Raúl Gutiérrez (Gumr51) [edit]
- Please ask here your question to be answered by Raul, the moderators will pass the questions to the candidate and place the answers in this page.
|
Questions from Laura Hale, from Wikimedia Australia
|
|
| Question 1 |
In the past year, what work have you done to promote the interests of chapters in general and specific chapters, for example Wikimedia Australia, Wikimedia Poland, Wikimedia India, Wikimedia South Africa, Wikimedia Chile as organisations and the activities supported by dues paying members of these chapters on Wikimedia Foundation projects, to other chapters inside the Wikimedia Foundation, and in relation to the current board of Wikimedia Foundation?
|
|
| Question 2 |
Amical is an organisation that has been the topic of recent discussion in a few locations. It is a chapter like organisation that has been denied recognition by the Chapters Committee. A look at the grant funding information available on meta shows Amical has received more funding than Wikimedia Espana, a WMF recognised chapter. What is your position specifically in regards to Amical? Do you believe Amical should be welcomed into the Chapters movement? For organisations like and including Amical that explicitly compete with Chapters, do you believe they should have an equal funding priority as board recognised chapters and should be treated as equal partners by being invited to events like the Chapters meeting in Berlin?
|
|
| Question 3 |
Funding has been a major topic amongst chapters recently. Do you believe in a centralised or decentralised funding model? Why do you believe what you believe? How do you think your beliefs would impact the future of chapters in the future?
|
|
| Question 4 |
Please describe your relationship with existing WMF board members. Please describe your relationship with Jimmy Wales, Erik Moeller and Sue Gardner.
|
|
| Question 5 |
Please describe your relationship with existing chapter boards. Please provide details about your relationships with chapters and other Movement related groups (Education, GLAM, GAC, etc.) in Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, Asia and Africa.
|
|
| Question 6 |
Did you approach any chapters about endorsing you who are not listed? If yes, which chapters and how did they respond? Did any chapters approached you about them endorsing you? If yes, which chapters and how did you respond?
|
|
| Question 7 |
How active have you been in movement wide discussions regarding chapters, funding and the WMF in the past year? Where have you been active? (Meta, mailing lists, Outreach wiki, conferences, etc.) Which particular areas have you been active in recently in regards to the future of the Movement?
|
|
| Question 8 |
Why do you want to be on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation and what do you hope to accomplish in this position should other Chapters vote for you?
|
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
I am not very comfortable in providing answers or positions, lacking full case information, but for the sake of the process, here are my views and comments.
- Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)
- In the past year I have actively worked adding books to Wikisource, both Spanish and English and translating some of them. I have not been active with the Local Chapter in Mexico.
- Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)
- Based on information provided under this item, if they already have funding, why are they not a chapter, or strong part or arm of the competing chapter? In principle the answer is yes, they should be granted Chapter status, with the sole intention of promoting cultural development and exposure, provided of course, they meet all the Foundation prerequisites. Unfortunately more case details and background would be required to firm up a position. With regards to accepting other competing organizations as chapters, each case should be evaluated on its own merits, I believe the prevailing questions are if in the process, the Foundation goals are being met, and the process in not in detriment of other chapters. I believe the core issue may have to do with organizational or structure issues among competing chapters.
- Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)
- I believe either funding model could be effective. The question of which is better is not black and white, in my opinion, it rather has to with the type of structure, means, individuals, procedures and above all success rate, if a system is ailing, before changing, try to fix it. If history shows it cannot be fixed, then initiate a gradual change process, first by identifying goals, then establishing what and how it can be done, timetable, etc. My beliefs would more than likely help the chapters, because I believe in analyzing a problem and evaluating all alternate possibilities and consequences, before making decisions.
- Answer to Question 4 (see above the questions)
- I do not have any of the noted relations.
- Answer to Question 5 (see above the questions)
- I do not have any of the noted relations.
- Answer to Question 6 (see above the questions)
- I did not seek any endorsement from any chapters.
- Answer to Question 7 (see above the questions)
- Not active.
