Chapter-selected Board seats/2012/Candidates/Questions/Phoebe Ayers

Phoebe Ayers (Phoebe)

Please ask here your question to be answered by Phoebe, the moderators will pass the questions to the candidate and place the answers in this page.

Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)
Since I am a current trustee: I would be a very poor trustee indeed if I promoted any particular chapter's or any other group's interest in particular; our role is to support all of Wikimedia, including all projects and groups that support our mission, and specifically to be responsible for the legal and financial health of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)
As regards the status of Amical, I largely agree with Patricio's astute analysis. I think it's a mistake to think of Amical or any other group as being in competition with chapters, and also a mistake to think that any particular group has a "funding priority" (none does, or should, aside from perhaps the core spending to keep the projects up and running). Good work and excellent projects that support our mission should be promoted and supported whereever they originate, and those applying for funds should be judged within a set framework of standards that varies only based on the type of request, not based on who is asking.
Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)
One of the reasons this debate over how best to disseminate funds and do fundraising has been tricky is that there are both philosophical and pragmatic components -- beliefs on how we should broadly speaking set up a system, and practical considerations on the ways in which we can implement that system. I believe that we should strive to support Wikimedia community members and projects that support our mission regardless of where they occur; that we should support and encourage the development and growth of community-developed organizations in support of Wikimedia projects throughout the world; and that we should support those organizations and projects financially to the extent needed and possible, within limits of accountability, effectiveness and transparency.

We should also have a recognition that increasingly large amounts of money need to be handled in an increasingly responsible manner; that the banner-based online fundraiser is a major professional operation that is distinct from other types of fundraising; that choices between good projects and priorities must be made; and and that financial and donor responsibility is built through transparent practices and pre-set standards that we all hold each other to. We should also have a movement-wide awareness that donors (by and large) donate to support the online projects, something that I worry is largely lost in our debates.

So I am in favor of decentralized spending and funds dissemination whenever possible, but I am also in favor of efficient, pragmatically-focused fundraising. That means chapters should take advantage of local opportunities, work with the WMF and larger chapters for fundraising best practices, and largely rely on the WMF to do annual online project fundraising. We do not all need to be experts in online fundraising, any more than we all need to be experts at keeping the servers up; for some chapters, it will make sense to locally receive the money as well as locally spending it, but for most it does not.
Answer to Question 4 (see above the questions)
Everyone -- candidates and voters -- should be aware that the role of the Board is, to a large extent, to support the Executive Director and executive leadership of the WMF, regardless of who occupies those roles. That's simply part of the job description, and one that all trustees need to accept.

That said, I've known Sue since she joined the WMF, and the last couple of years have formed a much closer and really enjoyable working relationship with her; similarly, I've known Erik for years, and we get along well.

I feel my relationship with all of the other trustees is also good; I've argued over and agreed on various different points with everyone, and I think we all have not just a good working relationship but generally a good synergy as a board, with a high degree of trust, openness, and collegiality.
Answer to Question 5 (see above the questions)
I'll note that this kind of personal relationship is mostly useful in doing personal outreach about the Board's decisions, and bringing in a variety of perspectives to discussions; again, advocating for any particular organization is inappropriate.

I know people on every chapter board, I think, and I count many folks as friends. I have found great joy in meeting Wikimedians in many parts of the world, thanks to attending all of the Wikimanias (5 continents!) and fairly extensive travel and meetup attendance beyond that. I've also participated directly or indirectly in many Wikimedia outreach initiatives, including events and work with the education project, GLAM projects, research, and conference planning.
Answer to Question 6 (see above the questions)
no.
Answer to Question 7 (see above the questions)
All of the above, alas!
Answer to Question 8 (see above the questions)
Because I believe the Wikimedia projects are one of the most important initiatives of our generation, and among the most important information and knowledge projects of any age. Because I am excited by our mission, I want to support it, and help ensure our projects are around for the long haul; and I think my skills, energy and broad knowledge of Wikimedia is suited to and useful on the Board.

Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)
Coming from a U.S. perspective: yes, they are as projects First Amendment protected speech, as they certainly should be; strong protection for individual speech, no matter how distasteful, immature or ridiculous, is far better than the alternative.

