Moeller proposes break-up of WMF

[Poetlister]

Everyone's favourite ex-WMF chap proposes "that WMF might be a more effective organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off organizations and affiliates."

[Vigilant]

Everyone's favourite ex-WMF chap proposes "that WMF might be a more effective organization if it limited its own size in favor of focused spin-off organizations and affiliates."

From the person who brought you VisualEdsel, we present WikimediaFoundation_2.0!Now with additional SuparProstatePotection!
What could possibly go wrong!?

Looks like some of the shitheels that Lila tossed to the curb are going to come crawling back and try to wiggle their way back into the slop trough.

[Textnyymi]

East WMF and West WMF?

[TungstenCarbide]

Commons definitely needs to be their own boss. Just think of the work they could do unshackled.

[Midsize Jake]

3) Accountability. Within a less centralized federation, it is easier to ensure that funding flows to those who do work the movement wants them to do.

Ehh, no it isn't.

Leave it to a long-term Wikipedian to completely fail to understand what "accountability" is and how to achieve it!

Based on the rest of the e-mail, it seems like a safe bet that he'd like to regain a significant role in the software-development side without the messy inconvenience of managerial oversight. I suppose you can't blame him, as this is the dream of many, if not most software developers. Still, is he being too obvious here? Should he have waited a couple more weeks, or a month? I'm thinking he could have avoided the suspicion of Machiavellian tendencies if he had waited.

[Kelly Martin]

3) Accountability. Within a less centralized federation, it is easier to ensure that funding flows to those who do work the movement wants them to do.

Ehh, no it isn't.

Leave it to a long-term Wikipedian to completely fail to understand what "accountability" is and how to achieve it!

Based on the rest of the e-mail, it seems like a safe bet that he'd like to regain a significant role in the software-development side without the messy inconvenience of managerial oversight. I suppose you can't blame him, as this is the dream of many, if not most software developers. Still, is he being too obvious here? Should he have waited a couple more weeks, or a month? I'm thinking he could have avoided the suspicion of Machiavellian tendencies if he had waited.

Moeller is even more of a doublespeaker than Jimbo. When Moeller says "transparency" he means "secrecy". When he says "accountability" he means "inscrutability".

His intentions, with this proposal, is to install himself as the "hub spoke" through whom everyone else must transact business. Moeller has always striven to create "silos" within the WMF, with communications between silos carefully managed and mediated through a limited number of people (preferably him or someone beholden to him). This "spinoff" idea just makes those silos even stronger (they'd be separate organizations entities instead of merely different departments) and a person who has a finger in all of them (him) will be powerful.

WMF has always had terrible internal communications; Moeller is the principal reason why. He understands that knowledge equals power, and he has always worked very hard to ensure he has more power through having more knowledge. That means gaining knowledge for himself, but it also means keeping knowledge away from other people.

It is a given that any time Moeller proposes something, the purpose of that thing is to diminish the number of people who will be able to know some thing.

[Zoloft]

Commons definitely needs to be their own boss. Just think of the work they could do unshackled.

"Wikimedia Commons and MindGeek proudly announce the first 'Wikimedian in Residence' at Pornhub in Montreal."

"An educational partnership has been announced between Milky Studios and Wikimedia Commons, that will allow Commons to vastly increase its ability to host streaming video of archival films."

"The endowment from Larry Flynt will establish the Pricasso Chair of Art..."

[Randy from Boise]

Commons definitely needs to be their own boss. Just think of the work they could do unshackled.

"Wikimedia Commons and MindGeek proudly announce the first 'Wikimedian in Residence' at Pornhub in Montreal."

"An educational partnership has been announced between Milky Studios and Wikimedia Commons, that will allow Commons to vastly increase its ability to host streaming video of archival films."

"The endowment from Larry Flynt will establish the Pricasso Chair of Art..."

There would no doubt be vigorous competition in some quarters to be the recipient of the Larry Flynt Endowment...

RfB

[Vigilant]

I love how there are really no dissenting voices on the mailing list.

Herro, incompetent people of the wikimedia-l list!!
How do you suppose that all of big nonprofits manage this task of having multiple groups within the organization that you all seem to find so utterly frightening?

Let's not even mention the Fortune 1000, since they've apparently been doing it all wrong all these years.

