Talk:Wikimedia Chapters Association/Secretary-General

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I think one of the advantages in the Job description should be a knowledge with the Wikimedia movement. It is not a necessary thing for being a SG, but can be advantage. --Itzike (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will let other people express their opinions on this before writing mine. Tomer A. -- Talk 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that knowledge of the Wikimedia movement should be an advantage, and given the history from Haifa to Washington I think it should even be required.--Aschmidt (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would say something like "Have a good knowledge of the Wikimedia movement and community, or experience of working in volunteer-driven organisations." We might have a really good candidate who isn't actually a Wikimedian but has lots of relevant experience from (say) working in an international NGO. Obviously the selection process would take Wikimedia experience into account. The Land (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is that acceptable by everyone? Tomer A. -- Talk 10:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My own view is that such experience should certainly be highly desirable, but not necessarily required. We shouldn't turn down an otherwise stellar candidate because they haven't got some arbitary prior level of engagement with the websites. Craig Franklin (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I am strongly in agreement here. Knowledge and participation in the Wikimedia movement should be a necessity, not just an advantage. If you have to explain all the subtleties and nuances with chapters and the relations around them, it would be counter-productive to what happens with the council. Theo10011 (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge of Wikimedia Movement is always good for the SG candidate -- naveenpf (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation / costs of office[edit]

It's perhaps a bit premature, but having a Job description / advert without a line about expected levels of compensation (salary, benefits) and travel / subsistence / costs of office seems odd to me. We all probably agree on what those should look like, but it's important to be clear when hiring people. James F. (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft for community comments on the required skills and job description. The job itself will be advertised only after we will know where the offices be hence what is considered a competitive salary on that region. Advertised position will include these employment details. Tomer A. -- Talk 12:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered questions[edit]


thanks for the description draft. After reading, pretending to be a candidate, I have some quite relevant questions which seem unanswered:

  • How many people will have to be managed by this SG? (answer is probably that we don't know yet, so we should include a statement along the lines of 'as determined by the Council')
  • Will there be a lot of travel involved (currently it only says willingness, but doesn't give an indication how often)? (should the person be mobile)?
  • Is it a part time or full time job?
  • Is it a job that can be done from home or do we expect a 9-5 mentality at the office? Does it require and/or compensate relocation?
  • What does the hiring procedure look like?
  • What is the term that the SG would be hired for?
  • As mentioned above, salary indication.

Effeietsanders (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still many unknowns here (that cannot be answered until we know how much funding we will have, and where we will incorporate), but it will be a full time job, that will require presence in an office at least some of the time (ie: not work from home all the time, but 9-5 at the office every day not required either). Craig Franklin (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
That is definitely the case if you have a larger office to run - but at this point it is unclear to me if that would be the case. Will there be multiple employees? Will they be working from the same country even? I mean, if there's no-one else in that office, I don't see the point in requiring someone to go there. Effeietsanders (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Job Description[edit]

This is very broad and could apply to a whole level of abilities. We really need a 'person specification' that describes the sort of experience that the person is likely to have. This would help with the salary level (James F ) and a few other questions. This is the one from my Job:


• Proven leadership experience at Chief Executive or senior management level

• Experience of working effectively with a team of volunteers

• Experience of working in a charitable or not-for-profit environment

• Successful people management and an ability to lead and work collaboratively in a small team

• Working with Trustees or other non-executives to develop and implement strategic vision

• Experience of managing effectively at a senior level in a multi-disciplinary environment and of developing excellent working relationships with senior influencers across all sectors


• Track record in strong financial management and of achieving sustainable growth


• Passionate about the aims and values of Wikimedia UK and inspires enthusiasm

• Drive, strength and credibility to lead and grow an organisation from its earliest stages; vision, innovation, strategic thinking

• Exceptional people management skills, with the ability to work with, bring together and inspire volunteers working remotely over geographically dispersed locations

• Ability to prepare effective operational and financial plans, to advise Trustees on these and to lead implementation of plans

• Excellent project management abilities

• The flexibility to work with a range of stakeholders including volunteers, academics and corporate organisations

• Flexible approach, with the capability to operate effectively in a high-growth start-up environment, and identify and manage opportunities and risk

• Gravitas, with a robust approach and the facility to inspire confidence and create trust; persuasion and representational skills at the highest levels to secure funding and influence

• An excellent communicator, with the ability to explain technical terms clearly in public speaking and in speaking to the media

• Logical, clear thinking, diplomatic and patient approach

• Understanding of working with and managing volunteers; the ability to learn quickland integrate within the Wikimedia community

• Ability to work flexible hours and locations as required


• An understanding of the open source community including copyright law and free Licensing

• Data savvy, with experience in a technology start-up

• An understanding of internet technologies, in particular wikis

• An understanding of the culture and policies of Wikimedia communities

• Knowledge of other languages that are spoken in the UK

Feel free to use any of this if it is useful.

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well, with Wikimania 2012 coming closer, I just would like to ask, what is the state of affairs as to selecting the Secretary-General? I gather that the job description still is a draft, and public discussions seem to have come to a close. Could someone please give us an update on the selection process? — Thanks.--Aschmidt (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, also this discussion has become pointless. I understand by now that not further specified external recruiters have already been hired. I look forward to a more extensive update from the side of the Committee. Perhaps then the discussion can actually lead to results then. I would appreciate it if at least it could be indicated when a discussion page is considered finalized to avoid that people spend (waste?) time on participating anyway. Effeietsanders (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This is surely not the intended epithet. It's highly prejudicial (opposite of open-minded). Tony (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange indeed. I assume the intended meaning was something like "who have a similar mindset", but I was puzzled too when I saw it. - Laurentius (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not change it to like-minded? --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good word. I'll change it. - Laurentius (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]