Meta.wikimedia.org

Talk:WikiConference Australia 2015

2015-04-09

‎On-track or off-track: response from WMF

← Older revision

Revision as of 12:57, 9 April 2015

Line 105:

Line 105:

: As for induction and orientation, every year of our past committees is represented by at least one member of our present committee, not to mention generally friendly relations with non-committee protagonists of our major past projects. A lot of institutional memory has been retained, and we have across us email collections going back to day 1, and an internal committee wiki where things have been recorded since 2008. Things aren't perfect, but they're certainly not worse than other comparable organisations. [[User:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] ([[User talk:Orderinchaos|talk]]) 14:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

: As for induction and orientation, every year of our past committees is represented by at least one member of our present committee, not to mention generally friendly relations with non-committee protagonists of our major past projects. A lot of institutional memory has been retained, and we have across us email collections going back to day 1, and an internal committee wiki where things have been recorded since 2008. Things aren't perfect, but they're certainly not worse than other comparable organisations. [[User:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] ([[User talk:Orderinchaos|talk]]) 14:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

: (Goes without saying this is a personal response from one committee member, not a committee response.) [[User:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] ([[User talk:Orderinchaos|talk]]) 14:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

: (Goes without saying this is a personal response from one committee member, not a committee response.) [[User:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] ([[User talk:Orderinchaos|talk]]) 14:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

−

+

===Linkage project side-discussion===

*Lankiveil writes: "Clearly the current model of only coming together online isn't working effectively". Proves the chronic dysfunction of the organisation. Brainstorming by shoving people together in a room at gigantic cost to individuals scattered around a continent and to WMAU's bank account will do nothing if you can't get people interacting online to do just that. Are face-to-face meetings required for ''anything'' to happen in this chapter? By conceding that "the current model" of online organisation is broken you've undermined the very reason for WMAU's existence. The only things that have ever happened were done by individuals in spite of the chapter, not because of it, although I see claims being made about small packets of funding passed on.

*Lankiveil writes: "Clearly the current model of only coming together online isn't working effectively". Proves the chronic dysfunction of the organisation. Brainstorming by shoving people together in a room at gigantic cost to individuals scattered around a continent and to WMAU's bank account will do nothing if you can't get people interacting online to do just that. Are face-to-face meetings required for ''anything'' to happen in this chapter? By conceding that "the current model" of online organisation is broken you've undermined the very reason for WMAU's existence. The only things that have ever happened were done by individuals in spite of the chapter, not because of it, although I see claims being made about small packets of funding passed on.

*Orderinchaos: first, by "securing" the chapter's finances, are you referring to the breaking of a contract signed by the chapter, and the bald lies told to us by Stephen Zhang concerning what the WMF told him about that? (WMF none too happy, I can assure you.) Second, what has constituted the "rebuild[ing of] links with the international Wikimedia community"? [[User:Tony1|'''Tony''']] [[User talk:Tony1|(talk)]] 14:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

*Orderinchaos: first, by "securing" the chapter's finances, are you referring to the breaking of a contract signed by the chapter, and the bald lies told to us by Stephen Zhang concerning what the WMF told him about that? (WMF none too happy, I can assure you.) Second, what has constituted the "rebuild[ing of] links with the international Wikimedia community"? [[User:Tony1|'''Tony''']] [[User talk:Tony1|(talk)]] 14:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Line 118:

Line 118:

::::I can assure you that in my time on the committee no contract was signed, and that the records available to committee members at the time I was elected gave no indication that any contract had been signed. There was to my understanding an agreement(undocumented in available records, no clear T&C) that WMAU would support a project and be a party to an application for a grant. Accepting in good faith that commitment upon investigation of available information and putting together outcomes that commitment was not within the then current financial capacity of the Association and no application had been presented for funding assistance to other bodies including the WMF. Additionally the project required in kind activity from members though we didnt fully have the specific capacity or skills available to offer, what skills we could identify and offer was rejected by the other partners as the work of volunteers was not considered "in kind" as that could only be performed by paid individuals. We did discuss the possibility of committing funding for the first year of the project in which no outcomes to the community would occur, we also asked for consideration for second year activities to be brought forward which we could support and at least achieve some return on the communities funds but this was also rejected. There were other questions over profit sharing of potential commercial ventures resulting from the project but was told that we werent a party to those and that they would be unlikely to generate any profits. We also discussed options with the WMF over securing funds though the response was clear that they wouldnt be forth coming as the project didnt sit within their goals. Steve attended more than one meeting with the organisors including flying to Sydney meet with them as documented in our financial statements. The final decision to withdraw was not taken lightly in the end WMAU committee did its due diligence and explored all available options beforehand as we couldnt commit to any agreement that would send the Association bankrupt we therefore had to withdraw. This issue isnt something that has direct relevance to the conference plans nor to the original questions that were asked Sats, unfortunately the long off topic discussion has resulted in those questions going unanswered, in the future if you have questions of your own not related to the original discussion could you please respect others questions by starting a new thread. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] ([[User talk:Gnangarra|talk]]) 04:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

