Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Affiliates Strategy/Report

Comments about the report

After carefully reading the report, my impression is that the AffCom structure as it is now has passed its prime. There are some comments in the document as well that need to be replied -- i.e., the one about "capacity building". At this moment, there's an explosion of capacity building witin the movement, without AffCom having to steer it, with examples ranging from the Volunteer Support Network, to the Let's Connect program led between WMF & community members, etc. After reading this report, is even more clear to me that some of the functions that AffCom has need to go to WMF staff, and some of the functions to the Global Council, and maybe, just maybe, some of the other functions might need to be handed over to another structure TBD. It is sound practice to let go of structures that don't serve a purpose anymore.

On the other hand, the question about the number and distinguishing tiers of affiliates is well worthed a survey. People already have a hard time navigating the models of affiliation and the expectations for them, or even understanding the relationship between "Wikimedia projects", the Wikimedia Foundation, and whatever other affiliate might be working on a given country. Personally, I don't see how adding more complexity to the affiliate structure here will do anyone a service; maybe what we need is something different than the affiliate structure (i.e., something like clubs, where you get swag and a training when you show up after doing x number of events). If there are too many affiliates, that merits a different strategy, but it should be a process in itself to run that consultation / survey / strategy process. AffCom can't change that because there are clearly a lot of differing opinions, and neither the Board or AffCom are positioned to make an informed decision on the matter. Scann (WDU) (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Scann (WDU) Thank you for the thoughtful comment, and sorry for replying only now.

Re AffCom structure & role – my thinking now is that if the function is needed, it is better to look at what we have now, and see if things can be improved. I agree with you that some functions should be moved to staff (for example, no need to waste volunteer time on routine work, for example, as volunteers join for their expertise and experience, and they cannot be expected to timely communicate or perform tasks around the clock – it causes delays). We can talk in more detail about which staff exactly would be best positioned to do this work (maybe some things would be better done by relevant staff of hubs, or big affiliates – for example, the overlapping review or clarifying the scope might be better done locally, in a local or regional language). AffCom has indeed not done much capacity building historically (there were some objective obstacles to do that also), and now, that there are a lot of groups doing capacity building, it may makes sense for AffCom to mostly be pointing affiliates to existing opportunities (as AffCom is a single entry point for affiliates), and also AffCom can help surface affiliate needs to the said groups, as AffCom is also one of the central places where the information about governance issues affiliates are facing is gathered systematically.

Re Global Council – it greatly depends on what purpose it will be playing if created. If it were a global body, it would not be dealing with individual affiliates, but rather creating a playbook for all, and overseeing that the game is fair. In that case the function of strategy around affiliates will be on its plate, and it will be the one passing a resolution on this topic, not the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I also agree with you about a “sound practice to let go of structures that don't serve a purpose anymore” – structures, projects, organisations etc. But in reality, and as long as affiliates exist, someone needs to resolve questions related to affiliations – for now it is AffCom, so improving the status quo makes sense. And meanwhile, someone still needs to perform some more operational work for the next few years – I think in the short term investing in improving how things work in the existing structures makes more sense.

Re changes currently the Wikimedia Foundation Board does have that mandate. And AffCom has the right to act on that within its charter. I think it is tempting to think that “Global Council will come, and things will improve immediately”, and i hear it from people from time to time, but i have not yet witnessed things to start working immediately and right for everyone just because they are put on paper or published on Meta – it will take time. Establishing a working environment inside a group takes time, as people have different opinions, and they need to also establish rules and procedures to pass difficult decisions. We should try and make changes, experiment (when it does not take a lot of resources, and makes sense in the long run), and if it fails – fine, new structures would not need to repeat it; if it works – even better, they would be able to build on it. Sorry for a long reply! --NTymkiv (WMF) (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, @NTymkiv (WMF). Scann (WDU) (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)