Talk:Wikimedia UK/Governance Review discussion
Thank you for your patience! We have been trying hard to get the report published but behind the scenes all sorts of factors had to be considered and dealing across two time zones didn't help. But in the best traditions of openness and transparency it is here now.
I am going to leave the community to record its own thoughts but would like to thank everyone who in good faith contributed to these documents. With luck we can all move forward and share lessons learned with the wider movement. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jon. Thanks for uploading the report and chronology of events. However, both of these PDF files are "secured" which means that you can't copy/paste from them. I've never seen a publicly posted Wikimedia-related document that has been "secured" in this way, was this done for any particular reason, and if not please could you re-upload a newer version of the file that is not secured? Thanks. Thehelpfulone 18:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the report and for its publication. It would be very valuable to discuss it at the Chapters Meeting in Milano. Not with regard to WM UK, but what we, as a movement, can learn out of it.--Pavel Richter (WMDE) (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Immediate implementation
Thanks for publishing this review. There's clearly a lot to digest in this so I will just start with one point. In the published Q&As you state:
WMF and Wikimedia UK jointly undertook this review and the creation of the report with the shared understanding that the recommendations would be reviewed and adopted immediately where appropriate.
This is a surprise to me. When the review was announced I don't remember anything about "immediate implementation". Although some of these recommendations are simple and uncontroversial, others are far-reaching and fundamental changes and I wouldn't want the board to make these decisions without a thorough discussion with the community first. I would agree that "prompt" implementation is required, but I can't see why a delay of a few weeks would cause any issue.
I wouldn't want to see the chapter bounced into making changes that it later comes to regret because the issue hadn't been properly thought through. AndrewRT (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew -- just wanted to check you had seen the implementation timescale at the end of the report. I don't think that timescale will necessarily make people feel rushed. Over on the Wikimedia UK wiki I have listed a set of motions for Saturday's board meeting. If passed, this would implement much of it (though of course two of them are in turn motions to take to the AGM for members to consider). Do have a look. We also have some legal advice on which recommendations would require changes to our Articles. Many thanks, Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing me in this direction - it puts a lot more colour on the process from here on. I have some suggestions regarding the board motions which I'll raise there. AndrewRT (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Location for discussion
Why has this page been created here? We have a Wikimedia UK wiki which would seem the obvious place for a discussion about Wikimedia UK's governance... --Tango (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Presumably because people from outside the UK may also want to discuss the matter? However, it would good to have a clearer demarcation of what discussions would be appropriate where. AndrewRT (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, there were no border police surrounding the UK wiki... --Tango (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maximum transparency at heartJon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining that Jon as I found it odd. Although whilst we on the subject of "___location" then can I request that someone take the trouble to post on peoples talk pages if their names are mentioned anew here? Victuallers (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say putting things where people would expect to find them is more transparent than putting them on a wiki where things have a tendancy to get lost. Having an announcement here is good, but the discussion should take place on the WMUK wiki. --Tango (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jon, it might be helpful if you or the trustees could respond to questions posted here and demonstrated some of that transparency in action. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello? Is anyone from WMUK watching this page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of staffs, your first comment was posted after they finished work on a Friday. In terms of trustees, they've been having and are having a board meeting this weekend. Give people a fair chance to respond? KTC (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- The has been no shortage of activity by staff and trustees on the mailing list since I posted. It was my understanding that the WMUK were interested in community input prior to their meeting. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of staffs, your first comment was posted after they finished work on a Friday. In terms of trustees, they've been having and are having a board meeting this weekend. Give people a fair chance to respond? KTC (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hello? Is anyone from WMUK watching this page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jon, it might be helpful if you or the trustees could respond to questions posted here and demonstrated some of that transparency in action. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maximum transparency at heartJon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, there were no border police surrounding the UK wiki... --Tango (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
