Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2007/Candidates/UninvitedCompany/questions

2007 board elections
Election notice FAQ Candidate presentations Endorsements Vote Results
Organization
Election committee Candidate presentation guidelines Translations Coordinators Current requests Quick translation

Change

Hi Steve,

What is the top 3 things you want to have changed in the current strategy of the foundation? Thanks, Effeietsanders 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Have bylaws that satisfy donors' concerns about continuity of the board.
2. Delegate decisionmaking to the executive staff.
3. Be more transparent and open in dealing with the community.

UninvitedCompany 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what sort of changes to bylaws would satisfy donor concerns? or examples? —Centrx→talk • 22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Added Value

Hi Steve,

What kind of value do you add to the current set of boardmembers in the area of Legal, Financial, Accounting etc expertise? Thanks, Effeietsanders 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have an extensive business background including serving as an officer of a startup, and I have served on the board of a smaller nonprofit. UninvitedCompany 22:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-membership organization

Last December, the Wikimedia Foundation revised its bylaws to change itself from a membership organization to a non-membership organization. In a membership organization, the trustees are directly responsible to the membership; in a non-membership organization, the trustees are ultimately responsible only to one another (and indirectly to donors, who presumably will not donate if they feel the trustees are not being responsible). Do you feel that the Foundation, constituted as it is as a non-membership organization, provides sufficient structural checks and balances to ensure that the trustees observe their fiduciary responsibilities appropriately? Would a return to a membership structure, with the ability of members to bring policy proposals themselves at the annual meeting or by other methods, to remove board members by appropriate vote, and to sue the Foundation under certain conditions limit the ability of the Trustees to do what they need to do? If you do support a return to a membership structure, how would you determine who the voting members are? Kelly Martin 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that your structural concerns are not, at present, the most compelling problem we face. True, the board has to be accountable to the community and to donors. I'm not convinced that converting to a membership structure would be wise given the considerable value of the Foundation's assets and the difficulty in setting membership criteria that are not open to being gamed by individuals and organizations who do not have the Foundation's best interests at heart. Long term, I would like to see the Foundation spin out some of its projects, because I believe that doing so is the best way to ensure that smaller projects have a voice. UninvitedCompany 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "spin[ning] out"? Cormaggio ^@ 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In the long term, I would like to see some projects have, essentially, their own foundation to provide for a separate legal, financial, administrative, and fundraising framework. I think that one of the root causes of dissatisfaction with WMF is that resources and decisionmaking are being spread across hundreds of projects. There's this unspoken presumption that we have to all stay joined at the hip. But the legal, financial, and fundraising challenges of, say, DEWP are far different than those of ENWB. I also believe that it's a hindrance when dealing with large donors. While the details need to be worked out, I would expect that the most practical means would be to start by spinning out the five or six largest wikis each to its own foundation with, initially, overlapping board memberships and shared technical and administrative resources. In time this would change. There are some things to watch, if this is done -- we need to be sure that continuity of funding is maintained for some of the smaller and less well-known projects, and it should be done while heeding legal counsel. And not this year, or next year. Perhaps after that. UninvitedCompany 00:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Headquarters location

From time to time there has been discussion about whether the Foundation's current headquarters in St. Petersburg, Florida, in the United States, is the best location for the office. Do you think that the Foundation should continue to be headquartered in and operate out of Florida, or would you support a move to another location? If you think a move is appropriate, where would you move the Foundation to, and why? Kelly Martin 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not a location I would choose were it not for the fact that the office is already there. Since it is important for the Foundation to operate under U.S. law, I believe that having our principal operations at a U.S. site would be prudent to bolster our efforts to operate only under U.S. jurisdiction. There would be benefits to being in a location more convenient for international travel, and benefits to improved proximity to major donors. On the other hand, such locations are more costly both for rent and salary expectations for staff. The disruption of a move may not make such a change worthwhile. UninvitedCompany 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Projects and languages

Hello. Months go by and things are not changing :-) Welcome back. I would like to know what is your position regarding what should happen to non english projects ?