- Answer to Question 8 (see above the questions)
- I believe in the Foundation and its cause. As with all other organizations there are complex issues, which require in-depth evaluation and best possible solutions. I would devote myself to fully understanding issues, before voicing any opinions. I believe I could add an important fresh and fully independent view to ongoing and future issues.
|
Questions by an Anonymous Source (by Request)
|
|
| Question 1 |
Do you believe that 'badsites' (such as Wikipedia Review or Encyclopedia Dramatica) which have a history of being used to attack or harass Wikimedians and staff are protected as a legitimate form of criticism, parody and free speech?
|
|
| Question 2 |
Have you ever contributed to such websites and to what purpose?
|
|
| Question 3 |
Over the last year Wikimedians have been subject to off-wiki canvassing, hounding, sexual allegations and homophobic attacks, direct threats and a related group of disaffected users and banned users have formed an effective cross-project travelling circus of 'badsite' regulars manipulating consensus processes. Beyond suggesting that victims of direct threats and false allegations grow a thick skin, take legal action against the WMF or call the police, what are you going to do to ensure the Wikimedia Foundation's response to off-wiki and on-wiki attacks and gaming the system does more to ensure Wikimedia projects can be legitimately promoted as a safe space for contributors of all ages and minority groups?
|
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
- Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)
- If I believe these sites are protected?, I do not know. If the question is if they should be protected, I believe others rights end, were mine begin. While I strongly believe that everyone’s rights should be protected, however, these rights should not affect others, because what then happens with the rights of those affected. I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to attack or affect the rights of others. One thing is freedom of speech and another is attacking someone.
- Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)
- No, I have not.
- Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)
- First, I would require knowing more details and information on specific cases. Then I would try to get to the root cause of the problem, probably within Wikimedia, to understand the effect of internal matters in the external universe. Seek interim solutions to those basic problems. As far as external actions, to protect against these groups, a number of actions may be available, depending on country and legislation, including seeking public support and recognition of the detrimental effect of the probably illegal actions. Unfortunately internet legislation, and internet information dissemination regulations are still being developed around the world in many cases. Perhaps the Foundation can leverage its global influence in improving the legislation quality.
|
Questions by Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation
|
|
| Question 1 |
Can you describe a time --either in your Wikimedia work or elsewhere-- in which you were able to help people with strongly-different views reach a successful outcome on an important issue, via a consensus-seeking process? (I would define successful in this context as i) a reasonably-okay-or-better decision has been reached, and ii) the people involved end up either having achieved consensus, or still disagreeing but willing to commit to the decision made by the group.) Please also talk a little about your general approach to working towards consensus, particularly in a face-to-face context -- what works well, and what doesn't. Thank you.
|
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
- Answer to the question (see above the questions)
- The situation you propose happens to be an almost everyday event in international project development, where costs fight schedule, procedures and quality stand in the way of budgets, etc., and group decisions need to be made (stressing than in many cases the team members are usually part of multiethnic groups). Because execution of whatever decision was made would always fall upon a subordinate. As sales director, I was required to submit prospects for multi-million regional projects, to the Proposal Review Board of the company, comprising a series of complex project related issues, namely risk, proposed partners, execution strategy, intended budget and follow up actions. i) In all cases, consensus was required by the members of the PRB, who had the authority to approve, reject or amend the proposal. ii) In all above noted events, accepting and supporting the decision was a must, projects success depended on it.
- To achieve consensus, there are many ingredients and knowledge of the issue at hand is required, equally important is to remain fully aware of what the mission or ultimate goal is.
- On a face-to-face context, works well to listen and understand what the other side has to say and to analyze the issue from their position, sometimes a simple “why would you want to do that” would shed light into potential failing on somebody’s approach. What does not work well is to argue and try imposing one beliefs upon somebody else. Also it is not good to maintain discussions at a personal level. I consider of the utmost importance to always consider first the organization, and its higher mission.
|
Questions by Deryck Chan (member of WMHK and WMUK)
|
|
| Question 1 |
Please describe your current position, and any relevant present and past responsibilities, within your local chapter, or your nominating chapter if there's no local chapter in your jurisdiction.
|
|
| Question 2 |
Should you be elected to the board, on which side will you stand, or what will you do, if the board or the WMF makes a decision that is against the interests of your own chapter?
|
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
- Answer to the question 1 (see above the questions)
- There is a local chapter in my region; however I have not had any positions within it.
