Volunteers Wanted: Funds Dissemination Process Advisory Group

[Barry Newstead]

Dear all,

Following up on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board resolution on Funds
Dissemination[1], we are launching work on the design of the Funds
Dissemination Committee[2] To help in the design and implementation work
ahead, we are creating an Advisory Group which will begin work very soon.

Information on the nomination process for the formation of the Advisory
Group is available on meta [3] and we would encourage interested candidates
who meet the criteria to consider applying. Please also pass this
information on to people in the wider community.

[1]
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee
[3]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Formation<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group>


Best,
Barry


--
Barry Newstead
Chief Global Development Officer
Wikimedia Foundation

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Thomas Dalton]

Can you explain why we need this proposed process? The decision has
been made to form a committee to make recommendations to the WMF board
about funds dissemination. The only decision still to be made, as far
as I can see, is who should be on the committee.

What questions do you want to answer with this long, time consuming
and expensive process?

On 9 April 2012 20:08, Barry Newstead <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Following up on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board resolution on Funds
> Dissemination[1], we are launching work on the design of the Funds
> Dissemination Committee[2] To help in the design and implementation work
> ahead, we are creating an Advisory Group which will begin work very soon.
>
> Information on the nomination process for the formation of the Advisory
> Group is available on meta [3] and we would encourage interested candidates
> who meet the criteria to consider applying. Please also pass this
> information on to people in the wider community.
>
> [1]
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee
> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee
> [3]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Formation<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group>
>
>
> Best,
> Barry
>
>
> --
> Barry Newstead
> Chief Global Development Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Jan-Bart de Vreede-3]

Hi Thomas,

Getting the FDC "right" will be the most important thing to being able to provide resources to chapters and others that have great plans that further our movement goals. Doing this in a transparent and open way is an important requirement to getting it right. Not sure why you would want to rush this through?

At the same time this is a good heads up for those that are interesting in providing their expertise to the FDC.

Thank you Barry!

Jan-Bart



On 9 apr. 2012, at 21:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> Can you explain why we need this proposed process? The decision has
> been made to form a committee to make recommendations to the WMF board
> about funds dissemination. The only decision still to be made, as far
> as I can see, is who should be on the committee.
>
> What questions do you want to answer with this long, time consuming
> and expensive process?
>
> On 9 April 2012 20:08, Barry Newstead <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Following up on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board resolution on Funds
>> Dissemination[1], we are launching work on the design of the Funds
>> Dissemination Committee[2] To help in the design and implementation work
>> ahead, we are creating an Advisory Group which will begin work very soon.
>>
>> Information on the nomination process for the formation of the Advisory
>> Group is available on meta [3] and we would encourage interested candidates
>> who meet the criteria to consider applying. Please also pass this
>> information on to people in the wider community.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Funds_Dissemination_Committee
>> [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee
>> [3]
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Formation<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> --
>> Barry Newstead
>> Chief Global Development Officer
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
>> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>>
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10 April 2012 10:02, Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Getting the FDC "right" will be the most important thing to being able to provide resources to chapters and others that have great plans that further our movement goals. Doing this in a transparent and open way is an important requirement to getting it right. Not sure why you would want to rush this through?

I don't want to rush it, I want to do it efficiently. I'll ask again,
what questions is it that you want to answer with the process?

With anything like this, there are basically three questions:

1) What needs to be done?
2) Who is going to do it?
3) How are they going to do it?

We already know the answer to the first question - it's in the
resolution calling for the creation of the committee - and it is
usually best to leave the third question for the committee to work out
for themselves. That just leaves deciding on the membership. We don't
need this lengthy and expensive process to work that out, we just need
to go on meta and talk about it until we reach a consensus (or,
failing that, until all the relevant points have been made and the WMF
board can make a final decision).

