Chapter-selected Board seats/2012/Candidates/Questions/Salmaan Haroon

Salmaan Haroon (Theo10011)

Please ask here your question to be answered by Theo, the moderators will pass the questions to the candidate and place the answers in this page.

1. Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)

   I worked to promote chapter interest generally, I worked within Movement Roles to develop a system for classification of entities. I subsequently proposed a Chapters council, then worked with the chapters to flesh out and create an organizational model for such a body. I vehemently defended chapter interests during the fundraising discussions. I have been a strong proponent of chapter independence and strongly defended my position. Individually, I did minor things to support multiple chapters, I helped out on commons during Wiki Loves Monuments, helped organize the Wiki conference India with the Indian community and the chapter. I also organized the Wikipedia 10 event in my city in conjunction with the chapter representatives, and generally provided help when asked. I organized the first 3 meet-ups in my city, 2 of which were in coordination with the Indian chapter.

   I was actively involved in the formation of WMBD, I commented on the MoA, guided the representatives through the registrations process and generally provided support when needed. I stepped in after a minor disagreement on the WMBD mailing list, between certain community members stating my position and opinion on what was happening[1]. The issue was quickly resolved.

2. Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)

   I strongly respect Wikimedia Espana's position in the matter. They have had the longest relation with Amical, and any decision taken organizationally will have the most impact on them. Amical did not work with ChapCom to seek approval, the process involves some coordination and flexibility, changing the criteria for chapters to accommodate Amical would have set the wrong precedent. There are a lot of issues related to Amical that have happened in the last year, I am not privy to most of them, so I respect Wikimedia Espana and Iberocoop's position. If the differences can be sorted out, then yes, they should be welcomed in the chapters movement. I believe the funding should be equatable and project based, if either one of them does good work that has measurable impact, then it should be decided on their own merit. There shouldn't be a culture of competition among any chapters or similar entities.

3. Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)

   I strongly believe in the decentralized funding model. I believe each chapter is an organization that needs to become independent. Ideally, I want to see them co-exist in the same eco-system as WMF, I want them to do a 100 different projects simultaneously, and support 1000 different volunteers. As Sue once put is, have a thousand different flowers bloom.

4. Answer to Question 4 (see above the questions)

   I have had a cordial public relation with most of the WMF executives and board members. I occasionally talk with a handful of WMF board members off-list. I see Samuel Klien on Meta and IRC, I occasionally talk to Kat walsh on IRC, I respect Stu and Matt, I have always had fun with Jan-bart in any real life encounters. I haven't had a lot of interactions with Jimmy, but I respect him. I've debated several governance issues with Erik, and I really think he's very smart. I have nothing but good things to say about Sue either, most of our interactions have been on the mailing list. I do give Sue credit for being very professional, and generally being a warm and friendly personality despite of our disagreements.

5. Answer to Question 5 (see above the questions)

   I am on friendly terms with several members of chapter boards. I have a lot of them as friends, who I talk with socially, like members of WMNYC and WMDC. I exchange emails with several other chapter board members. I have been active on Meta, and I usually comment on things related to GLAM and Grants. I have always been a fan of GLAM related work that chapters do, but didn't have an opportunity to work on projects that interested me related to GLAM so far due to time constraints, I hope to remedy that once I have more time from work. I was briefly involved in the WMF education program, before the India operations were proposed, to seek campus ambassadors in colleges in my vicinity in 2010, sadly the effort did not come to fruition because the volunteer involved had other commitments. I worked on outreach wiki and helped out when I was asked during the India Education program.

6. Answer to Question 6 (see above the questions)

   I did not actively seek endorsement from any chapter. I only informed my own country's chapter, and a few community members that I know about my candidacy. My involvement has been in the larger governance issues, and I have done my best to help the Indian chapter, but I did not actively solicit their endorsement or support.

7. Answer to Question 7 (see above the questions)

   I have been very active in discussions regarding funding and the place chapters should occupy. My involvement has been on the mailing lists (Internal-l and Foundation-l) , Meta, along with a meeting of the MR group in Berlin. I have been one of the most active participant in discussions related to fundraising, and most recently, recognition of other entities besides chapters.