- Answer to the question 2 (see above the questions)
- It would greatly depend upon the issue under discussion. Having to do something, after a decision against is made is too late and an indication that prior actions failed. Or perhaps the decision was correct. My position would be to support what is best for the organization and chapters.
|
Questions by Jan Eissfeldt
|
|
| Question 1 |
Please define concisely what you consider reasonable basic accountability and transparency standards that must be met by a wikimedia movement entity.
|
|
| Question 2 |
how do you understand the role of a wmf trustee in developing, implementing and preserving such standards as defined in response to 1. within the evolving framework of the movement?
|
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
- Answer to the question 1 (see above the questions)
- Accountability. Being held responsible for actions, intended performance and results. Good accountability depends on good projection instruments; a plan set out establishing what is to be achieved; a budget determining what can be spent; a schedule and cash flow establishing when events take place. But accountability can only be ascertained or determined and enforced under close supervision. Accountability cannot be evaluated unless there is a good and solid plan behind, to compare against. Must be remembered that sometimes performance is hindered by bureaucratic controls. A good performer can only be judged, provided all prerequisites are provided and ample space to perform.
- Transparency is a good ingredient to accountability. Transparency would require that the intended plans, reports during their performance, and above all, final results are available, regardless of the performance outcome.
- Answer to the question 2 (see above the questions)
- I do not see the wmf trustee in an executive position, moreover, the trustee actions would necessarily need to revolve about an existing agenda. However, earnestly, if required I would need first to examine existing means and procedures and, with consensus of the wmf, would endeavor to devise means to evaluate performance. If deemed required, would propose strategies to improve operations, adjust controls and thus improve accountability and transparency.
|
Questions by a Second Anonymous Source
|
|
| Question 1 |
Editor retention and recruitment are perhaps the most pressing issues facing the movement. Please specify three means by which editor retention and/or recruitment could be strengthened.
|
|
| Question 2 |
If the effectiveness of any or all of your three methods of strengthening editor retention and/or recruitment can be measured quantitatively, please indicate how.
|
|
| Question 3 |
How would you characterize the effectiveness of Foundation efforts to identify the causes of decreasing editor retention?
|
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
- Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
- First it needs to be recognized that all editors, are making unrewarded contributions, sharing their valuable personal time, thus it is required to facilitate their work and encourage them.
- a) As not every editor is proficient in formats and procedures, user friendly “how to” help documents are required for every editing need. While it is true many such documents are available, these are scattered all over the place, and sometimes the specific document is not readily available, in addition, the quality of many such documents need to be enhanced. Should remember that editors are concentrated in doing what they love, which is not precisely “looking for documents”. There should be a central location where all help information is readily available. This would help in facilitating the work of editors.
- b) The environment is far too impersonal, or abstract. Most administrators, from the editor perspective, perform clandestinely, behind an alias, they do not seem to be accountable for their actions. This certainly leads to many unwarranted actions in detriment of the editor’s drive. The appointment of Administrators needs to be reviewed, their responsibilities, required actions, dispute resolution, etc. It should be the duty of administrators to resolve disputes, rather than generating them. If a dispute arises, before long, the administrator should transfer the dispute to a third party, who should make every effort to resolve it. Many disputes are not over procedures, but over the “personal opinion” on a given topic by an administrator, who may disagree with the topic, yet as administrators have “power” over the editor, they usually prevails. Many administrators believe they own the space, and editors need to work the way they want. This lead to editors abandoning the work, rather than fighting a war they cannot win, against an abstract giant who can block them at will or delete their work.
- c) A tutorial program should be established, where advanced users, or administrators, would take new users and guide through the ropes, showing by examples how things are done, and being there to help throughout.
- Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
- I cannot offer a “how” to measure retention at this point, I would need to assess the existing measuring means.
- Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)
- I am unqualified at this juncture to characterize previous efforts, as I am not familiar with them. However, if, as you state is “perhaps the most pressing issue facing the movement”, obviously these efforts have not been very effective.
|
Questions by Ilario Valdelli (WM CH)
|
|
| Question 1 |
May you describe your position about the "centralization" and "decentralization" of the movement? What is your vision about this problem? Do you think that a unique central decision maker point may be helpful for the whole movement?
|
|
| Question 2 |
What is your position about the internationalization of the movement? Do you think that the participation of the communities is hampered by the use of a single language as "lingua franca" (may we call it "linguistic divide"?) and that the current structure doesn't support that any valid person can have an active participation in the discussions but also, and this is really serious, to be updated? What could be your proposal?
|
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
- Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
- Centralization, is something of the utmost importance, for certain things. Decentralization is perhaps something that occurs gradually over time, but it is not necessarily a question of time, rather of maturity, or being able to successfully furthering the movement without detrimentally affecting its founding goals.