12 people spending 4 hours a week, plus meetings including some
in-person meetings (which includes lots of expensive travel and
accommodation, as well as a lot of time), is an enormous amount of
time and money. I think we need to be very clear about what we
actually want to achieve with all that time and money.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[John Vandenberg]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10 April 2012 10:02, Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> Getting the FDC "right" will be the most important thing to being able to provide resources to chapters and others that have great plans that further our movement goals. Doing this in a transparent and open way is an important requirement to getting it right. Not sure why you would want to rush this through?
>
> I don't want to rush it, I want to do it efficiently. I'll ask again,
> what questions is it that you want to answer with the process?
>
> With anything like this, there are basically three questions:
>
> 1) What needs to be done?
> 2) Who is going to do it?
> 3) How are they going to do it?
>
> We already know the answer to the first question - it's in the
> resolution calling for the creation of the committee - and it is
> usually best to leave the third question for the committee to work out
> for themselves. That just leaves deciding on the membership. We don't
> need this lengthy and expensive process to work that out, we just need
> to go on meta and talk about it until we reach a consensus (or,
> failing that, until all the relevant points have been made and the WMF
> board can make a final decision).

Go here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Formation#Nominations_.28to_be_added_below.29

> 12 people spending 4 hours a week, plus meetings including some
> in-person meetings (which includes lots of expensive travel and
> accommodation, as well as a lot of time), is an enormous amount of
> time and money. I think we need to be very clear about what we
> actually want to achieve with all that time and money.

Participation includes a free trip to San Fran on Saturday, June 9th:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Formation#Likely_Advisory_Group_meeting_dates

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10 April 2012 12:17, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Go here:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Formation#Nominations_.28to_be_added_below.29

Do you really think I would be responding without having read the
relevant pages?

> Participation includes a free trip to San Fran on Saturday, June 9th:

That is exactly my point - trips to SF as far from free and are
completely unnecessary.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[John Vandenberg]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 10 April 2012 12:17, John Vandenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Go here:
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_Advisory_Group/Formation#Nominations_.28to_be_added_below.29
>
> Do you really think I would be responding without having read the
> relevant pages?

nope.  I was giving links for other people.

>> Participation includes a free trip to San Fran on Saturday, June 9th:
>
> That is exactly my point - trips to SF as far from free and are
> completely unnecessary.

I was obliquely agreeing with you ;-)
f2f meeings are useful, but not for an interim committee.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Jan-Bart de Vreede-3]

Hi Thomas

On 10 apr. 2012, at 13:24, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>
>> Participation includes a free trip to San Fran on Saturday, June 9th:
>
> That is exactly my point - trips to SF as far from free and are
> completely unnecessary.
>

in your view.

Why do you insist that overhead on getting this right is unnecessary? Looking at the amount of money that this committee will distribute and the importance of getting it right I would argue that a significant investment is more than warranted.

Jan-Bart


> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10 April 2012 12:57, Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Why do you insist that overhead on getting this right is unnecessary? Looking at the amount of money that this committee will distribute and the importance of getting it right I would argue that a significant investment is more than warranted.

Because nobody has told me why it is necessary. Of course we need to
get it right, but I don't think that requires this much time and money
to be dedicated to it. If it really does need it, then of course we
should spend it, but we shouldn't spend it without a very clear reason
for doing so.

I've asked a very simple question, could you answer it? What questions
do you want this process to answer? What it is about the FDC that we
don't yet know and need to devote a lot of time and money to working
out?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Christophe Henner]

On 10 April 2012 14:09, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10 April 2012 12:57, Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Why do you insist that overhead on getting this right is unnecessary?
> Looking at the amount of money that this committee will distribute and the
> importance of getting it right I would argue that a significant investment
> is more than warranted.
>
> Because nobody has told me why it is necessary. Of course we need to
> get it right, but I don't think that requires this much time and money
> to be dedicated to it. If it really does need it, then of course we
> should spend it, but we shouldn't spend it without a very clear reason
> for doing so.
>
> I've asked a very simple question, could you answer it? What questions
> do you want this process to answer? What it is about the FDC that we
> don't yet know and need to devote a lot of time and money to working
> out?
>

Hi Thomas,

Here is my understanding of the goal of this committee, but I might be
wrong.