::::I can assure you that in my time on the committee no contract was signed, and that the records available to committee members at the time I was elected gave no indication that any contract had been signed. There was to my understanding an agreement(undocumented in available records, no clear T&C) that WMAU would support a project and be a party to an application for a grant. Accepting in good faith that commitment upon investigation of available information and putting together outcomes that commitment was not within the then current financial capacity of the Association and no application had been presented for funding assistance to other bodies including the WMF. Additionally the project required in kind activity from members though we didnt fully have the specific capacity or skills available to offer, what skills we could identify and offer was rejected by the other partners as the work of volunteers was not considered "in kind" as that could only be performed by paid individuals. We did discuss the possibility of committing funding for the first year of the project in which no outcomes to the community would occur, we also asked for consideration for second year activities to be brought forward which we could support and at least achieve some return on the communities funds but this was also rejected. There were other questions over profit sharing of potential commercial ventures resulting from the project but was told that we werent a party to those and that they would be unlikely to generate any profits. We also discussed options with the WMF over securing funds though the response was clear that they wouldnt be forth coming as the project didnt sit within their goals. Steve attended more than one meeting with the organisors including flying to Sydney meet with them as documented in our financial statements. The final decision to withdraw was not taken lightly in the end WMAU committee did its due diligence and explored all available options beforehand as we couldnt commit to any agreement that would send the Association bankrupt we therefore had to withdraw. This issue isnt something that has direct relevance to the conference plans nor to the original questions that were asked Sats, unfortunately the long off topic discussion has resulted in those questions going unanswered, in the future if you have questions of your own not related to the original discussion could you please respect others questions by starting a new thread. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] ([[User talk:Gnangarra|talk]]) 04:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

:::::'''Further rejoinder.'''Gnangarra, it's the first time in years that anyone on the committee has been civil towards me. Here are my responses.(1) It's true: you were not on the committee when it was signed; I see no suggestion that you were.(2) It took only a brief request yesterday for the two-page undertaking by WMAU to land in my inbox. It's dated 30 November 2012 under the chapter's letterhead and is signed by the chapter's president. I'm looking at it right now. Such an undertaking is a contract in law, even if the word "contract" does not appear on the document.(3) You write: "the records available to committee members at the time I was elected gave no indication that any contract had been signed". I suggest that this is a problem of chapter governance."that commitment was not within the then current financial capacity of the Association"—what matters is whether the committee and membership were provided an opportunity to plan fundraising over the three-year period, which I believe was the original rationale; and whether the compromise $28,715 funding only the first year was discussed among the full committee and chapter membership (sorry, I wrote $27k above, without the benefit of seeing the written undertaking). Was it? But this is not the primary issue at the moment.(4) "we didnt fully have the specific capacity or skills available to offer, what skills we could identify and offer was rejected by the other partners as the work of volunteers was not considered "in kind" as that could only be performed by paid individuals"—that claim needs sourcing/evidence. As far as I can tell, the chapter membership had and still has ample skills related to the project, and it's not as though those skills are being harnessed by the chapter organisation. Which skills in particular are you referring to that would be beyond, which has always appeared to me to be pretty talented and keen to promote free knowledge, if efficiently organised to do so.(5) "they would be unlikely to generate any profits"—Are we in this game to make profits?(6) "We also discussed options with the WMF over securing funds though the response was clear that they wouldnt be forth coming as the project didnt sit within their goals."—The WMF is keen for chapters to raise their own funds, and looks well on those that do. As I understand it, they'd have seen it as best practice for this project, rather than committing direct WMF funding to be passed on to a third party (they don't like doing that, understanbly). Ergo, John Vandenberg had plans to boost WMAU's income from local donors, both individual and organisational, riding partly on the uniquely Australian theme of the project and its importance for a part of the Australian community that does it hard but has a rich history Wikimedians could help document on our sites as free knowledge; the rationale was also that Paralympians and members would have benefited greatly from mutual interactions. There was also the matter of forging a program that might well have been copied by other national Paralympic bodies, with possible support by their local chapters.However, the current president told members that to proceed, even with a single year's funding (bankrupt, really?) and in-kind support throughout, would have queered the pitch for all subsequent WMF funding applications. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2014-March/004030.html Specifically], he wrote to us: "we were advised that if we were to proceed with funding using our reserve, which came from funds previously provided to WMAU through the annual fundraiser in 2010, that requests for funding in the future may be looked upon dimly." This is not what Asaf Bartov told him. Was this fantasy—that proceeding would have poisoned the well forever—what swayed the committee to go along with dishonouring the contract? So this zero-sum game, sacrificing [http://www.paralympic.org.au/news/paralympic-history-project-secures-grant a great] opportunity for [http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2013/09/australian-paralympic-movement-set-harness-power-of-social-media marshalling] the skills and enthusiasm of [http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1016504/australian-paralympic-history-project-secures-funding the chapter], was sacrificed; I can't see much chapter activity since aside from a few dribs and drabs. Why hold a conference when existing opportunies are so wilfully spurned? Is it an excuse for the inability to use the chapter's site to gather members into thematic groups? [[User:Tony1|'''Tony''']] [[User talk:Tony1|(talk)]] 09:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

