into the future, it seems obvious to me that, without intervention, the rich will get richer and the poor poorer. Chapters are generally most-mature in the richest countries, e.g., Germany. And, chapters will quite naturally tend to spend the bulk of their revenues inside their country. (Some spending will benefit "everyone," and some spending may even be specifically targeted to developing countries. But the bulk of their spending will happen inside their own geography.)
What's ironic about that is, of course, that it's in developing countries that the projects are most-needed and most-useful, and it's developing countries that will have the most difficulty raising money to fund their own activities. So, unless someone steps up to fund activities in developing countries, they will likely happen very very slowly, or not at all.
I think that therefore, the Wikimedia Foundation should fund work designed to increase awareness, reach and participation, in developing countries. I just don't see another entity currently in a position to do that. Do other people have thoughts about this?
There are many investments that will benefit all projects and particularly benefit the smaller projects. An example is registering the most sought articles we do not have.. When you publish this, projects will write what our readers are looking for. When you also show the most read articles written in the last month, you promote the creation of the articles that make a difference.
We do not support web fonts while languages like Malayam and Amharic would benefit from this. Lack of font support is a show stopper. Spending money on the ABILITY to support web fonts makes it more easy to support marginal languages. Marginal in the sense of projects performing marginally or not at all.
When we link Commons to lexical resourced categories we can provide search capability to other languages. A first step could be the Wikiword functionality by Duesentrieb however, this does not help languages where there is no article ... When people are not able to find media, they are less likely to add media.. With such multi lingual support, it becomes possible to add categories in people's own language and this helps remove the current western bias.
The whole question of responsibilities and directions of funding is very much dependent on the state of development of the different chapters, as they vary rather a lot in terms of resources. Seed funding and an elaboration of the chapter grants system would of course be more relevant issues to the smaller chapters.
I agree that the WMF should take a lead in reaching out to developing countries without chapters, but I also feel that in certain cases it may be advantageous for the WMF to sponsor one of the existing chapters in pursuing a project in a developing country (if the chapter is particularly well-suited for outreach in that country).
In our context, any country that has no chapter is a developing country. When you consider countries like Belgium, Estonia, Malta but also Tanzania, Peru and Mexico we are talking about countries that all do not really participate in the Wiki movement. When you then look at the languages that they could represent, you find that they are all underdeveloped.
Chapters are important and we should strive to get the fundamentals right for a chapter in every country.
That could be an alternative way to share money and experiences. Others are possible, i.e. an "international-supporting-pot", which is filled with a percentage of each chapters income (or a fix amount, or what a chapter is able to give or ...). The sum of it could be spent in supporting activities in a developing country. One country for a year, so you are able to find donors who give their money especially for this aim. Just an idea without thinking about how to realize sth like this. But such constellations could change the responsibility for money. Not or doing of course, but this thread is about costs. ;-)
In addition to looking at seed funding from the WMF for initial chapter staff (see Wikimedia Chapters for current status), I think we could also examine the possibility of the WMF in some limited cases directly taking on an employee to assist a chapter in their region on a temporary basis, with the payroll being taken up by the chapter itself after professionalization has made the administrative and legal handling of this easier.
Another possibility that has been mentioned is the creation of new positions at the WMF in San Francisco that could help coordinate and augment some aspects of the chapters' activities; I know for example that a Wikimedia GLAM (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) relations employee has been proposed.
Question: should we recommend enabling universities to take on the chapter role in some developing countries
I would like to now propose that we include language to enable nonmembership structures such as university departments to serve in the chapter role in those countries where it is difficult to form a legal nonprofit, such as in many developing countries.
This would not be a change of policy so much as a shift of emphasis, as the Chapters Committee has historically made a membership structure a "guideline" rather than a "requirement", recognizing that different countries may have different needs, something which has indeed turned out to be the case. Still, as a nonmembership-based chapter would be unconventional in this way, I feel it will be helpful for us to take a clear and positive approach to this option.
I believe that in most such cases of a nonmembership-based chapter, partnering with a like-minded university department would be the most practical and desirable option for our purposes, but we should certainly remain open to other potential partnerships as well.