8. Answer to Question 8 (see above the questions)

   I wish to change some things, things, that I believe are leading us down the wrong path. I hope to represent the community better on the board, and keep the channels of communication constantly open. I have several ideas and projects that I would like to accomplish as a board member - better representation and coordination of chapters, a community initiative, a micro-grants program, to name a few. I also wish to strongly establish a standard for respecting the community's will and sovereignty and not trying to re-engineer the things that work so great already.

1. Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)

   I don't have an absolute position on sites like those. Places like, Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica have their own communities; whatever their impression and relation with us, I believe everyone is entitled to their own space on the internet. Everyone has the right to their speech and opinions, even to our parodies, along with the idea of forming a community with like-minded individuals. This however, should not in any way mean that I am not against attacks and harassment originating from those communities, if a line is crossed and someone is attacked personally, those are clear grounds for taking action and dealing with those individuals, just not demonizing an entire community for the actions of a few, until the community stands behind and engages in those actions en masse.

   I guess what I am trying to say is, sweeping generalizations are not helpful when talking about communities, if the problem is with individuals, it should be treated as such, and not against those who do not cross a line. This is the same for us as them, actions of a few of our editors are not representative of our community. There is also a clear distinction between criticism, parody and free speech. Everyone is entitled to all three by law in most countries, but that is up to a certain extent. A line is crossed when it becomes personal, the laws of the country where a person resides should have the highest authority in dealing with those issues whether it qualifies as libel, threat or defamatory depends on the country an individual resides in. In cases, where a legal recourse in not a viable option, I would be in favor of honoring an editor's wishes and supporting their decision within the community, whether its a project-wide ban or any local action that would make them feel more comfortable. There are no absolutes, so I would rather decide on a case-by-case basis.

2. Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)

   No, I have not.

3. Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)

   I have lived and grown up as a minority group, all my life. I know very well, how problematic those situations can be. It is a big reason I like Wikipedia, I can leave behind my race, nationality, gender, identity, to form one based on my words and what I choose to disclose. I believe it is what a lot of others like as well, I strongly want to protect that, nothing about an editor's personal life needs to be made public that that editor does not want. I will do everything in my power to make sure that privacy and expectation of confidentiality is respected at all times.

   In situations of threats and predatory actions, I would first look into the laws of the country an individual is resident in, if the antagonizing actions taken are culpable to standing for legal action. If yes, I would suggest pursuing them to the extent of the law. We have a community with an established history of dealing with individuals who make threats, while cross-project level of abuse is a relatively new issue, I have participated in discussions on Meta about a cross-project ArbCom or a similar body located on Meta, which would be capable of instantly dealing with those cases with help from stewards. A body like that can issue a standing order to stewards to instantly block and oversight any information related to those cases, I strongly support that idea. I support the full use of Checkuser, Oversight tools in cases like those, it is the reason we have them.

   I would also propose forming an official community Ombudsman position on WMF staff, who can be discreetly contacted in situations like those, who can act as a liaison, so the editor doesn't have to deal with the abuse or the abuser directly.

1. Answer to the question (see above the questions)

   In situations of disagreement I don't form an opinion after seeing the two sides, usually before. I usually read both sides after, I develop a position based on what I think is right with proper logic and reasoning, and it doesn't matter which side I end up on. Given the nature of our community, I am rarely ever alone. My definition of consensus is an evolution, it is achieved after debate and reasoning. You go into a situation with what you believe, disagree and discuss your position with others, and if either side is able to change one's position, it means there are legitimate concerns; the final outcome should rightfully reflect those concerns. My main approach has always been being true with myself, and defending what I believe.

   I also believe that I might have been exhibiting signs of breaching good conduct when it comes to debating. In issues related to fundraising it is mainly due to fatigue and frustration, after close to half an year of the same discussion, my positions haven't changed in the slightest in that time, neither has my level of commitment and involvement. As someone I really respect recently pointed out the virtue of patience, we are raised in a culture of instant gratification, instant results online. Patience is something we don't value as much, and it is wrong.