One of the problems in this situation was that postings on the Wikimedia UK wiki were not widely known about or discussed by people not directly involved in the chapter. The nice thing about meta is that a lot of people from different chapters and indeed from no chapters at all do participate and read here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'll second that - as a non-Brit, I just feel more comfortable commenting here. While much of this is a UK affair, it is also a worldwide Wiki affair. Smallbones (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Just to clarify, the reason this discussion is hosted on Meta is because it is a wiki that most people will be familiar with, as opposed to the UK wiki. I discussed this with Jay Walsh from the WMF and this was the solution we came up with that would encourage the widest participation in the discussion and help to keep things in one place. Delicious carbuncle, I'm sorry if you feel like this question has been ignored. I can assure you that this isn't the case. I hope that this question has now been answered satisfactorily. --Stevie Benton (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Stevie, but I had no questions about why the discussion was here. My concern was that there seemed to be very little participation here from WMUK staff or trustees. You can see my questions in a section below - perhaps you could find someone to answer them. Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Term Limits
The report recommends term limits of three two year terms for board members despite the fact that none of our problems are due to people being too long on the board and if anything our problems have been partially down to people being inexperienced at trusteeship. My reading of that part of the recommendations is that they reflect the fashion for term limits in the UK not for profit sector. For example housing associations are recommended to limit trustees to three three year terms, with the rationale that non execs should be recycled by sitting on other boards and thereby cross fertilising the sector and sharing experience. Other sectors often have ten year limits. As it is the fashion, and frankly we are a long way off anyone reaching nine years as a trustee, then though I'm not impressed with the concept, I see no great harm in WMUK going along with this and implementing either a 3x3 or 5x2 limit. But I am surprised that they are recommending a much shorter six year cap, and I think that would be unhealthy in governance terms. The opposite of an ossified board is an unstable one, and judging from what has gone public about recent incidents and as a member of WMUK with some board experience of other UK not for profits, WMUK is historically much closer to the latter than the former. WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm generally opposed to term limits for elected positions. If a position is elected, the electorate ought to be able to vote for whoever they think is best for the job. There shouldn't be restrictions placed upon that without very good reason. The main advantage I can see for term limits on elected positions is if there is a significant large incumbent advantage. I don't think that is the case for us. Leutha has helpfully put together a summary of election results here. At the first election in 2008, there were obviously no incumbents. In 2009, 3 of the 8 candidates were incumbents and 3 of the 7 successful candidates were. In 2010, all 5 candidates were incumbents and they were all successful. In 2011, 3 out of 8 candidates were incumbents and 3 out of 7 successful candidates were. In 2012, 5 of the 16 candidates were incumbents and 4 of the 7 successful candidates were. Only the last election was sufficiently contested to really give interest results. The numbers do suggest a small incumbent advantage, but most of that can probably be explained by some non-incumbents being completely unqualified for the job (if you've done the job before, then you presumably reach at least a minimal standard). If you (somewhat arbitrarily) exclude the two candidates last year that got 1 and 2 votes respectively as being completely unqualified, the numbers become 5 out of 14 (36%) and 4 out of 7 (57%). If the election were done at random, so 7 names are picked out of a hat containing 14 names, with 5 incumbents the probability of at least 4 of them winning is 13%. That's much higher than the 5% that is the standard confidence threshold for this sort of thing, so we must comclude there is no evidence for a significant incumbent advantage (if you put back in the 2 completely unqualified candidates, it becomes 8%, still greater than 5%). So, I oppose term limits until such time as there is evidence of a problem needing that solution. (Term limits for co-opted members is a different matter entirely, and as yet I haven't formed an opinion on it.) --Tango (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Press coverage
- Third Sector, 8 Feb 2013: Review urges major overhaul of governance at Wikimedia UK
- Civil Society, 8 Feb 2013: Wikimedia UK trustees have been 'too involved' to effectively govern charity
What is the status of QRpedia? What is the status of Monmouthpedia-type projects?
The Q&A page says:
Q: What is the status of the QRpedia project – and the other community ‘pedia’ projects?
The report outlines clear recommendations for clarifying the ownership and operation of the QRpedia project. The other community projects are still active, although neither WMF nor Wikimedia UK are planning to support new projects of this nature at least until that question is resolved.
Q: Will there be more community ‘pedia’ type projects and use of QR codes?
There are no current plans from Wikimedia Foundation to expand the number of the community projects. The Wikimedia Foundation is not planning to review nor approve any licensed uses of the Wikipedia trademarks for the purposes of community projects at this time.
The report makes recommendations about clarifying the ownership and operation of the QRpedia project. Wikimedia UK is currently in negotiations about the possible transfer of ownership and operation of the QRpedia project.
The formulation of these questions are extremely poor. Although the "wikitown" projects like Monmouthpedia and Gibraltarpedia involve QRpedia, there are really two entirely separate concerns here. And the answer for QRpedia is no answer at all. Can the question be divided into two separate questions and answered please?
What is the status of QRpedia?
- Who currently owns it and why has it taken so long to negotiate the transfer of a couple of websites?
- Why is it needed at all if the WMF can easily create a similar facility under their complete control (say at qr.wikipedia.org)?
What is the status of the "wikitown" projects?
- Is there yet an MOU for Monmouthpedia?
- If so, where is it?
- If not, why not?
- Same questions for Gibraltarpedia.
- What is the status of Chepstowpedia?
- What are the other "wikitowns" that have been discussed within WMUK?
Sorry if my questions come across as a little pointed, but I have asked similar questions in the past and gotten less than full or satisfactory answers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
QRpedia discussion
- Why is it needed at all if the WMF can easily create a similar facility under their complete control (say at qr.wikipedia.org)?