Of course, this would add a new option for chapters in the developing world, but it would not take away at all from the existing options. Wikimedia Brazil is the prime example of a chapter that views forming a new legal nonprofit as an impossibility for them, but in that case and in others the choice would be left to the chapter organizers themselves, as they encounter different legal contexts in different parts of the developing world.
It should also be clear that just because an organization is not structured as a "legal membership organization", does not mean that regular participants would not have a strong voice in the organization, just as the WMF itself is a nonmembership organization that has structures for the election of community seats to its board, etc.
So, I think we might say:
The Wikimedia movement should enable nonmembership structures such as university departments to serve in the chapter role in countries where it is difficult to form a legal nonprofit, for the purpose of furthering Wikimedia chapters and local activities throughout the developing world.
What are current and future roles and expectations of Chapters? How might roles vary in different country contexts? What policies would support/enhance Chapter roles?
Starting a thread with this question, which we've been asked to answer.
I think we have to look at enhancing the opportunity to develop chapters in the two contexts where this is currently difficult: large, decentralized countries (like the US) and some developing countries where it is difficult to found a legal nonprofit.
For very decentralized countries, I think we have to look toward encouraging subnational chapters, with the eventual goal of them coming together into strong multinodal national chapters.
For the developing countries where it is difficult to form a legal nonprofit, I think we have to look into recognizing entities such as a like-minded university department to serve in the chapter role (this type of chapter would be unconventional in that it would not be a membership organization, but this is not actually a requirement for chapters).
I am going to reply to this thread in the hope of re-jumpstarting the conversation! In order to answer this question, it seems like it would be helpful to compile all of the existing information (documented and not) about the current state of chapters. For instance:
- How active/inactive are the current chapters?
- How similar are the roles and responsibilities that each chapter plays?
- What challenges do chapters face in getting off the ground?
- What ongoing challenges do chapters face?
What else would be important to know? Are there existing resources that would be helpful here? Who else could we reach out to in order to get a better sense for what is going on with chapters now?
I think there has been some divergence of the niches that the chapters have fitted themselves into over time; some of this is a healthy specialization based on local circumstances and culture, but there are also some problematic aspects.
Detailed information on these divergences is unfortunately somewhat lacking at this stage.
I think that to harmonize things, we should look toward greater interchapter communication efforts; hopefully this is a task that a future Chapters Network can take a lead on. We should therefore probably work on brainstorming some new ways to keep each other in touch, with mechanisms that are more intuitive and and with a lower perceived barrier of entry than the current Chapter Reports scheme. This could include something as simple as a regular "What's up with your chapter?" thread on the chapters mailing list, and could reasonably extend to things like regular real-time online chapters meetings.
I would like to now propose that we include language for site-wide geoip-based notices to promote real life events of a local character.
This is related to Proposal:Geonotice improvements.
I realize that some might think that this is an overly specialist recommendation, but I feel that it is essential to the growth of meetups, local events, and chapter activities, especially in those countries which do not "own" a language edition of Wikipedia, such as the chapters in the various English-speaking countries.
I believe this issue is one of strategic importance because such a scale of promotion of real life events to the general public, though limited to only certain limited geographical areas and only in connection with certain local events, is something new to us, somewhat comparable to the fundraiser notices.
The most important goal here would be to promote these local activities to the general public, who though they might have a great potential interest are often totally unaware of such events' existence, and oblivious to watchlist notices because they do not have accounts (yet!).
Of course, these notices would be opt-out, so as not to annoy any of our regular editors.
So, I think we might say:
The Wikimedia movement should establish site-wide notices on Wikipedia and other projects to promote real life events of a local character, for the purposes of furthering interaction with the general public, the growth of real world volunteerism and the development of chapters.
I believe by "site-wide notice" you mean the use of the SiteNotice (e.g. the fundraising banner) but localised to a specific geographical area rather than across the whole language edition?
I agree with both of your points that a) this is an interesting/important issue and b) this is probably too specific for a strategic level recommendation. Rather, would it be more appropriate to suggest that the WMF investigate improvements in the ease, means and effectiveness of contacting people involved in the Wikimedia community. SiteNotice is one of them, as is the Geo-IP notice that appears in your watchlist and although it's still pretty much a hack, it's the most effective way we have of contacting people in our local areas. There must be a better way!