You might find the note I wrote above in response to a question from Cormaggio to be insightful. UninvitedCompany 00:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Office Evolution

In what way do you forsee the office (and staff) evolving under your tenure as a board member, should you be elected? i.e. would you be in favor of expansion, contraction, status quo, more interns, new positions, less, what? Swatjester 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there is, at present, insufficient staff. I believe that the office primarily needs experienced professional people, together with people who can fill the gaps in areas where there are chronic shortages of volunteers. We need permanent, full-time counsel. We need permanent, experienced, professional finance people who can make good on our commitment to donors to be sure we use their money wisely, and account for its use. We need considerably more public-facing people to deal with routine complaints that arrive by phone, fax, and email. This is limited by our finances and by the need to train. I don't believe interns are an especially good fit for the Foundation at this time because we need permanent staff to provide continuity.

Checkuser policy

What is your opinion of the privacy policy, particularly relating to checkusering of adminship candidates? Majorly (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The privacy policy is cross-project. The biggest problem with it is that it is vague about the release of information derived from checkuser data. ENWP suffers, I believe, an over-reliance on checkuser data. I would like to see us deal with chronic, serious abuse through automated means that identify open proxies and obviously compromised machines. That would eliminate a good deal of the need for checkuser. I believe that checkuser should not be used routinely for adminship candidates because it provides a false sense of security. UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sister projects

What do You think of the sister-projects? Do You think they have been given enough support by the foundation in the past? Which ones would You support more than in the past, if any? Thank You, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} 11:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

With the possible exception of commons, I generally believe that they should be spun out to their own foundation so that they don't have to compete with ENWP, DEWP, FRWP, JAWP, and the other very large projects for attention. They deserve their own governance from a foundation that is responsible to them, and I fail to see significant synergies beyond things like branding and the MediaWiki software, which could be shared just as easily even if the foundations were separate. Some the sister projects have already become compelling projects in their own right, notably commons, Wiktionary, and Wikinews. I believe that Project Gutenberg has a better approach to essentially the same problem addressed by Wikisource. I believe that Wikiquote poses an unacceptable copyright litigation risk given its marginal contribution to the Foundation's mission. As for 'books, 'versity, and 'species, I think they suffer the most of all the sister projects from a lack of serious attention from software writers and community leaders. UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

In the event that you are elected to the board, will you continue to serve on the English Wikipedia's arbitration commitee? Sjakkalle 12:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would ask the committee for a leave of absence for the duration of my membership on the Board of Trustees. UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Growing

The Wikimedia Foundation is growing at much faster rate now than ever before. We are trying to establish ourselves as a stable, mature, international non-profit organization. What type of organizational and management skills can you offer that will benefit the foundation? (Please elaborate)

I have been working professionally as a manager for about fifteen years, at corporations large and small. I presently manage software developers, although I've also worked in marketing, technical publications, and product support. These are for-profit companies so the focus is different, but the basic managerial and organizational skills are similar. I think that one of my strongest skills is the recruiting and retention of talent, and I think that fits in well with the board's responsibilities in recruiting and retaining an executive director on an ongoing basis I don't see it as the role of the board to operate the foundation on a hands-on basis, and so I would try not to interfere with the decisions made by an executive director, once named.

Also, our advisory board (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Advisory_Board) is filled with experienced and competent professionals. The foundation can benefit greatly from their expertise and knowledge in various fields. Currently, their involvement in the foundation seems limited, how can you change the system to utilize their expertise? Do you think the advisory board should have more influence on decision-making? Vpatel 13:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a basic failure to empower people within the WMF to make decisions. We don't have a policy on third-party use of the logo, to take one example. Someone working for the ED ought to be deciding this themselves after availing themselves of the expertise of the advisory board. The way we're doing it right now, it's halfway down a never-finished board agenda. UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Professional?

By nature and design, wiki communities are an amateur, unstable amalgam of widely differing perspectives and agendas. There is no individual or collective responsibility and no competence test for participation. Yet, the board of the ever-expanding and legally constituted foundation that runs one of the world’s top websites, needs to be highly professionally, highly competent, collectively coherent and responsible. It must have business savvy, and be willing to make hard-nosed and even unpopular decisions. In your opinion:

1. Is the current board, vision and structure fit for that purpose?

1. Overall, I would have to say that I am dissatisfied with the work of the current board. I believe that part of the problem is structural. I also think that despite the very best of intentions, at least some of the board members are in over their heads. UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Are you? (Would you be a competent candidate for a board in any non-profit venture?)