   I also believe physical interaction is very important, they build relations, they put a face and voice to a name. The longer I spend without it, the more I lose track of the wonderful people behind it. I found I am still the same person I was originally in face-to-face interactions, I can't say the same for my interactions on the mailing lists. I hope to be a better person and change that about me.

   There are multiple examples I would cite, within the chapter space and Mailing lists about consensus and working through disagreements-

   • There was an issue with the formation of the Bangladesh Chapter last year. I had been involved in supporting, reading the Bangladesh chapter's MoA, and generally providing support and direction to the individuals forming the chapter. I signed up on the list, after hearing some disagreements. There was a mistrust between certain community members who were concerned about being left out of the formation process. The situation was getting a bit heated, so I got involved, and commented on what I thought was happening and where the problem might be (http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-bd/2011-May/000937.html). A couple of other community members who are familiar with chapters also commented, and the process found a quick conclusion. I later heard my email helped a lot, and both sides were able to work together.

   After the Indian chapter was registered, they sent a communication about their first meeting and office bearers to the Indian community. A couple of community members openly criticized and questioned the office bearer [2], things got heated and devolved further, with multiple threads about the office bearer. There were open accusations about mailing list moderation [3], and questions about ethics. I repeatedly defended and supported the Indian chapter through it. The office bearers took on a huge task, the registration process wasn't easy and they worked hard through it, criticism and accusation less than a month after formation seemed really unfair to me. I did my best to defend the chapters and be the voice of reason in that issue. Ironically, the individual who started out attacking on the chapter, who I defended against, is currently serving on the same chapter's board.

   • I had an opportunity of debating a very smart editor who pointed out gender-bias within generic antecedents and their usage on Wikipedia. I was oblivious to it before she pointed it out. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Gender-neutral_language#She_before_he.3F) I was able to debate her and defend the editor who disagreed and reverted her. She eventually agreed that randomly altering usage of generic antecedents is probably not a good start to pursuing her goal, and agreed to bring it up in a more appropriate venue. I was really proud of her and that encounter. I was thoroughly impressed and only hoped that she continue editing and fighting for what she believed in. That was my definition of what proper consensus on-wiki should look like - civil, articulate discourse, with a quick conclusion and agreement.
   • There are several minor interactions I have had on Wikipedia and Meta, too numerous to recall, where my opinion was responsible for forming an opinion or changing it. The example above stood out because it was fairly recent.
   • I worked on the WMF strategic plan, I was very actively involved in the entire process. I believe the final document is the result of collaboration and consensus within that community. I worked on a task-force related to Financial sustainability, while not completely conclusive, we did have interesting discussions about how to approach the subject.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   I don't have such a position. The Indian chapter is located on the other side, of a rather large country; I haven't been able to meet majority of them. I have however, been supportive of chapter initiatives from the early days before it was registered. I organized meet-ups, events, worked as an organizer for Wiki conference India, without attending. I have had friendly relations with the chapters nominating me, I met only a few of them face-to-face and formed a great bond. I occasionally talk with their board members and interact with them on IRC.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   My side. I can guarantee I will be true to myself and what I think is right. I don't have a chapter per se, but I have rarely ever sided against the community and the chapters. In all my interactions, I have agreed with the larger community on most issues. I innately understand their position and argument without them even articulating it, it might be hard to explain, but I believe I have the same mindset.

   As I see it, chapters and individuals who vote place their trust in a candidate. They trust them to act and respond in the best interest of the community. I value that trust highly.

   I am also pretty strongly convicted to my belief, I rarely go quiet to preserve group cohesion or perception. If I agree with the chapters or the community on a decision that is against the majority of the opinion held by the board, I will explain my reasoning to the best of my abilities and intellect. I would want to be a trustee that the community can constantly rely on to defend its position and perspective, no matter the issue.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   The reasonable basic accountability and transparency standards, would be the legal ones that a chapter would have to comply with in order to function within a geography. That is the most basic, I would expect chapters and all entities to abide by and to remain functional, they have to abide by them. As accountability and transparency to the entire movement, I would have higher standards over those. A movement wide body or policy, that can subject every entity including WMF to the same standards, would qualify in my book. I would want universal standards to apply to all entities, with proper reports and information.