I quite like the idea. The trouble with site-wide notices is that there are so many issues that could really use being brought to wider attention that it's tempting to use such notices for all of them. But if one does that then everyone just ends up dismissing the notices and people start to tune them out. So it's a tricky one. I support the thought behind this, whether it's the best solution I'm not sure.
I agree. That's why my wording of the suggestion is not specific to SiteNotice, but rather says: "that the WMF investigate improvements in the ease, means and effectiveness of contacting people involved in the Wikimedia community". Currently our mechanisms are not good - Sitenotice is too blunt, Geo-ip too hacky, mailing lists and talkpage notifications are too "opt-in" to catch people who are passers-by to the community. There must be some combination of technical and cultural fixes to the problem of poor communication mechanisms - especially with contacting the non-core users.
Yeah, I don't mean SiteNotice specifically, which is why I tried to use the nontechnical wording. Maybe we can just call it a "notice reaching the general readership in a local area" or something. I do think it would be helpful if we're somewhat specific about what we might want such a notice to accomplish (i.e. to reach both editors and readers in a certain geographical area, probably with a short text message), even as we leave open whatever technical form this might take.
Yesterday I had an interesting conversation with Adrio Bacchetta, an expert on global non-profit organizational management who is currently project managing a governance reform initiative for a global humanitarian NGO.
I have posted the notes for the interview here and a couple of summary points here.
Hopefully they are helpful!
Hi everyone,
My name is Tyler and I am a member of the Bridgespan team that is helping to facilitate the strategic planning process. I am hoping to support the important work of this task force by helping to synthesize existing information and conducting supporting research and benchmarking/best practice analysis. I have posted the approach I am planning to take, and will begin posting some initial findings for the task force to take a look at soon. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's reactions to what we learn, as well as suggestions for where it would be helpful to dig deeper (or where we already have information that would help to push things further). Thanks!
Team - It is worth having a gander at the work Tyler is doing on this. [[1]]
Lots of important lessons to draw from other global NGOs - info there on Habitat for Humanity, Save the Children and more to come. Will be helpful to Wikimedia.
I could also use your help! It has been suggested that it would be helpful to document some of the most critical internal decision-making and project management systems and processes that have been developed by the Community (e.g. dispute resolution, managing writer and editors). I have created a space here and would appreciate any suggestions for the best way to move forward quickly. What are the systems and processes that play the most important role in Community decision-making and project management? What resources already exist that we could build on or link to? Thanks!
I also wanted to let everyone know that I had a very interesting conversation with Jon Huggett, a former partner at Bridgespan and expert on global organizations. Some of the highlights from the conversation relevant to movement roles are below, and the full interview notes are posted here. Hopefully they are interesting and helpful!
Highlights:
- Based on the number of active contributors and readers, it sounds like Wikimedia is a relatively healthy organization that is facing challenges that are common to global NGOs and networks looking to grow
- Now, Wikimedia needs to build on that success and find ways to build and sustain global coherence
- Work with other global orgs has highlighted 3 keys to successful global governance, which seem to tie very closely to the challenges WMF is facing:
- Maintaining clear focus on the organization’s impact goals
- Building a multi-faceted and global leadership team, and
- Clearly defining roles and responsibilities
- Getting roles and responsibilities “right” is less about overall structure and more about creating effective, complimentary relationships that facilitate collaboration and make all org components feel connected and accountable to the network
So I've been going around for literally months telling people how important it is to submit their ideas as proposals so that they can be taken into account during this process. I finally put my money where my mouth is, and created my own proposal. Since it's something that I believe should be housed at the Foundation, I'm posting it here, but cross-posting to the Quality and Community Health task forces.
User:JohnF just posted notes from his interview with Mozilla Foundation's John Lilly and Mitchell Baker (board members). There's stuff there that's relevant to movement roles. I'd encourage people to read those notes and comment here.
I hope that the Mozilla Foundation Wikimedia-pedia page starts getting fleshed out with relevant data, as I think it's an interesting model to consider when thinking about Movement Roles.
What roles are volunteers best positioned to play within the movement and what support do they need from the Foundation, Chapters, or other structures within the movement in order to do so?