Here you go; here's a freebie from mean Uncle Vigilant:
Hire someone with honest-to-god management skills and give them a year.
Don't hire someone who fits your weird idea of diversity.
Hire someone who has shown a 30 year track record of increasingly complex and successful management.
I wouldn't even worry about nonprofit experience. It's not that important.

You guys need to start over with someone who can do the job, not look good on paper while failing to do the job.
Have an actual, professional executive search firm do the vetting. Last time, you guys did NO VETTING whatsoever. I dug up stuff in the first 30 minutes that should have disqualified Lila/Wil.

Lila's record on management was pretty thin, to be blunt, and Sue had almost none at all.
Erik is a contraindicator. If he can't manage to finagle another job with the WMF again, he's likely never going to be hired in Silicon Valley tech again. He's less than a zero.

Alternatively, you could keep doing stupid shit and I can keep pointing and laughing at you.

[Cedric]

Alternatively, you could keep doing stupid shit and I can keep pointing and laughing at you.

More of this, please. Thank you.

[Poetlister]

I'm thinking he could have avoided the suspicion of Machiavellian tendencies if he had waited.

I hope that isn't true. Surely there are enough people out there with the sense to suspect him whatever he says and whenever he says it!

[Michaeldsuarez]

3) Accountability. Within a less centralized federation, it is easier to ensure that funding flows to those who do work the movement wants them to do.

Ehh, no it isn't.

Leave it to a long-term Wikipedian to completely fail to understand what "accountability" is and how to achieve it!

Indeed. Accountability means being held responsible for one's actions, but Moeller uses the word to mean "ensuring that money send to the Activity1 Department / Organization is being used for Activity1." Just because money being sent to the Activity1 Department / Organization is being used for Activity1 doesn't mean that mishaps won't happen, and it certainly doesn't mean that someone would take responsibility for such mishaps. Time and money can still be used unwisely and for its intended purpose at the same time. For example, they could hire an incompetent developer to do the task. That developer could spend weeks working on that task and get nowhere yet still be paid; thus, time and money can still be wasted. Accountability means incompetent people being fired, but that isn't what Moeller is saying here.

[The Adversary]

Well, note that Möller in his first post on the subject wrote that:

WMF itself has no clear accountability to the movement. The Board elections are advisory in nature. There is no membership. Non-elected seats are filled by the Board with little visibility. There is a semi-permanent "Founder’s Seat".

...which is 100% accurate. And wanting "the powers that be" to change that, voluntarily, is 100% certain to fail.

I.o.w.; they can discuss this as much as they like; nothing will come of it.

[Vigilant]

Well, note that Möller in his first post on the subject wrote that:

WMF itself has no clear accountability to the movement. The Board elections are advisory in nature. There is no membership. Non-elected seats are filled by the Board with little visibility. There is a semi-permanent "Founder’s Seat".

...which is 100% accurate. And wanting "the powers that be" to change that, voluntarily, is 100% certain to fail.

I.o.w.; they can discuss this as much as they like; nothing will come of it.

Nothing was going to happen with this to begin with, but given the filthy hands of the messenger, even less will come of it.

[eagle]

The fundamental question is who controls the flow of cash from the banner ads and fundraising appeals on Wikipedia? Who will control the annual payouts from the nascent "Endowment" over at the Tides Foundation? That entity is currently the WMF which is separate from the "Wikipedia movement." We need to better define how the WMF is governed. Once good governance is in place with accountability and transparency, we can decide which of the current WMF functions should be kept, should be thrown under the bus, or left survive on funding sources such as independent grants.

[The Adversary]

Well, note that Möller in his first post on the subject wrote that:

WMF itself has no clear accountability to the movement. The Board elections are advisory in nature. There is no membership. Non-elected seats are filled by the Board with little visibility. There is a semi-permanent "Founder’s Seat".

...which is 100% accurate. And wanting "the powers that be" to change that, voluntarily, is 100% certain to fail.

I.o.w.; they can discuss this as much as they like; nothing will come of it.

Nothing was going to happen with this to begin with, but given the filthy hands of the messenger, even less will come of it.

...except that all those supporting this on lists.wikimedia.org will end up looking like fools....

(Ah well, nothing new, then )

The fundamental question is who controls the flow of cash from the banner ads and fundraising appeals on Wikipedia? Who will control the annual payouts from the nascent "Endowment" over at the Tides Foundation? That entity is currently the WMF which is separate from the "Wikipedia movement." We need to better define how the WMF is governed. Once good governance is in place with accountability and transparency, we can decide which of the current WMF functions should be kept, should be thrown under the bus, or left survive on funding sources such as independent grants.