- Central decisions can and must affect the universe, positively or negatively, depending on how these are taken and whether or not they are properly made. Central decisions are essential, as will help maintain a coherent movement, with common goals. Must remember that the movement is important because of its global reaches and hence its strength, the movement is international.
- Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
- Internationalization of the movement is important, and part of its very nature. Yes it is possible that participation of communities can be hampered by languages, but while it may be a linguistic divide it is not necessarily a social or regional divide. What you outline, in my mind, is part of the required “growing pains” of such a movement, and I believe that serious consideration should be given. However, I also believe that regional communities do have a voice through regional representation, although it may be limited.
|
Questions by Mike Peel (WM UK)
|
|
| Question 1 |
Do you have any conflicts of interest with this election process, or with the position of being a WMF trustee? If so, please could you explain them and any potential consequences that they might have?
|
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
- Answer to the question (see above the questions)
- I do not have any conflicts of interest, I am completely independent.
|
Questions by AshLin
|
|
| Question 1 |
In India, we have a case where two potentially competing bodies have been established in a single national jurisdiction - namely, the Wikimedia India chapter and WMF India Program. These are two entities which operate simultaneously with a significant potential for conflict/conflict of interest. In adition, community members are simultaneously holding positions under the country chapter (Wikimedia India) as well as paid positions under the WMF - India Program. What are your views about this system?
|
|
| Question 2 |
What is your position on the recent significance accorded to "Global South" countries? Should the Foundation's focus over there be to run consultant-led programs or to empower volunteers and volunteer-run organizations? If you consider the Foundation's actions as a fait accompli, how then should this initiative develop so as to be the best in the community interest?
|
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
- Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
- It would be interesting to know details of the perceived “potential for conflict and conflict of interest”.
- In their absence, my opinion is that being aware of this potential, is the first step towards eliminating or preventing such conflicts.
- My view of community members holding positions in both entities, largely would depend on their performance, and perhaps knowing whether this is sanctioned by the WMF, as if they see no conflict and if the community members are doing what is expected, then it would be OK, if not, then somebody should ask questions.
- Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
- I believe a use of both would be important, however each region or country might require different formulas, basically depending on past history, if there is one and also on what are the potential resources availability of both; consultants and volunteers. Essentially the key is on how the program is first structured and second, how it is implemented.
- This initiative, as well as any other, needs to be followed and regardless of the original approach, if goals are not met as scheduled and required, then changes may be applied, geared at improving results.
|
Questions by Ofol, member of Wikimedia France
|
|
| Question 1 |
Do you think the wikimedia Foundation board has the legitimacy to speak in the name of the Wikimedia Movement, and to pass decisions like "approving a new chapter" etc..? Why?
|
|
| Question 2 |
if not elected to WMF's Board now, would you run for the Fund Dissemination Committee (FDC) or the Wikimedia Chapters Council (WCC), why?
|
|
| Question 3 |
there are times when the WMF Board just reappoints its own members for two years mandates, like [1], [2] [3], [4]. What do you think is the legitimacy of that process? In your view, how many of the 10 trustees should be elected, how many appointed? |
|
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here. |
|
- Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
- This question begs for clarification, as the legitimacy of the WFB should be prescribed by the foundation charter, where all its attributions must be defined. As to “why”, well, somebody must approve; a complex global movement such as Wikimedia needs to have good controls, primarily geared at maintaining the founding principles. That if the foundation needs to open up and adjust to the times, perhaps it is warranted, but in good order and with reasonable measures, that ensure improvement, growth and the future.
- Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
- Not sure.
- Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)
- This question should be answered by board members, and more than likely it is an approved or “legitimate” process. It is perhaps easier and faster to reappoint than to have to design a complex election and voting system, which usually opens the space to politics. As far as its legitimacy, in the absence of evidence on the contrary, must assume it is, or was legal. That if it should change to include a minimum number of elected trustees, I cannot answer without closely studying the issue, but in principle I believe that things needs to change only for “good reasons”, when functional results do not render desirable or expected goals.