The board defined the broader lines of the committee, but did not tackled
the operational details. Bridgespan is there to work on that, and the
Advisory Groups is there to help them define the operational details.

For what I understand, Bridgspan is easing the process of starting up the
FDC, but the Advisory Group is here to last and oversee and review the FDC
on a regular basis. So it's not just a committee to get the FDC started,
but to be sure it runs smoothly over the first couple of years.

As, the advisory group will provide guidance and feedback to the FDC, it
seems important for the advisory group to be part of the early discussions.

I understand it represents some money to fly ~10 people to SF (though I
guess in the end those meetings would match other global meetings such as
Wikimedia Conference or Wikimania) every six month, but on the other hand
the FDC is gonna be in charge of disseminating ~30million USD, some
overseeing/steering group is clearly a need.

However, I agree on one point with you, flying 10 people to SF for a one
day meeting is a waste of money/energy. I'd say, if possible, they should
have, at least, a 2 days meeting to make the most of the energy/money. But
this is details that the Advisory Group will sort out by himself I guess :)

Best,

Christophe
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Chris Keating-2]

>
>
>
> I understand it represents some money to fly ~10 people to SF (though I
> guess in the end those meetings would match other global meetings such as
> Wikimedia Conference or Wikimania) every six month, but on the other hand
> the FDC is gonna be in charge of disseminating ~30million USD, some
> overseeing/steering group is clearly a need.
>
>

I agree with Christophe...

I've consistently been asking the Foundation to make sure the FDC is set up
in a transparent way, with involvement from Chapters and other
stakeholders. So it makes perfect sense to me to set up an advisory
committee to help make sure it sets out down the right path over the next
18 months, even if that entails some financial cost and some use of
volunteer time. It's vital to get this right.

Chris
(Wikimedia UK board, speaking personally...)
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10 April 2012 13:25, Christophe Henner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Here is my understanding of the goal of this committee, but I might be
> wrong.
>
> The board defined the broader lines of the committee, but did not tackled
> the operational details. Bridgespan is there to work on that, and the
> Advisory Groups is there to help them define the operational details.

Can you elaborate on what you see as being the "operational details"
that need to be defined?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Andrew Gray-3]

On 10 April 2012 13:09, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've asked a very simple question, could you answer it? What questions
> do you want this process to answer? What it is about the FDC that we
> don't yet know and need to devote a lot of time and money to working
> out?

The resolution basically says "there will be a committee, it will be
powerful, Sue has a draft and can figure out the details". It doesn't
tell us... well, anything else. There are recommendations, but those
are *proposals* and the community may decide it strongly objects to
parts of them - now is a good time to figure it out. Many of the key
details are sketchy.

Some possible questions I can think of, in ten minutes over my
lunchbreak: What limits will there be on what the FDC can recommend?
What ability will it have to control funding to WMF itself for
non-core spending? How independent will it be of either WMF or the
chapters? How will it apply to the "non-chaptered" community? Will it
be able to decline to fund Board-recommended projects? Do we need to
develop alternative structures for funding work in circumstances
impractical under US law? And that is before membership becomes an
issue. We argued for weeks earlier in the year about chapter-nominated
Board seats - who exactly will sit on the FDC? Will they be elected or
appointed; what will the mix of community members versus professionals
be? Will there be any non-chapter community members? What will be the
legal constraints on its membership? Who are the elected members, if
any, answerable to?

From my position - and I haven't been following this overly closely, I
admit - the FDC looks like it will be a remarkably powerful body; it
will have a major impact on any major project not done directly by
WMF. It may not have the same power as the board to set overall goals,
but it will have a great deal of de-facto control over the
implementation of those goals. A lot of our governance problems (or
perceptions of governance problems) stem from the fact that the
"movement" evolved organically from a very different thing six or
seven years ago, and is perhaps not the organisation we would have
designed had we a blank sheet today.