There may be individual instances of libel on these collaboratively-created sites (as there are occasionally on Wikimedia projects), but that is subject to a strict legal interpretation, particularly in the U.S. That does not imply that they are also accurate or socially acceptable, however.
Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)
no.
Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)
It's not just the past year; incidental or systematic harassment of Wikimedia contributors has been an issue for just about as long as we've had a big community. There is little we can do off-project. On-project, however, we have not only the ability but the responsibility to make our projects and services friendly and welcoming places. This must be balanced with our strong orientation towards user privacy and the WMF's limited role under the DMCA. That said, there are a few developments that I support or have worked on:
- the new Terms of use, which are being approved as we speak, explicitly encourage civility and make harassment against the terms of all Wikimedia projects. That gives us the project-wide framework to consider behavior that violates our global standards.
- There has been some work done in the past year on a "global arbcom" body that would consider cross-project bad actors, which is today a source of some of the most persistent problems. There is much work that needs to be done, but I support these efforts.
- Communication: though basic, better site-wide communication mechanisms are needed, particularly for the largest projects, so that it is more difficult for a small group to dominate any given consensus process.

Answer to the question (see above the questions)
My approach in consensus building: actively soliciting participation, listening, asking questions to draw out people's views and producing an atmosphere in which people feel welcome to participate, and summarizing and reflecting back what is said. Good consensus building should not be a compromise-building process, but a process to draw out the best of each sides' proposal and highlight those good points in a way that is rooted in the middle ground. Face to face, there are also a few skills to running a physical meeting in making sure people can stay alert and comfortable over long periods of time in difficult discussions; and also making sure that an atmosphere of trust is preserved and that people who become heated or anxious are calmed down by peers. We are fortunate right now to have a number of people on the Board who have these skills; I like to think that I am occasionally one of them.

Specific examples: I've worked in a complicated and sometimes-contentious situation in my library system, as over the past few years budgets have been cut and employees left without being replaced, and several controversial proposals for reorganization were made. My approach there has been to try to find and support things that work -- rather than throwing up my hands or (only) complaining, adapting our systems to make them work and figuring out what doesn't need to be changed. Making clear proposals and finding the good points in other people's proposals helps, as does listening to the motivations behind complaints and unhappiness: do people fear for their jobs? Do they feel underappreciated? Is the root of the problem what is being proposed, or the way in which it was proposed? Within Wikimedia, I've been involved not just in big all-hands debates but also smaller ones, both in the Board and out, and have tried to apply these same principles.

Answer to the question 1 (see above the questions)
not applicable.
Answer to the question 2 (see above the questions)
Board members of the WMF have a responsiblity to the WMF; current chapter officers are required to resign those positions before they join the WMF Board.

That said, I am having a hard time imagining a circumstance in which the Board would decide "against" a chapter. Perhaps if there was a motion to decertify a chapter that went forward to the Board? I do not count the fundraising discussions here, because I think those are very subtle and that there are many different interests to consider (including those of small chapters versus large, developing countries versus rich countries, etc.). Individual grant and funding decisions are not made by the Board.

Answer to the question 1 (see above the questions)
If I knew this off the top of my head we could have saved a lot of debate! :) The Board is currently working on this question, and it is also an open question to the community. I defer to this collaborative process, and will be glad to accept its outcomes.
Answer to the question 2 (see above the questions)
This is an interesting question. I think the WMF Board certainly should have a role in developing such standards, and implementing on the broadest scale -- for instance, asking the WMF ED to implement for the WMF, and making such standards part of standard agreements with the WMF for trademarks, funding and organizational recognition. It is not our job to review specific instances of implementation; that should be devolved to peer review whenever possible. I'm not sure what you mean by preserving, but periodic movement-wide review should be part of all of our policies and standards.

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
Again, if I knew a fool-proof way to do this, we could have saved a lot of work! You are right that editor retention & recruitment is our most pressing challenge; and it is also true that we have not solved this -- we haven't come up with a way that unambiguously turns those trends around.

By and large I think that the multi-pronged approach that the WMF is taking is right: improving the software to make it easier to use (upload wizard, visual editor), providing support and tools to communities and long-term editors (grants, curation tools), doing research on what makes editors stick around or leave (template research, etc), and doing outreach (education support, grants for GLAM work, etc.). Coming from a university setting, I am particularly supportive of the global education project; while we have much to learn, I think there's a lot of untapped promise there that could be supported through the WMF and chapters. I also think that we need to focus our energies on Mediawiki improvements, which will help not only Wikimedia projects but the whole universe of free knowledge projects that use our software. These improvements center on visual editor work but also include notifications, talk page threading, new page curation tools -- the whole suite of tools that editors use to interact with one another. While it is not the Board's role to specify which specific things should be done -- we do provide input on what areas to emphasize, and I think technical improvements and tools for communication are critical.