Starting a thread with this question, which we've been asked to answer.
We should assume that volunteers will perform 99% of the movement's activities, and work on identifying the other 1% that volunteers are either unable to do, or are unable to do without help from the WMF or Chapters.
We should assume that the Foundation undergirds and supports the movement by providing services that require professional staff, in hours greater than what could be donated and effectively managed by volunteers.
Here is the list of "roles" as defined in the Movement Roles mandate. I'll comment on them in a separate post.
- Wikimedia movement strategy
- Governance and legal
- Brand management, marketing and communications
- Community growth and health
- Project development and management
- Financial sustainability: cost alignment, fundraising, revenue generation
- Alliance and partnerships for expanding reach, increasing content and content quality, technology, and advocacy
- Technology infrastructure maintenance and development
- Technology innovation
- Advocacy
So, taking them apart:
- Wikimedia movement strategy: this seems like something we want and need to do collectively (as we are, here).
- Governance and legal: Governance work is by definition generally volunteers. (The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is made up of volunteers who receive no compensation; I believe that is also true for all the chapters boards, although I am not sure.)
- The sole lawyer employed by the Wikimedia movement is Mike Godwin. Mike sometimes engages other lawyers for specific work that needs to get done (sometimes for legal defense outside the United States, or administrative issues that require a specific legal skillset). But, we also depend heavily on volunteers for legal support -- e.g., the Bay Area legal firm Wilson Sonsini donated 100K+ in pro bono legal support during 2008-09, and there are a number of lawyers outside the United States who help us with legal defense on a pro bono basis.)
- Brand management, marketing and communications: Currently, brand management, marketing and communications is handled for the Wikimedia Foundation by paid staff, supported as required by paid consultants. The chapters' brand management, marketing and communications is handled by volunteers, with the exception of the German chapter, where it's done by paid staff. Volunteers speak publicly in their role as volunteers, as they see fit. Some of that work is coordinated on ComCom.
- Community growth and health: I am not sure who is currently considered responsible for this. Probably the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, ultimately.
- Project development and management: I am not exactly sure what this refers to, and I am not sure who is responsible for it.
- Financial sustainability: cost alignment, fundraising, revenue generation: Currently the Wikimedia Foundation does the bulk of revenue generation for the Wikimedia movement. Some chapters are beginning to fundraise. The German chapter currently raises by far the largest amount of revenue, with a half-dozen other chapters making relatively small amounts of money.
- Alliance and partnerships for expanding reach, increasing content and content quality, technology, and advocacy. Currently quality-improving non-monetary alliances and partnerships are driven primarily by volunteers: I am thinking mostly about the GLAM-type relationships being developed by people like Mathias and Liam. It seems pretty clear that being affiliated with an official entity such as a chapter helps to develop these deals, but it's not clear if it's essential. Reach-improving partnerships that drive revenues (such as the Orange deal, PediaPress, etc.) are developed solely by the Wikimedia Foundation.
- Technology infrastructure maintenance and development: Currently this responsibility is shared among paid staff (of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany) and technical volunteers.
- Technology innovation: As above.
- Advocacy: The European chapters have taken steps towards developing positions on key public policy issues in the EU, and the Wikimedia Foundation has taken a few public positions on issues such as net neutrality, Phorm/privacy, and censorship. Individual volunteers take positions on issues as they see fit, but they do not receive sustained support from the Wikimedia Foundation or any other organizational body.
The most important question here, in my view, is this: Where are we satisfied with our progress (and therefore want to leave things as-is), and where are we unsatisfied? For example, if we were to decide that we needed to do a better job at advocacy, it would make sense for us to discuss who is best situated to pursue advocacy work, then ensure that group has the necessary support it would need. If we feel we're not making enough money to do our work, we should be talking about which groups are best-placed to generate revenue, and figure out how to help make that happen.
So: where are we satisfied with current state, and where would we like to see better progress?
