Wikimedia Conference 2012/Documentation/Day 1/Chapter-council-transparency

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

Hope we could get an advocacy network and help each country chapters with copyright reform.


Notes[edit]

Garfield Byrd (CFA WMF): reports are needed or fundraising and chapter agreements which are needed for transparency issues and for seeing whether donor money was spent correctly, should be the same for chapters in the Chapters Council and those who report directly to the WMF

Tomer Ashur (Chair WMIS): Is it possible to divide this work?

Garfield Byrd (CFA WMF): Yes, as long as it's accessible for the WMF through the Wikimedia Chapters Association (WCA).

Ilario Valdelli (Board WMCH): they have to report to the state and to the WCA

Tomer Ashur (Chair WMIS): why two reports are needed?

Ashley Van Haeften (Board WMUK): but main question is the power to “force” chapters, what's the best practice for our movement to reach transparency and be effective because just having standards doesn't help

Thierry Coudray (CEO WMFR): standards depend on chapters' size

Jeffery Nichols (Secretary WMCA): so how to check standards? what happens to chapters that do not fit standards? are they supposed to get no money?

Tomer Ashur (Chair WMIS): will the WCA have a seat in the FDC, with voting rights? then an enforcement upon chapters would be possible

Martin Rulsch (Board WMDE): how does the WMF enforce chapters now?

Barry Newstead (CGDO WMF): the WMF doesn't do this at the moment; but just about two thirds (?) respond to their requests to send their reports and to their questions whether they spent this money correctly or used it for their own interests like parties; plus, the WMF sets such rules into their fundraising agreements

Anja Krieger (facilitator): how is the WCA able to enforce chapters?

Ashley Van Haeften (Board WMUK): 5 levels of maturity would be useful and could be visualized now

Ilario Valdelli (Board WMCH): maturity depends on which “dimensions”?

discussion[edit]

Dimensions could be:

  1. money
  2. budget
  3. size
  4. history
  5. decisions
  6. management
  7. training
  8. skills, etc. (see slide)

Maturity levels could be:

  1. immature (help needed)
  2. … (see slide) – they shouldn't be negative because chapters could just be dormant, new, growing, or developing

the question by Ashley Van Haeften (Board WMUK) and Tomer Ashur (Chair WMIS) whether we want a scale was accepted

Barry Newstead (CGDO WMF): what could be implications for rich chapters with a low level activity?

Tomer Ashur (Chair WMIS): dimensions should be quantifiable? -> Yes

After a long discussion about program plans the question was raised where chapters who have no budget but are doing good things should have a bad level? -> Slobodan Jakoski (WM Macedonia): No

Thierry Coudray (CEO WMFR): we should keep emergencies in mind like having to appoint a CEO out of the chapter's Board

Pavel Richter (CEO WMDE): staying at a level is okay, and not growing no reason to blame a chapter