Movement roles/Working group meeting 2011-3-24
( from the etherpad)
- Movements Roles Meeting
- Berlin, March 24, 2011
- Asaf, Anirudh, Lodewijk, Bence, Abbas, Delphine, Galileo (Galio), Jon, Alice, Salmaan (Theo), Austin, Bishakha, Arne, Barry, SJ, Joan, Vladimir
- when and how to address Sue's input. Note: Sue's input to be posted on Meta today. Is there other long-form input we want to solicit?
(SJ - something similar from Jon H.perhaps) We have 45 min, with a very short update/introduction, and then a discussion.
- Short presentation for MR introduction-timeslot at Chapters Conference:
- Recent discussions with the Board -- limited updates since Frankfurt; but we have had discussions about new models recently.
- Process update: (brief; reading Jon's notes)
- Work on a skeleton charter - also in small groups?
- Timeline from here
- Break into small groups shortly (come up with specific suggestions in each tough topic, for items that were left undefined last time) and improve the meta page.
---> flow of funds [note it and postpone it for its own discussion] ---> new models ---> ---> legitimizing and authorizing groups ---> accountability, legitimacy, ---> ---> auditing [self- and other] ---> definition of roles, and matrix ---> communication, including participation & feedback in this process
We are a movement-driven group; not part of the Foundation, or paid, or grown out of any single part of the movement (except perhaps people sharing these organizational interests) The work group has grown to 17 people, polled Wikimedians online and in inverviews, and surveyed other global NGO movements that might be considered "peers"  In Berlin we will listen to feedback and develop a draft charter and recommendations on roles, responsibilities and accountability. Topics worked on: New organizational models, Accountability and legitimacy, Roles and activities, Communications, and Fundraising and resource allocation*
- Question raised about whether MR should tackle this?
Process questions: Take a few minutes for questions about process; then make it clear this is not a request for process discussions. Moderated discussion: (45 minutes?) With a focus on three pieces -- avoiding getting too general Closing: The timeline from here, and how can you participate.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/Participants http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group/Responses_to_initial_questions http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group/Learnings_from_peer_organizations http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project/New_group_models
2. New models
--> reviewed by a community group; approved according to some simple standadrs for alignment with the movement. --> approvals posted on a wall for a couple weeks, during which anyone can complain; complaints are handled by a smaller group focused on drama-free assessment of mission --> qualified to get swag (merchandise), can ask WMF for simple use of marks (for events) and use recommended names (friends of wm/wp &c). details about what usage is appropriate should be published; passive guidelines. There could be hundreds or more of these groups; the community group that reviews them should grow accordingly like the en:w WikiProject Council
Partner Organizations (Affcom)
---> registered incorporated bodies, aiming to be non-profits aligned with the movement. --> reviewed by a partner committee (or a subgroup of an extended chapcom). with formal standards. --> We should focus on messaging and encouragement to let people know that it is valuable to organize around a type of work, not just a geographical area. --> Examples: a GLAM org. that might be a valuable example to flesh out and encourage to take shape; non-political --> give examples of differences between these orgs and chapters: territorial vs thematic approach, general vs particular interest/scope, fundraising; pursuit of external partnerships. -----> POs should talk to chapters when looking into a government grant for the government of that chapter. but pursuit of private foundation support should not require this. ---> shares most tools with chapters; the difference w/ chapters is functional. (cf. related to how the Wikimedia fundraising activities happen (should not preclude independent fundraising), how relationships with national organizqtions develop)
There would be a small stream of these; it would be as difficult to become a P.O. as a chapter.
[ Mission-aligned Groups ] Wall Discussion Affgroup (informal?) + AffViewers Mediation -----------------------------------------------------| F Associations | O | | R goals/scope | M / \ | A Particular General | L (non-country) (country) | I | | | T AffCom---------------------------------- | Y | | | of the group Partner Orgs WM Chapters | increases v
Focus on functionality -- when you ahe both a partner and a chapter, make sure that they see one another as peers. it's nice to keep community and chapter and partners in the loop when working on a proejct with shaerd contacts. [cf BD]
Other forms of recognition Supporters (Partners? Patrons) Friends of Wikipedia? --> a group parallel to Benefactors, for non-financial donors and supporters (major archive and museum support, for instance) --> create a page recognizing these groups online Award-winning groups & individuals --> (associations, wikiprojects, &c.) --> annual awards, &c.
Other forms fo discussion Have parallel discussions on meta and internal
3. Accountability and Legitimacy
You also find the content of this paragraph at Movement roles/Accountability basics.