And we must remain an open, welcoming culture. It does not have to be a contradiction to build a project with editing rules that keep out poor-quality content and still be kind and open to newcomers. As experienced Wikimedians, we all have a responsibility to help build this culture.
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
This is a large part of the testing and research going on at the WMF now. We know of course how many editors there are and whether they are new or not; plotting this against various improvements (if we switch the visual editor on, what happens? If we change Huggle templates, do people keep editing?) and doing A/B testing is the primary approach. It is complicated, but possible. And of course we can look at all of the languages; it is interesting that some small languages are still rapidly growing in editors, while most large and well-established languages are not.
Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)
The WMF has made progress in identifying trends. What is more difficult, however, is figuring out how to fix them. As a trustee, I don't want the WMF to stop efforts in any particular area, but I think we can focus on areas that seem particularly crucial, such as technical improvements. All of this work is experimental in nature; some will succeed and some will fail, and we clearly have a lot to do and try. I think we need to allow ourselves the room to experiment, while having rigorous enough analysis work that we can tell which approaches are promising; from what I have seen in the last couple of years since the release of the strategic plan, the WMF has moved strongly in this direction and is improving every day. I would like, too, to see the kind of rigorous trials, research and improvments that we are trying at the WMF to also be done as chapter programs in various languages; this is certainly not an area where we can go it alone.

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
Some work is better centralized and some work is better decentralized. That is true for running the projects -- it makes sense to centralize maintaining the servers, but to decentralize editorial decision making -- and is also true for our governance and administrative infrastructure, which includes the WMF, chapters and volunteer work. So to your question about a centralized decision maker, I would say "decisions about what?"

The Board and the WMF are both well-placed to think about the movement holistically and globally, and I do think it is important to have a central body that is in that position -- if for no other reason to coordinate thinking about our strategy and future directions as a global project, and to ensure that the projects and the bodies that support them are stable and supported for the long term. But the Board must (and does) acknowledge that the vast majority of decisions are not ours to make and are better made in local, decentralized contexts.
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
Yes, of course it is a huge problem. Discussions like the fundraising conversations are difficult for native English speakers, let alone non-native speakers!
I have not thought of any ways to help address this problem that don't involve some fairly serious effort and infrastructure-building. But it is certainly worth it. Two ideas I have had are:
- Rapid RFCs: if the WMF or movement needs input on a topic, it could be framed as a series of requests for input on specific questions (rather than big documents or position statements and then free-form discussion). That way short answers could be provided in any language and then translated. I am imagining a more templated kind of discussion so you don't have to read through 50 pages to participate, but rather can just fill out a field in response to a question. To support getting the sense of discussions and consensus building we can focus more on summarization and reflection, a set of skills that our best community facilitators have.
- in-house deliberate translation support -- we need a system in which core documents, reports and discussion questions are routinely translated into specific core languages, rather like the UN. Our current translators are amazing, but this is important enough that we need to make sure that it is done every time, and rapidly. This might involve translation infrastructure or paying translators. It would be nice if every chapter could support a translator; if no one is available we should pay for translations. And, in turn, I would like to see chapters provide materials in their own language and get translation support from central bodies (grants, chapters council, etc) if they need it.
If there are other good ideas that haven't happened just because it would take money or time: we are open to them. There is widespread acknowledgement within the WMF that we must support being a multilingual organization.

Answer to the question (see above the questions)
Not to my knowledge :) Each trustee must fill out a conflict of interest form every year which is submitted to other trustees and the general counsel to review. I have done so and no concerns have been raised. My only financial dealings with the WMF, other than for travel reimbursements since I've been a trustee, have been around WikiSym 2010, which was a conference that I chaired and the WMF sponsored; that contract was made well before I ran for the Board. I haven't been a party to WikiSym sponsorship discussions since then.

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
I know that there have been conflicts. But I am not an expert on the specific situation in India, which makes me hesitant to comment. What I would like to see, in general, is not a sense of conflict, competition or feeling territorial but cooperation and coordination. As originally conceived, the office and the chapter have different strengths: the chapter can have members in all parts of the country, with activities and outreach and peer training in many places. The WMF program staff can support specific expertise in particular areas, as well as providing resources.
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
I think both bringing in programs and community empowerment is important; there has never been any question that we must empower the local community regardless of anything else. One of the things that we will learn from India, and now Brazil, is what consultant programs work, and which work the best, and indeed how best to work with local volunteers. If it turns out at the end of two or three years that hiring on-the-ground staff and consultants doesn't seem to make a difference (or hurts the local community), I would be open to scrapping the program. If it turns out that it does seem to work in particular areas, then let's iterate and continue.

Using the term "global south" as a short-hand for a whole range of countries (and even continents) with different communities, situations and Wikipedias is a bit imperialist in tone; I try not to encourage such sweeping generalizations. But I do think focusing on smaller languages -- and languages where the Wikipedia size doesn't match the number of people who speak that language, such as Arabic -- is crucial to achieve our goals of free knowledge for all. This is not just a national but also a linguistic issue, since our projects are language based and our editors may live anywhere. In general, I am incredibly excited not just by our international mission, which we have always had, but by our renewed focus on it the last couple of years. I don't know if on-the-ground individual work is the most efficient way to go, but I do support the focus on thinking about the needs of many disparate countries when designing programs.