Given all this, it definitely seems a good idea to have a detailed
look at how it is going to work rather than just bash something
together. I can imagine that if the resolution had said "...and
directs the Executive Director to pick six people and have the first
meeting in May", there would have been an immense outcry that we
*weren't* taking the opportunity to think it through, that it was a
power grab, etc etc etc...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Jan-Bart de Vreede-3]

I was assuming that the questions were asked to Barry, who would know the answer. I would not presume to do it for him, and I do not know the best answer :)

What I was literally reacting to was your assumption that because no one has told you why it is necessary, it must be unnecessary. I assume that Barry has a good reason for doing things the way he plans to do them. It is fine to ask questions and clarification, but lets assume that he thought about this and has good arguments :)

Jan-Bart


On 10 apr. 2012, at 14:09, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> On 10 April 2012 12:57, Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Why do you insist that overhead on getting this right is unnecessary? Looking at the amount of money that this committee will distribute and the importance of getting it right I would argue that a significant investment is more than warranted.
>
> Because nobody has told me why it is necessary. Of course we need to
> get it right, but I don't think that requires this much time and money
> to be dedicated to it. If it really does need it, then of course we
> should spend it, but we shouldn't spend it without a very clear reason
> for doing so.
>
> I've asked a very simple question, could you answer it? What questions
> do you want this process to answer? What it is about the FDC that we
> don't yet know and need to devote a lot of time and money to working
> out?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Jan-Bart de Vreede-3]

On 10 apr. 2012, at 14:31, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> On 10 April 2012 13:25, Christophe Henner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Here is my understanding of the goal of this committee, but I might be
>> wrong.
>>
>> The board defined the broader lines of the committee, but did not tackled
>> the operational details. Bridgespan is there to work on that, and the
>> Advisory Groups is there to help them define the operational details.
>
> Can you elaborate on what you see as being the "operational details"
> that need to be defined?

Sure

"just about everything"

as in

1) Who should be on this committee
2) On what kind of requests should they form an opinion (not microgrants for example)
3) What are criteria
4) What is the process/timeline

+ 401 other things that we can come up with as questions.

Jan-Bart


>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10 April 2012 13:56, Jan-Bart de Vreede <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sure
>
> "just about everything"
>
> as in
>
> 1) Who should be on this committee
> 2) On what kind of requests should they form an opinion (not microgrants for example)
> 3) What are criteria
> 4) What is the process/timeline
>
> + 401 other things that we can come up with as questions.

But how many of those things are actually going to be difficult or
controversial? Shouldn't we at least try and answer them using our
standard approach of having an open discussion on a wiki? If it turns
out we can't answer them that way, then we can try a more elaborate
approach then.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Samuel Klein-2]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> But how many of those things are actually going to be difficult or
> controversial? Shouldn't we at least try and answer them using our
> standard approach of having an open discussion on a wiki? If it turns
> out we can't answer them that way, then we can try a more elaborate
> approach then.

Naturally the process should be public and inclusive.
I expect most of this group's work would involve open discussion on wikis.
Wiki discussions can be enhanced by calls and in-person meetings,
suitably transcribed and shared - especially when getting input from
people who are not active wiki users.

A structure and timeline for work, and a group of committed good-faith
participants to provide a steady core for ongoing discussion, is a
good idea for any time-sensitive project.  We don't want to appoint
FDC members themselves without more discussion and perhaps a
distributed selection process, but the background work should begin as
soon as possible.

As to 'which things would be controversial': as you demonstrated here,
even simple discussions can be dominated by a determined critic.