   My concern has been that this is a huge undertaking, no one really actively worked in addressing this. Establishing and enforcing such standards, has never been tried. This is as much an issue of time and resource as the larger attitude about chapter relation and accountability. I wish to address both.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   I believe trustees have the most responsibility in what happens with this framework. Trustees, by definition carry the trust of the community that elects them. It is their job to be responsible for the community, engaging and developing such standards is a big part of the equation. They are ultimately responsible for steering WMF organizationally, and indirectly influencing entities not just carrying our name but beyond.

   This is quiet a responsibility. Trustee should work actively on pursuing an acceptable level of accountability standards, they should take a more independent approach than they have so far. Lately, the executives have been extremely involved in the deliberation process, that should have happened within the board and perhaps the community first, and then brought to the executives. I would like to see more demarcation between the role executives occupy and what the board does. It should not constantly give the appearance that it usually does, when the two start fading into one, or one picks up where the other leaves off.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   I have a little conflicting opinion within that line-of-thinking. I believe the focus recently has been on, just numbers, statistics, fall in percentage QoQ, YoY. It is simplifying a lot of different topics. We have a distinct culture, the idea of treating each of our editors as a random statistics that can be manufactured, cloned, increased/decreased at will, doesn't sit well with me. I think our editors are unique, they are not the same statistics on Facebook or twitter, where discussions about falling trend would be more alarming. My suggestion to address these would be-

   1) Focus on different metrics - Quality, is very important. Any discussion related to falling trend can not be isolated from that, diversity is also equally important, a falling demographic would point to areas that might need special attention. Instead of taking the broad trend, those statistics should give a whole picture, we have more quality articles than before, more collaborations.

   2) Focus on editor retention over recruitment. I have had this idea that there are 2 sets of editors, the experienced ones are "curators of content" while new editors who make less than 10 edits are in a different category. It is vitally important to retain curators, but at the same time, curators can not be recruited. They represent a very small fraction within the larger editing community, but they are the ones who are vitally important to our success and existence.

   3) Better FAQ and help sections. I would suggest an overhaul of what pages we have. Currently, it is a mess to weed through policy and guideline pages. I would be in the interest of getting some tech development to design an easy visual editor feature to look up those policy pages for new editors and explain things in a nutshell.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   Yes, my first point is about better quantitative measurement. The second about curators and the third, about help and policy pages, all can be measured quantitatively. My only wish is that we get a complete picture from those measurements, not broad trends.

3. Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)

   Not good. I have seen mostly research and minor fragmented actions from WMF to address the issue. They have not been very effective in my opinion.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   Decentralization, decentralization, decentralization. That is my vision, that is my dream. I am strongly a proponent for being decentralized, with activities, with fundraising, with organizations. A single point of failure is a big issue for a movement like ours, we need as much redundancy as possible. 40 different organizations working in 40 areas in 40 countries, that is my dream.

   I am in favor of better coordination, whatever that might entail. A unique central point might be needed for better coordination, it should however not be about control. I see need for grass-root coordination as separate from top-down control. A distinction between the two is imperative, with a conscious decision what we want.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   We have grown a lot in the past, Internationalization is indeed an area we have been left behind in. The multilingual aspect of our community needs to be acknowledged. No language should be given a higher status over other. I also do believe, that form defines functions when it comes to communication; if the largest lingua franca among all the participants, creates a divide, it needs to be addressed by the community. Our interactions should always be mindful of the struggle between languages being barriers in our communication. I would be supportive of any ideas that can address such a divide, more translations, better and more open discussions. Languages should not be barriers in our communications, it should transcend it.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   The situation within India is indeed complicated. The registration and current status, of what I assume is the trust has presented an odd situation not just for the chapter but the community. It is going to be close to an year since that exercise started. The first national level effort was the IEP, It did not end well to say the least. It generated massive amounts of copyvio, and problems for the English Wikipedia community. Community members have constantly advised how important it is to have experienced members on-board the program. Even some of the recent HR decisions have been questioned by English Wikipedia community and admins -(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:India_Education_Program/Analysis/Independent_Report_from_Tory_Read#Wikipedia_Education_Program_Extension). The India education program is already undergoing a revival for a second term with the same individuals and same strategies, much to the disappointment of the informed community members. Some of my friends from English Wikipedia, have asked for a top-down change to how this has been handled so far.