:::::'''Further rejoinder.'''Gnangarra, it's the first time in years that anyone on the committee has been civil towards me. Here are my responses.(1) It's true: you were not on the committee when it was signed; I see no suggestion that you were.(2) It took only a brief request yesterday for the two-page undertaking by WMAU to land in my inbox. It's dated 30 November 2012 under the chapter's letterhead and is signed by the chapter's president. I'm looking at it right now. Such an undertaking is a contract in law, even if the word "contract" does not appear on the document.(3) You write: "the records available to committee members at the time I was elected gave no indication that any contract had been signed". I suggest that this is a problem of chapter governance."that commitment was not within the then current financial capacity of the Association"—what matters is whether the committee and membership were provided an opportunity to plan fundraising over the three-year period, which I believe was the original rationale; and whether the compromise $28,715 funding only the first year was discussed among the full committee and chapter membership (sorry, I wrote $27k above, without the benefit of seeing the written undertaking). Was it? But this is not the primary issue at the moment.(4) "we didnt fully have the specific capacity or skills available to offer, what skills we could identify and offer was rejected by the other partners as the work of volunteers was not considered "in kind" as that could only be performed by paid individuals"—that claim needs sourcing/evidence. As far as I can tell, the chapter membership had and still has ample skills related to the project, and it's not as though those skills are being harnessed by the chapter organisation. Which skills in particular are you referring to that would be beyond, which has always appeared to me to be pretty talented and keen to promote free knowledge, if efficiently organised to do so.(5) "they would be unlikely to generate any profits"—Are we in this game to make profits?(6) "We also discussed options with the WMF over securing funds though the response was clear that they wouldnt be forth coming as the project didnt sit within their goals."—The WMF is keen for chapters to raise their own funds, and looks well on those that do. As I understand it, they'd have seen it as best practice for this project, rather than committing direct WMF funding to be passed on to a third party (they don't like doing that, understanbly). Ergo, John Vandenberg had plans to boost WMAU's income from local donors, both individual and organisational, riding partly on the uniquely Australian theme of the project and its importance for a part of the Australian community that does it hard but has a rich history Wikimedians could help document on our sites as free knowledge; the rationale was also that Paralympians and members would have benefited greatly from mutual interactions. There was also the matter of forging a program that might well have been copied by other national Paralympic bodies, with possible support by their local chapters.However, the current president told members that to proceed, even with a single year's funding (bankrupt, really?) and in-kind support throughout, would have queered the pitch for all subsequent WMF funding applications. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2014-March/004030.html Specifically], he wrote to us: "we were advised that if we were to proceed with funding using our reserve, which came from funds previously provided to WMAU through the annual fundraiser in 2010, that requests for funding in the future may be looked upon dimly." This is not what Asaf Bartov told him. Was this fantasy—that proceeding would have poisoned the well forever—what swayed the committee to go along with dishonouring the contract? So this zero-sum game, sacrificing [http://www.paralympic.org.au/news/paralympic-history-project-secures-grant a great] opportunity for [http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2013/09/australian-paralympic-movement-set-harness-power-of-social-media marshalling] the skills and enthusiasm of [http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1016504/australian-paralympic-history-project-secures-funding the chapter], was sacrificed; I can't see much chapter activity since aside from a few dribs and drabs. Why hold a conference when existing opportunies are so wilfully spurned? Is it an excuse for the inability to use the chapter's site to gather members into thematic groups? [[User:Tony1|'''Tony''']] [[User talk:Tony1|(talk)]] 09:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