- Backward compatibility. You'd rather we didn't have to change all the QR code plaques that we've already stuck up all over the world. I wouldn't say WMF can "easily" create a similar facility either, given the amount of Wikimedian expertise that has been put into QRpedia to optimise it. Deryck C. 12:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I fully expect that the current owners of QRpedia would continue to support the QR codes already out there as supporters of the wiki-movement (in fact, they may be contractually obligated to do so). The code for QRpedia is under a free license, if the WMF wanted to use it. It would not be underestimating the task to say that a replacement could be up with a few hours work. In any case, it does not seem to be a very sound idea that such a facility is "owned" by a WMF chapter rather than the WMF itself, especially at a time when the WMF is attempting to move away from such arrangements with the toolserver, etc. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is no contractual obligation to continue to support QRpedia codes in any of the installations which I have initiated; nor am I aware of any in any other projects. (Note that only the ___domain to which the codes direct, qrwp.org, and the server software at that ___domain, needs to remain working for existing codes to function; qrpedia.org is only used for code generation and documentation). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I fully expect that the current owners of QRpedia would continue to support the QR codes already out there as supporters of the wiki-movement (in fact, they may be contractually obligated to do so). The code for QRpedia is under a free license, if the WMF wanted to use it. It would not be underestimating the task to say that a replacement could be up with a few hours work. In any case, it does not seem to be a very sound idea that such a facility is "owned" by a WMF chapter rather than the WMF itself, especially at a time when the WMF is attempting to move away from such arrangements with the toolserver, etc. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- The name QRpedia is well known and well respected in the GLAM sector (and, indeed, in the international Wikipedia community); with two years' effort in raising awareness of it and encouraging GLAMs to use it. It would be foolish to throw that awareness and goodwill away with an unnecessary rebrand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Andy, I believe you have a vested interest in this issue. The QRpedia Twitter account lists you alongside Roger Bamkin and Terence Eden ("A project by @edent, @Victuallers, @PigsOnTheWing & others"). Roger Bamkin noted in his "declarations of interest" that you are part of an enterprise with him and John Cummings. You have requested funding from WMUK to attend a conference relating to QR codes. Much of the "two years' effort in raising awareness" has been your work. For at least half of that time, the ownership was being negotiated. To continue to promote QRpedia while the ultimate ownership was unclear was unwise.
- While I foresee the WMF being around for a long time, I am less certain that WMUK will be. It has been dissolved once before. If the WMF, not WMUK, replaces the QRpedia functionality, I imagine that the GLAM sector will understand the reasons for such a change and quickly adapt for future deployments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have a declared interest in the same way that we all have an interest in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. I have no contractual, commercial or financial arrangements with Roger, Terence, John or any of their companies. As to the wisdom of my actions; your personal views are noted, but not shared; likewise your views of the likely response of the GLAM sector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Andy, I know that you are a tireless proponent of Wikipedia, but the funding request linked above notes that you do "contract work on QRpedia related projects". That would seem to be a commercial interest. I understand that the £17,500 Geovation prize will go towards "training communities of people to edit articles about their local area, the erecting QRpedia codes linking to those articles". Would someone be paid to conduct this training? If so, might that be you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I reiterate, I have no contractual, commercial or financial arrangements with Roger, Terence, John or any of their companies. That includes QRpedia. If I teach people to use Microsoft Word, do I have a commercial interest in Microsoft? I am neither in receipt of, nor offered, a penny of money from, or derived from, Geovation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- If one is earns money by teaching people how to use Microsoft Word, then they have a vested interest in encouraging people to use Word, especially if there is a possibility that they might earn money by teaching them how to use it. There are many many people qualified to teach the use of Word. There are fewer people who are qualified to teach Wikipedia editing. There are very few people who are in your position, which is strongly associated with WMUK, Wikipedia, and QRpedia. The people most likely to benefit financially from promoting QRpedia are you, Roger Bamkin, and Roger's associates. Whether or not you have contractual, commercial, or financial arrangements with Roger, you do paid "contract work on QRpedia related projects", do you not? I suggest that you have a financial interest in promoting QRpedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- What point are you trying to make, DC? That I shouldn't comment here? That my comments here should be disregarded? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have not suggested that your comments should be disregarded, nor would I suggest that. I believe you have been less than clear when it comes to how your Wikipedia-related activities benefit you financially. I believe that several individuals associated with WMUK have drawn questionably vague lines between their volunteer activities and their paid work. I think the community is justifiably uncomfortable with the situation. Admittedly, you likely know very little about how I earn money -- and how you earn your money is largely your own business -- but I can assure you that I earn no money from anything in any way related to Wikipedia and have no interest in doing so. If it was not clear to you, I was making the point that you have a potential conflict of interest when it comes to QRpedia, if not an actual conflict of interest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- What point are you trying to make, DC? That I shouldn't comment here? That my comments here should be disregarded? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- If one is earns money by teaching people how to use Microsoft Word, then they have a vested interest in encouraging people to use Word, especially if there is a possibility that they might earn money by teaching them how to use it. There are many many people qualified to teach the use of Word. There are fewer people who are qualified to teach Wikipedia editing. There are very few people who are in your position, which is strongly associated with WMUK, Wikipedia, and QRpedia. The people most likely to benefit financially from promoting QRpedia are you, Roger Bamkin, and Roger's associates. Whether or not you have contractual, commercial, or financial arrangements with Roger, you do paid "contract work on QRpedia related projects", do you not? I suggest that you have a financial interest in promoting QRpedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I reiterate, I have no contractual, commercial or financial arrangements with Roger, Terence, John or any of their companies. That includes QRpedia. If I teach people to use Microsoft Word, do I have a commercial interest in Microsoft? I am neither in receipt of, nor offered, a penny of money from, or derived from, Geovation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- "the wisdom of my actions" - from the subsequent announcement, it seems that my advocacy was justified. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- The transfer of QRpedia does not make your promotion of the project while the ownership was under negotiation any more or less wise. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Andy, I know that you are a tireless proponent of Wikipedia, but the funding request linked above notes that you do "contract work on QRpedia related projects". That would seem to be a commercial interest. I understand that the £17,500 Geovation prize will go towards "training communities of people to edit articles about their local area, the erecting QRpedia codes linking to those articles". Would someone be paid to conduct this training? If so, might that be you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have a declared interest in the same way that we all have an interest in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. I have no contractual, commercial or financial arrangements with Roger, Terence, John or any of their companies. As to the wisdom of my actions; your personal views are noted, but not shared; likewise your views of the likely response of the GLAM sector. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
QRpedia agreement announced
According to Chris Keating, the Wikimedia UK chair, an agreement on QRpedia has now been reached: "The intellectual property in QRpedia and the qrpedia.org and qrwp.orgdomains will be transferred to Wikimedia UK, which will maintain and support the development of the QRpedia platform for the future. Roger and Terence will act as honorary advisors to Wikimedia UK in this, as well as retaining their moral rights of attribution, but will not receive any financial consideration for this." --Andreas JN466 17:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was about to ask if this is the full agreement - in which case there is nothing to worry about for anything related to QRpedia. But just noticed at the above link: "A fuller statement will follow." Could somebody post that here when it does follow? Smallbones (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think you will find any shocks Smallbones. The reason for Chris's terse statement was that it had taken all afternoon to sort out and we wanted to share the news to avoid further speculation (we thought!). And so that the board could go and have a well deserved meal. I am surprised to see here some very silly stuff with some trying to work out who is going to benefit from a facility that so far has only cost money. Can I note that its the work of people like you that benefits Wikipedia. Thank you I hope to see you later in article space Victuallers (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Unverständliches Fachchinesisch
Hier kann auf deutsch diskutiert werden. --AndreasPaul (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- ("Discussion in German can be found here"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Judging by a Google translate, most of that discussion is just people complaining about the Kurier article (and debating whether the word "governance" exists in German or not), rather than discussing its contents. --Tango (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Expanding the board
The first recommendation is to increase the size of the board from 7 to 9. The reason given for this is "to allow for greater diversity of soft and hard skills and experience". If we have a lack of diversity of soft and hard skill and experience, it isn't due to the board being too small. It isn't like we have 7 different types of people on the board and 8th and 9th types just waiting for a space to open up. The diversity of the board has always been broadly in line with the diversity of the people standing for the board, which suggests the problem is with our recruitment not with the size of the board. As with a lot of these recommendations, this one is obviously just there because we don't quite fit their template of how they think a charity should work. It hasn't been proposed to solve any problem that we actually have. There is an argument for expanding the board to make room for co-opted seats, but if we do decide we want co-opted seats then we could just have 5 elected and 2 co-opted, the ratio is about the same (slightly more elected) and 2 co-opted seats is still enough to add good extra skills/experience to the board. A larger board will, inevitably, be significantly less efficient than a smaller one (large groups tend to fragment in order to maintain efficiency, so we would tend to see a lot more being done by committees and very little by the whole board - we do need more to be done by committees, but there is a lot of stuff that really should be discussed and decided by the board as a whole - the things that should be done by committees are generally things that aren't being done at all at the moment, rather than things that should move to committees), so we should only expand the board if there is a really good reason to. --Tango (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)