On the first weekend in April, the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation published several resolutions addressing issues such as finance and movement roles ( Signpost coverage). The Signpost interviewed community-elected board member Samuel Klein ( Sj) for last week's issue to get an overview of the topic of movement roles and the surrounding debates. In this second interview, the only trustee voting against the fundraising resolution speaks in detail on the background of decisions taken on a broader range of issues from the Berlin resolutions to the make-up of the newly founded Wikimedia Chapters Association and of the Board of Trustees itself.
The most significant development that's emerged from the recent discussions on the organisation of the movement – the most radical change – is the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC).
So this marks a turning point, from a laissez-faire attitude to these disparate far-flung chapters, to a more centralised set-up for auditing of transparency and accountability?
One decision that you've made has been to create a two-tier system, recognising the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, and in effect the US as the five jurisdictions where it's much easier to donate with tax-deductibility. Is this just a by-product of the Foundation’s wish to tighten up on auditing?
So Switzerland, a small chapter that doesn’t process much, is recognised, but Italy is not, despite the fact that it's a much bigger chapter?
Will more chapters be able to join the tax-deductibility arrangement, or is the current list of five set in stone until the next review in 2015?
Do you have examples at hand that were very worrying?
So it's still a work in progress?
Whereas you're defining first-class according to auditing of transparency and governance?
If the FDC is to be explicitly a "volunteer-driven" body, does that mean a clear majority of its members will be volunteers rather than Foundation trustees and employees?
With the dual creation of a new Wikimedia Chapters Association and the Foundation's own revamped Chapters Committee, we have two bodies that could conceivably overlap in their interests and duties.
Is the chapters association going to be strongly encouraging good governance among its own members? Are there areas where there could be conflicts of interest? For example, what if delegates of a chapter are participating in the audit of that chapter?
Is there a chance that lobbying the Foundation's board might turn out to be the principle function of the chapters association?
“ | We've not been bound by confidentiality – trustees have always been willing to talk in general terms about a vote; but they'd get uncomfortable if it came to saying exactly who said what. There was just light social pressure against being the only trustee to talk about one's vote: you ran the risk of outing the votes of other trustees. | ” |
You were the only Foundation trustee to vote against the board's recent fundraising resolution. Why was that?
So you thought it was premature?
So that risk of failure was why you voted against it? In your view there wasn't sufficient caution on the board about things that could go wrong?
No doubt you'll be hoping that your fears are not borne out.
Although in the end, the Foundation has the last say on every cent that is spent. True?
“ | The Foundation's view is that processing [sitewide] donations does not imply any extra rights to spend those donations. | ” |
But you must foresee that some of the chapters might feel that they have to work a bit harder to get their money, to put it crudely: not only do they have to come under your microscope of governance and financial scrutiny, but they might actually have to apply for their special purpose money. Do you think that's behind some of the chapters' fears about the new arrangements?
In the chapters association, we have for for the first time a high-profile mouthpiece to speak plainly for the chapters, perhaps particularly for the stronger, more powerful, more vocal chapters. Might the association – subtly or not – put pressure on the two chapter-selected trustees?
The Signpost will as always be keeping a close watch on the changing dynamics of organisation and relations between the Wikimedia Foundation and the sometimes nebulous array of movement entities in the coming weeks and months. In the meantime, for the latest developments surrounding the nascent and powerful Funds Dissemination Committee, consult this issue's
"News and notes" report.
On the first weekend in April, the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation published several resolutions addressing issues such as finance and movement roles ( Signpost coverage). The Signpost interviewed community-elected board member Samuel Klein ( Sj) for last week's issue to get an overview of the topic of movement roles and the surrounding debates. In this second interview, the only trustee voting against the fundraising resolution speaks in detail on the background of decisions taken on a broader range of issues from the Berlin resolutions to the make-up of the newly founded Wikimedia Chapters Association and of the Board of Trustees itself.
The most significant development that's emerged from the recent discussions on the organisation of the movement – the most radical change – is the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC).
So this marks a turning point, from a laissez-faire attitude to these disparate far-flung chapters, to a more centralised set-up for auditing of transparency and accountability?
One decision that you've made has been to create a two-tier system, recognising the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, and in effect the US as the five jurisdictions where it's much easier to donate with tax-deductibility. Is this just a by-product of the Foundation’s wish to tighten up on auditing?
So Switzerland, a small chapter that doesn’t process much, is recognised, but Italy is not, despite the fact that it's a much bigger chapter?
Will more chapters be able to join the tax-deductibility arrangement, or is the current list of five set in stone until the next review in 2015?
Do you have examples at hand that were very worrying?
So it's still a work in progress?
Whereas you're defining first-class according to auditing of transparency and governance?
If the FDC is to be explicitly a "volunteer-driven" body, does that mean a clear majority of its members will be volunteers rather than Foundation trustees and employees?
With the dual creation of a new Wikimedia Chapters Association and the Foundation's own revamped Chapters Committee, we have two bodies that could conceivably overlap in their interests and duties.
Is the chapters association going to be strongly encouraging good governance among its own members? Are there areas where there could be conflicts of interest? For example, what if delegates of a chapter are participating in the audit of that chapter?
Is there a chance that lobbying the Foundation's board might turn out to be the principle function of the chapters association?
“ | We've not been bound by confidentiality – trustees have always been willing to talk in general terms about a vote; but they'd get uncomfortable if it came to saying exactly who said what. There was just light social pressure against being the only trustee to talk about one's vote: you ran the risk of outing the votes of other trustees. | ” |
You were the only Foundation trustee to vote against the board's recent fundraising resolution. Why was that?
So you thought it was premature?
So that risk of failure was why you voted against it? In your view there wasn't sufficient caution on the board about things that could go wrong?
No doubt you'll be hoping that your fears are not borne out.
Although in the end, the Foundation has the last say on every cent that is spent. True?
“ | The Foundation's view is that processing [sitewide] donations does not imply any extra rights to spend those donations. | ” |
But you must foresee that some of the chapters might feel that they have to work a bit harder to get their money, to put it crudely: not only do they have to come under your microscope of governance and financial scrutiny, but they might actually have to apply for their special purpose money. Do you think that's behind some of the chapters' fears about the new arrangements?
In the chapters association, we have for for the first time a high-profile mouthpiece to speak plainly for the chapters, perhaps particularly for the stronger, more powerful, more vocal chapters. Might the association – subtly or not – put pressure on the two chapter-selected trustees?
The Signpost will as always be keeping a close watch on the changing dynamics of organisation and relations between the Wikimedia Foundation and the sometimes nebulous array of movement entities in the coming weeks and months. In the meantime, for the latest developments surrounding the nascent and powerful Funds Dissemination Committee, consult this issue's
"News and notes" report.
Discuss this story