Trust Stewardship of Resources Sense of Ownership by the communities Co-operation Legal Requirement(s)
Behaving according ro Movement principles Knowledge should be free Share with al human beings No undue influence Openness and Diversity Volunteer Driven Fulfilling roles that have been agreed upon with the movement (e.g.,WMF's role to protect the projects, acting in accordance with trademark agreements) Usage of Resources Sharing plans, activities and results publicly with the community (different standards depending on the group) Relevant legal requirements that apply to the group and the group's jurisdiction
<see above for starters>
1. Principles for enabling accountability internally to the movement:
proactive management of accountability: Group has responsibility to self-report and regulate on its own accountability requirement self-regulation: Group sets own standards for accountability subject to broader "to be considered" standards (that are group appropriate) public action and reporting as default: Groups should act and report in public as a default, private should be an exception with justification reasonable review of a group's status within the movement (where and when required - frequently, never, active, passive) : <keep in mind> Minimizing bureaucracy
2/ Principles for enabling accountability externally to the movement:
public action and reporting as default: Groups should act and report in public as a default, private should be an exception with justification clear description of the group's purpose, activities and contact information
4. Roles Matrix
If we are going to talk about movement roles, then we need to know what roles exist If we are going to assign roles to entities, then we need to think about which entities exist (or could exist) Premise/basic assumption: Organisational level
- a nice and complex matrix
- We were thorough, and arrived at a fairly comprehensive set of roles
=> Brief mention of the process that produced the matrix (corkboard clouds) => We didn't have any real "outliers"—all roles could be aggregated into a comprehensive set
- It started a good reflection on what the organisational building blocks might be
=> We identified roles that we were not sure belonged at the organisational level
- Complexity is difficult to render
=>We began by trying to define each cell as a "yes," a "no," or a "maybe." As we filled out the matrix, it quickly became clear that the intersections of the various roles and organizations were more complex => need to pay attention to the circumstances, environment => work on an example with the participant?
Where we need help
- Creating a much more detailed list of "who" (building blocks)?
- =>which chapters? (chapter level?), what are groups?, which level of the Foundation or of the chapters (staff, board)?
- Reponsibility table. Who is ultimately responsible?
We need more data:
- Working group session about this?
- [working group on making a survey to collect data about roles and responsibilities]
- Failed (or not) projects)
- Initiative description (one liner)
- Role that wasn't clear:
- Problems encountered:
- Outcome of the project:
- The stuff we still want to do
- The current matrix is not definitive enough; too many roles were shared by almost everyone to some extent or another, we need to make this more definitive
- => In the Wikimedia world, pretty much anyone can do anything. The question is, who/what has the ultimate responsibility? We need answer this question
[ Lunch ]
- Brief summary
- Ask people to think of cases in which there was unclarity of roles, and how that played out
- A visual slide with diagram (& link)
- Brief summary? (with link)
- Self-assessment & peer-review ideas? (see below)
Ideas for followup by current working groups
- RM: Extend matrix to new models
- NM: Further models (for decision-making bodies - community, chapter councils; cf sg commentary)
- ACC: Self-assessment -- every group should consider self-assessment; defining ways to measure their work, and measuring it periodically
- ACC: Peer review group -- a group of peers that helps every org in the movement engage in self-assessment, and summarizes/aggregates their self-assessed status
It is important for us to be a group that facilitates discussion among the community, and to continue to have side discussions - not to simply reflect the views of a small group. Once we have a draft charter, many people willdiscus details, but perhaps we can do something to invite specific peoplet o join, lokoing for those with some sensitivities:
- people from brasil, from groups critical of how money is administered - (reps from each cluster of chapters? is there arleady sufficient participation there?) - consider that there's a mix, among most groups (chapters, wmf board members, editing community, staff) of people who think MR is salvation, people who are suspcious it is not useful, and people who don't know about it.
Concerns - if we don't spark discussion and interest from chapters, why go further? And it can be dangerous to allow the schedule to stretch -- recommendations to resopnd to are better than questions to answer.
Ideas for outreach.
- posting sue's email on the foundation list
- considering revisiting the wikimania deadline. note that w will have another ch meeting in h the day before wm. (conversely, that would be a great day to finalize agreement if there has already been a review discussion in the preceding 1-2 months)
- weekly summaries of related work done
- rhetorical point - I think we could do X. if you don't accept that, what would you suggest doing to solve this problem?
- focus on content rather than process. change q's and approaches.
- reach out to specific individuals known to have strong opinions on relevant questions
- reach out to chapters and other groups -- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/groups -- and request a committed liaison who'd undertake to solicit feedback from fellow board/chapter members
Draft Questionnaire - part 1 (multiple choice): https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHFGSEljVlBjUDlOdVZPWGV6TmRkaGc6MQ
Draft Questionnaire - part 2 (open questions): https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dFNScGszQWFVRnNWZHNZVE05RnA2UlE6MQ PLEASE COMMENT.