Note on these questions -- Sorry I am answering these quite late -- it has nothing to do with the questions. They were posted when I was busy traveling & preparing for the chapters meeting, and I just forgot to come back to them! -- phoebe | talk 19:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
Legitimacy: it is impossible for a body of ten people, no matter how selected and how diverse, to fully represent all of Wikimedia: our strength comes from being a diverse and diffuse movement with many parts that is united under shared values (free knowledge, openness, etc). But the Board is often asked to represent Wikimedia, whether formally or informally, and trustees see it as their mission to think about, account for, and represent all of the needs of the movement. Whether the Board can legitimately make decisions for all of Wikimedia, not just the Foundation, stems in large part from how effective trustees are at synthesizing viewpoints and bringing a broad perspective to bear in making appropriate decisions. As far as the specific example of chapters goes, in fact the Board usually simply approves the chapcom recommendation, so in this case the question is whether the chapters committee is legitimate :) I think it is an effective model for the board to try and move decision-making about various topics to community groups whenever possible, and chapcom is a good example. In my opinion, the Board should lead by representing perspective and a long-term view, and worrying about the things that are hard to have a single answer for: what kind of organization should WMF be? What role does Wikimedia play in the free knowledge ecosystem? How do we make our projects and community healthy for the long haul?
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
I would not run for the FDC, and I expect I wouldn't be eligible for the chapters council. I wouldn't run for the FDC because I do not think grantmaking is where my core skills or interests lie. If I am not re-elected to the Board I would rather spend my Wikimedia time and energy working on topics I have a stronger background in (such as outreach, communications, and education); the FDC will be quite time-consuming and is not something to take on lightly.
Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)
The process is OK but we still need to improve it. During the last two years we have had good conversations about Board reappointments (and related topics such as skills needed on the Board, term limits, etc) which have largely been led by the Board Governance Committee. This has led to us adopting a Board evaluation process which is helpful. However, we could still strengthen this process, and I think we should revive the nominations committee to have more public input, and work on a Board pipeline -- looking for good external and internal candidates and helping them develop the skills required. Note that none of this is a commentary on our existing Board members -- after working with them for a couple years I am highly impressed by everyone on our Board. As far as the balance, I supported the board split (as a community member) years ago when we set it up, and after experiencing it in action I think it is a very nice balance. We all bring different perspectives, even as "community members" or "outsiders"; I think the specific person and their background is more important than where they broadly come from. If I was going to change the balance it would be towards expanding the Board to include one or two more seats. Note that whether someone is elected or not doesn't need to correlate with whether they come from the community; it's simply easier for known community members to get elected. I would favor having a couple more community members on the board, no matter how they got there; we have many talented candidates in this election and in past elections, and there would be benefit in having more energy, viewpoints, and hands to do the work.

Specific Questions to this candidate

Questions by user Ofol, WMFr member

During your mandate, what where your hardest times and why?
I'd say Haifa Wikimania. Not because of the conference -- which was amazing -- but our meeting and the decision to write the fundraising letter, as well as subsequent conversations, was very difficult. I was torn between knowing that we shouldn't make a decision like that with no notice, and also knowing that we needed to talk about it in person with everyone. In the end I urged us to go ahead and publish the letter right then so we could talk about it. But communication was a mess, and we needed a more structured process and more information to make the decision. It was extremely stressful. Despite all that I think the letter itself was pretty good!
During your mandate, what where your best times and why?
Even though I am very behind: writing reports on the Board's activities is a joy. Our trustees are amazing people doing amazing things. And, communicating that work and the work of the Board is quite satisfying :)
During your mandate, did you specifically work on a major topic where chapters were concerned? What line of action did you suggest?
One perhaps non-obvious answer is that our core work of approving the WMF annual and strategic plans directly affects the chapters, along with the rest of Wikimedia. What our areas of focus are for the coming year and how we will fund them affects all of Wikimedia and should be a movement-wide decision (awareness of this led directly to the idea of the FDC). During my tenure we started increasing grant funding for chapters and everyone in each annual budget, and I think this is increasingly important -- it has enabled money to go to smaller chapters, and to more events and projects, with varying emphasis, around the world. I continue to be on the conservative side when it comes to the WMF's growth trajectory, though pleased with our programs. I support the FDC idea however, as I think it can only do us good to decentralize and bring more community input and review into decisions about programmatic work.