SJ

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Barry Newstead]

Hi -

I have created a list of issues to resolve in the FDC process on meta.[1]
There are probably additional issues to resolve and it would be great if
people would edit the list and start suggesting solutions. IMHO the list of
issues is substantial and decisions on the approach to the design will have
major implications for entities in the movement. Further, there are time
constraints on the FDC process to start functioning quite quickly as
entities will want to secure their funding for future fiscal years and I'd
personally prefer not to rely on the ad hoc approach that we had last year
(since we/I didn't have the capacity to figure out a more structured
approach before we were in the middle of the review process).

If we simply select an FDC (btw - how would this happen?) and ask them to
figure out the issues for themselves, this would be a recipe for serious
challenges that could doom the FDC from the start. A relatively brief, but
structured process that is open, has an effective advisory group of trusted
people, and is supported by consultants who can give us structure and help
us with the heavy-lifting on process design seems like a solid way to get
us to a good outcome and help the FDC get off to an effective start.

On the narrow issue of travel to SF for occasional meetings...this is
really a practical consideration. There needs to be a time when the
Advisory Group can really dig in and help us push to decisions. It would be
ineffective to try to do such a meeting by phone or IRC.  Per Christophe's
point, it might make sense to have this over two days rather than one.

[1]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/FDC_process_issues_list

Best,
Barry



On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > But how many of those things are actually going to be difficult or
> > controversial? Shouldn't we at least try and answer them using our
> > standard approach of having an open discussion on a wiki? If it turns
> > out we can't answer them that way, then we can try a more elaborate
> > approach then.
>
> Naturally the process should be public and inclusive.
> I expect most of this group's work would involve open discussion on wikis.
> Wiki discussions can be enhanced by calls and in-person meetings,
> suitably transcribed and shared - especially when getting input from
> people who are not active wiki users.
>
> A structure and timeline for work, and a group of committed good-faith
> participants to provide a steady core for ongoing discussion, is a
> good idea for any time-sensitive project.  We don't want to appoint
> FDC members themselves without more discussion and perhaps a
> distributed selection process, but the background work should begin as
> soon as possible.
>
> As to 'which things would be controversial': as you demonstrated here,
> even simple discussions can be dominated by a determined critic.
>
> SJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

--
Barry Newstead
Chief Global Development Officer
Wikimedia Foundation

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Thomas Dalton]

On 10 April 2012 17:51, Barry Newstead <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If we simply select an FDC (btw - how would this happen?) and ask them to
> figure out the issues for themselves, this would be a recipe for serious
> challenges that could doom the FDC from the start. A relatively brief, but
> structured process that is open, has an effective advisory group of trusted
> people, and is supported by consultants who can give us structure and help
> us with the heavy-lifting on process design seems like a solid way to get
> us to a good outcome and help the FDC get off to an effective start.

We would select an FDC by having a discussion on meta about how we
think we should select an FDC and then, once we have a consensus, we
implement it. That's how we make decisions around, whenever possible.
I think we should at least try and reach a consensus rather than just
assuming that we need to delegate decision making power to yet another
committee.

Can you expand on what you mean by "serious challenges"? Do you mean
people will challenge the decisions of the FDC if it isn't spelt out
exactly what decisions they should be making and how? In my
experience, the opposite is true. If you try and codify exactly what a
decision making body is allowed to do then that allows people to
challenge it and you end up with situations like the US is facing at
the moment with the legislature having passed a law but it's now going
through the courts because people are challenging that law.

If you take the British approach of parliamentary sovereignty, that
doesn't happen. We elect people to make decisions for us and then we
let them make those decisions. If they make bad ones, we elect
different people next time. (Of course, we complain constantly about
the decisions they are making, but that's just good fun!) With the FDC
we would have another safety net in the form of the WMF board's veto.

Everyone agrees that the FDC is going to be a very powerful body, but
you are trying to restrict its power as much as possible. It will be
far more effective if you just give it the power to make the decisions
that it thinks are best. That is, after all, its job.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l