   As for the issue of conflict with community and paid position. I have agreed with my fellow community members that clear demarcation is vital here. There is several dozen times more money going in to the trust than the chapter. It is imperative that the expectations be more not less. As a very fellow community member recently put it, "more prudence and probity are the need of the hour. More transparency, not more laissez faire".

   On the general subject of the India programs, I would be in favor of starting over and re-factoring the entire equation. It has created a lot of tensions, and the ROI in relation to the investment made so far, has been very disappointing.

   By my educated guess, I would say that the chapter received less than a 30th (1/30) of the funding that the trust got, maybe even less in the last year. The chapter was unable to collect even that single grant, due to legal hurdling. The fundraising infrastructure is still sorely lacking, the visibility of the projects has not gone up much.

   I am also concerned about some of the legal implications related to the trust. Whether it's existence and independence, poses a liability or a concern for the movement. Chapters exist in their own ecosystem, there is not a lot known about the status and legality of the trust at this point, I have concerns that this might lead to problems down the road, if it is not clarified now. In conclusion, I would say it definitely needs an overhaul and more balance between how all entities exist in that ecosystem.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   No. First of all, I am against proliferation of terms like "Global South" though I do admit, that we don't use a lot of alternatives either. I like emerging markets, or developing countries better. I don't think the focus should be consultant-led, that has primarily been the big problem why past attempts have not achieved any favorable results. I am strongly in favor of supporting grass-root efforts, and empowering volunteers and small organizations. They are the heart of our community.

   I do not consider foundation's actions as fait accompli, I was an active participant in the strategy process that lead to that plan, I did not envision this root being taken to reach those goals. I am trying my best now, to not have the ideas agreed on by the community in the strategy process, enacted in this way.

   I would suggest relying more on the community. Attempts in the MENA region and Brazil, need to learn from the mistakes committed so far. A large one, is not involving the community in the process, and keeping them engaged. Instead of recruiting more consultants, we should first build a strong community, then try and recruit from within and then keep them engaged throughout. The attempts in Brazil, have been in line of those expectations, but I believe MENA region would require a different strategy all together.

1. Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)

   I believe it should be a collaborative effort, solely speaking on behalf of an entire movement is rarely possible. WMF should demarcate it's opinion and try to accommodate dissenting voices. if the final position can be mindful of all the respective opinions, then perhaps but it has rarely been the case.

   I have stated several times that the board is WMF's board, it is not the Movement's board or the community's. They are below the movement, if there was to be a hierarchy. The objective should be to hear, and represent the wider movement's interest to WMF, not the other way round.

2. Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)

   I don't have any plans so far. I proposed the Chapter Council, but I have not been as involved with the recent developments; the FDC on the other hand, largely remains an abstract, proposed body, lacking in structure. I have no idea what shape it will take or when it will come into existence.

3. Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)

   I like several other community members, am quiet aware of the issue. The reappointment aren't ideal, given the high visibility and availability of other candidates. It unintentionally, might send off the wrong message when the same appointees are brought back again and again. Some of the trustees have been on the board of WMF for over 5 years, in that time, WMF has grown exponentially. The set of expertise needed, the perspective, the representation has not kept up with those realities in my opinion. On the other hand, board members develop certain expertise over time, familiarity with issues; it is also not uncommon to retain them. The primary concern should be a right balance between the two, but I am strongly in favor of broader representation at this stage.

   In an ideal scenario, I would hope that the majority of the board is elected, but at least, having more elected members than appointed ones would be a good start. I would also like to see more new names on the board; they current trustees all wonderful, smart people who devote their free time to the task, but some of the trustees have been around for close to 5 years while we have grown so much in that time. The set of expertise that the board needs should also take this into account and offer wider representation.