1. I'm one person, and even if I'm elected I can't change the board all by myself. And I'm not an angel of a candidate -- that would be what I would call someone who has already been through exactly the challenges that WMF faces now, at some different but very similar non-profit. But yes, I've been on the board of another non-profit, and I believe I have the managerial expertise to be able to raise the level of professionalism. UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(same asked of all candidates)--Doc glasgow 14:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Chapters

Taking into account the growing importance of Wikimedia chapters in furthering our common goals on the one hand and the impact the decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation have on the work (if not existence) of the Wikimedia Chapters on the other hand: What do you think about the idea of giving the chapters a formal say in WMF's decision making process? What do you think especially about a) letting the chapters appoint one or more board members (beside the ones elected by the community) and/or b) changing the WMF back to a membership organization (with the chapters as members)? Do you have any other ideas to achieve more checks and balances between Foundation and chapters? On top of that, would you care to elaborate on your vision about the current and future role of the Wikimedia chapters? Thanks in advance, Arne (akl) 15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the basic idea of having independent governance systems with well-defined relationships among them is sound. I would prefer to see something set up by project rather than geographically, which is my main reservation with the scheme you outline. UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Project policy involvement

What are your views on board involvement in writing and implementing policy for the various projects, especially in controversial areas where it appears that community consensus will be difficult to establish, such as on the "attack sites" [1] and biography of living people (BLP) [2] issues? Cla68 15:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that direct board involvement in these issues is warranted. I do believe that ENWP has a leadership vacuum that has led to these issues languishing, but I see that as an internal ENWP matter rather than something for WMF to fix. UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ads, branding, business dev., GHGs.

1. You wrote that the "Foundation needs to attract large donors to maintain solvency without resorting to advertising", but if/when/how would you vote on the board for ads on Wikimedia sites?
   1. yes
      1. pop-ups/flash/banners/graphics
      2. flash/banners/graphics in skin whitespace or at bottom
      3. company logos in site notices
      4. prominent text ads
      5. company names in site notices
      6. text ads in skin whitespace or at bottom
      7. opt out
      8. opt in
      9. other
   2. maybe
      1. only for a huge amount of money
      2. only during budget emergencies
      3. only if editors support it
   3. never
   4. other
2. What are your thoughts on Wikimedia branding?
3. What are your thoughts on the foundation's hiring of a business developer?
4. How would you vote on the board about the foundation reducing or offsetting anthropogenic greenhouse gases, e.g. power used by hardware, flights, etc.?

Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2007-06-19t18:14z

I think that the community has been clear and relatively unequivocal about its rejection of advertisements as a source of revenue, and I share that. I think the fact that we've resorted to sponsored banners in the site notice is indicative that we aren't doing a good job of fundraising. The Minneapolis Public Library has an annual operating budget of $26 million dollars. It serves 373,000 people, and I'm willing to bet that most of them use Wikipedia more often than the library. We are offering a resource of comparable value to the whole world with a budget less than 10% of that. There have got to be donors out there willing to support our mission without asking for a sponsored banner message in return, and we have to find them, overcome their objections, and get them to make a long-term funding commitment.

Regarding branding, even though I'm not an expert in brand management, I can see that our trademarks are confusingly similar and that we are missing opportunities to create independent brand equity for separate projects. The public confusion between Wikimedia, MediaWiki, Wikipedia, Wikia, and wiki is costly to us. I think that "Wikimedia" is confusing and that it would be useful to change it. I don't want to decide what it should be, and I don't even want to be on the committee, but someone who understands branding and graphics and has a global perspective ought to go fix this.

Regarding our business developer, I do not think the Foundation is well served by part-time help. Continuity and teamwork are critical in an organization that has such great reliance on part-time volunteers in other areas. Otherwise, I have no quarrel with the nature of the opening. Wikipedia has partnership arrangements with other sites. These should be properly managed. It takes staff to do it.

I believe that a resolution on being a "carbon-neutral website" would be a distraction from our core mission.

UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What if

What would you do/recommend when elected and faced with 40% budget deficit? Absolwent 18:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Raise more money. I'm not privy to the conversations with large donors, but I believe that large donors are being scared away because they do not trust WMF's governance systems to make sure that the money they spend has long-term benefits. We need effective governance, a demonstrably trustworty ED, and bylaws changes to ensure a qualified board focused on the mission over the course of years. Once we start demonstrating to donors that we are willing to be accountable and to run the place with the discipline warranted by the size of our budget, I think we will be able to get transition funding that will allow us to buy time to build out the organization. If we make a plan and stick to it, major donors should become more comfortable and more willing to underwrite our activities. Given the enormous value of the resource we provide to the public, we should not have a funding problem. UninvitedCompany 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)