+

:::I'm glad to clarify: Steven did discuss the project with me. I said several things:

+

:::First, that WMAU is an independent organization with its own fiduciary duties and interests, and that WMF therefore is not in a position to make these decisions for WMAU. I also advised Steven that the new (then current) committee is generally bound by decisions made by previous committees, and that it is now up to them to figure out how to make the best of an admittedly difficult situation.

+

:::Secondly, since I was asked for my opinion of the project (and going only by the description I was given, which did include a fair amount of detail from past correspondence about it, but did not include talking to either the previous committee initiators of the project or to either of the other partners), I did opine that it was a very low-impact project for WMAU in general, and specifically for the investment it was expected to put into it, not only in money, but in volunteer time and energy. In particular, the costs and effort related to producing what sounded like a coffee-table hardcover book seemed particularly unaligned to what we are interested in.

+

:::I added that as far as I can tell, WMAU is in fact not in a position to be able to guarantee ''either'' the (full amount of) money ''or'' the volunteer engagement, and that it was therefore irresponsible to have entered into this agreement (I have no knowledge or opinion on whether a contract was entered into or not) without a solid ability to deliver on these commitments.

+

:::(As an aside, it is not good practice for a chapter to ''commit'' to on-wiki editing activity, which is decidedly outside its powers to deliver. Certainly, chapters can ''encourage'' the community to engage with certain endeavors or topics, but ''committing'' to on-wiki mainspace deliverables is ill-advised in any circumstance, and also risks running afoul of NPOV in some cases, though I'm not suggesting this was the case here.)

+

:::Thirdly, that while WMAU is free to make a decision on how to use its own (non-WMF granted) funds, the funds it has from underspent past WMF PEG grants is ''not'' freely re-allocatable without permission from WMF. I went on to say that I (as PEG officer at the time) would be quite unlikely to approve such re-allocation for this project, as it was my duty to ensure funds are spent on what has at least a good chance of delivering impact, and the project as I understood it did not offer that, in my judgment.

+

:::Fourthly, when asked about the prospect of future PEG funding to allow WMAU to meets its "second year" contribution, I said that my response would be the same -- the project as construed was not a good investment for WMAU, and I would be remiss to allow WMF donor funds to be used to pay for it. I recognized it put WMAU in an awkward position with its prospective partners. I felt that couldn't be helped, and was the result of the original decision to enter into the project, as I said, without actually being able to make good on the commitments WMAU was making.

+

:::Finally, asked about any repercussions of WMAU deciding to go ahead with the project anyway, I did say that engaging in a large-investment low-impact project would be one factor in judging WMAU's future grant proposals, as it may reflect on how much we at WMF would trust WMAU's judgment in making good use of grant funds. This is indeed the case in judging all grant proposals from repeat entities -- WMF's willingness to approve ambitious or experimental plans certainly depends not only on what assessment WMF staff is able to make of the proposal, but also of WMF's impression of the proposers' good judgment in the past. However, I definitely did not say WMAU would be "barred" from funding in the future if it went ahead with the project.

+

:::

+

:::On a more personal note, let me add that I recognize this issue has been painful and contentious among past and present committee members, and has cost both reputational damage to WMAU and morale loss within the membership. I wish there were a way to undo that. I am interested in helping WMAU put this matter to rest, and find its way to more harmonious and constructive work. I haven't read the full talk page or the mainspace page, but I hope if this conference does take place, it contributes toward that end. [[User:Asaf (WMF)|Asaf (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Asaf (WMF)|talk]]) 12:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

== Media accreditation.... ==

== Media accreditation.... ==