What's funny about this list --I have just noticed-- is that it doesn't include all the editorial work of the projects, which is of course the most core and important work, as well as 99% of the total. So, it doesn't include researching, writing, editing, wikifying, adding ancillary materials e.g., photos and illustrations and video and audio, resolving editorial disputes, acting as an ombudsman to editorial complaints, serving in editorial support/managerial functions, providing accountability to readers (OTRS), etc. Sue Gardner 07:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That is probably because other Task forces already partially cover these... As I am not a friend of Task forces (they make the process closed in a way), it seems like mandates of some would need to be refined so that all task forces together cover 100% of Wikimedia movement though. It would be wise to have the roles discussed in different task forces and not only in this one too, because there will surely be a lot of discussion ahead.
Of these various roles, I would say that "Alliance and partnerships" for content is the most underdeveloped one, and the one where there is the most room for developing useful new structures.
"Effectively managed" time is key here. There are quite a few generous volunteers who are willing to give huge amounts of their time for specific projects, but professional staff tend to be most necessary when a consistent effort is needed for unappealing work done over an extended time period.
The discussion let me think about the differences between volunteers, foundation and chapters. What is "The Foundation"? Is it staff and board? Is it staff and board and chapters? Or even staff and board and chapters and editors and readers? I'm not sure. But in any case you have a mixture of paid staff and volunteers (i.e. as board members). What are chapters? A long discussed question, still without a simple definition which fits to every chapter's philosophy. Although some chapters grow and try to hire people for office-work and other things that have to be done, many chapters today are fully volunteer-driven. It's not easy to define which role a person takes when doing whatever to support the projects and perhaps the view on volunteers as editors is not wide enough to get the whole impression.
At this stage, I think it is clear that "The Foundation" = staff + board. It may come to a point when in some gestalt way (though not in a legal sense), this notion can be extended to include the chapters, though I think this will take some evolution of structures, and probably the flowering of more Wikimedia Deutschlands.
Hi everyone,
I wanted to pass along a potentially helpful article about increasing effectiveness in global NGO networks, written by some of our colleagues at Bridgespan. We are in the process of trying to set up interviews with some of the organizations mentioned (and others whose experiences are behind some of the findings), and will post notes from those conversations as soon as possible after they happen.
--TylerT 20:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
What additional structures could be developed to connect volunteers to the movement and what would it take to develop these structures?
Starting thread with this question, which we've been asked to answer.
I believe that in the future a large percentage of volunteers will contribute content not as individual editors, but through educational or cultural institutions. The number of people that can be recruited as individual editors (the more geek demographic) is somewhat limited, and we may already be tapping that resource out. I think that finding a more mature institutional role for real-world educational and cultural groups is an important path to outline.
Responding to the question and building on Pharos response, I think a volunteer database maintained by the Foundation is needed to help recruit volunteers and match them to specific types of volunteer work. I think that people that are familiar with working in traditional volunteer organizations would respond well to recruitment drives that appeal to a specific skill that they have. For example, I think that a semi annual recruitment drive to universities and colleges worldwide for people to assist in copy editing Wikipedia articles would bring in people interested in this type of volunteer work.
There is a proposal here http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Volunteer_Toolkit for a Volunteer Toolkit project, which would provide tools for 1) asking for help, 2) developing a welcome page for new people, 3) creating mechanisms for broadcasting volunteer opportunities, 4) providing task and project management tools, 5) supporting on-wiki mentoring, 6) supporting off-wiki processes with conference and meeting scheduling tools and so forth, and 7) managing volunteer relationships. I am not sure that the Movement Task Force is the right place to discuss this proposal -- it seems to me that Movement Roles should confine itself to figuring out who does things (e.g., to increase participation), rather than focusing on what to do (e.g. to increase participation). But the Volunteer Toolkit is engendering lots of discussion at the Community Health task force, if people here are interested in talking about it.
Oh grr, the above comment was me, not logged in. I thought there was a way to edit that, but I can't remember how.
Hi Sue. If you submit when not logged in, you can click the "more" button on the right hand side of your post and that will give you an 'edit' option.
I have made these links before and I'm not sure (in the context of the wiki) whether they will become annoying... I feel a bit like a political canvaser that you see on telly each day: but I'd head to editor awards and rewards and particularly the proposal for "traditional" volunteer recognition which should be the first proposal listed in the proposals section.
First page |
Previous page |
Next page |
Last page |