Well and true, but any change from status quo is dependant on the agreement of the BoT....and I suspect they are well satisfied with the present setup.

[Kumioko]

You know as I think more about this it may not be such a bad idea to break things up a bit. If they did, then the WMF could focus more on the strategy and planning. The technical group could work with Wikia and share resources while charging the WMF for it's services and other branches could do the same. If the goal in this was to make the WMF into a more profit focused enterprise instead of a wholly donation based one, then these things might actually be able to generate some revenue.

You could still keep the WMF as the tax exempt piece and then the others could make money. Sure they wouldn't be tax exempt anymore, but then the technical/engineering section could be used to do other for profit work besides just Wiki stuff. Then the whole search engine and other initiatives could still be done while charging the WMF for the work being done for it on a fee for service basis.

[Vigilant]

You know as I think more about this it may not be such a bad idea to break things up a bit. If they did, then the WMF could focus more on the strategy and planning. The technical group could work with Wikia and share resources while charging the WMF for it's services and other branches could do the same. If the goal in this was to make the WMF into a more profit focused enterprise instead of a wholly donation based one, then these things might actually be able to generate some revenue.

You could still keep the WMF as the tax exempt piece and then the others could make money. Sure they wouldn't be tax exempt anymore, but then the technical/engineering section could be used to do other for profit work besides just Wiki stuff. Then the whole search engine and other initiatives could still be done while charging the WMF for the work being done for it on a fee for service basis.

You must imagine trying to find at least one competent manager per 'business unit'.
This is the first failure of that model.

[Poetlister]

the technical/engineering section could be used to do other for profit work besides just Wiki stuff.

Are you suggesting that they could design and program a visual editor for someone other than the WMF? Who, knowing anything about Wikipedia, would ever employ them to make the tea, let alone do major programming projects?

[Zoloft]

the technical/engineering section could be used to do other for profit work besides just Wiki stuff.

Are you suggesting that they could design and program a visual editor for someone other than the WMF? Who, knowing anything about Wikipedia, would ever employ them to make the tea, let alone do major programming projects?

This solves a problem the way Procrustes (T-H-L) used to tuck in his guests at night.
Spin off the software engineers, then never buy their services again, hire a good open source company with rigorous standards and documented successes in the industry.

[Kumioko]

the technical/engineering section could be used to do other for profit work besides just Wiki stuff.

Are you suggesting that they could design and program a visual editor for someone other than the WMF? Who, knowing anything about Wikipedia, would ever employ them to make the tea, let alone do major programming projects?

Actually yes, there are literally dozens of Wiki's out there including Wikia, Shoutwiki, several used by the Government in various capacities and several potential uses not currently in practice. So yes, I do believe there is a lot of profit potential in this. I'm not saying they could pull it off nor that I agree with the idea itself, but it is doable.

To answer Vigilant's comment, finding qualified people at the WMF would be next to impossible so they would almost certainly need to hire some new folks and get rid of some of the current chaffe.

And yes, you could source out the requirements to the lowest bidder/most qualified and if the Engineering team gets it or not, it's not the WMF's problem as long as the end result is what they want.

[Poetlister]

Are you suggesting that they could design and program a visual editor for someone other than the WMF? Who, knowing anything about Wikipedia, would ever employ them to make the tea, let alone do major programming projects?

Actually yes, there are literally dozens of Wiki's out there including Wikia, Shoutwiki, several used by the Government in various capacities and several potential uses not currently in practice.

Yes, of course there are many other wikis, and I know the owners of a few. My question was whether any of these owners would use WMF staff given the mess thay have made of WMF projects. I would scarcely advise them to.

[Hex]

This solves a problem the way Procrustes (T-H-L) used to tuck in his guests at night.

Wikipedia helpfully notes in that article:

Jacques Derrida, in "The Purveyor of Truth", his response to Jacques Lacan's seminar on "The Purloined Letter" (1956), applies the metaphor to the structural analysis of texts: "By framing in this violent way, by cutting the narrated figure itself from a fourth side in order to see only triangles, one evades perhaps a certain complication."

#craparticles #offtopic #sorrynotsorry