Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Sprint/Capacity Building/10
- 1 Independently governed Capacity Building ‘Unit’
- 1.1 Q 1 What is your Recommendation?
- 1.2 Q 2-1 What assumptions are you making about the future context that led you to make this Recommendation?
- 1.3 Q 2-2 What is your thinking and logic behind this recommendation?
- 1.4 Q 3-1 What will change because of the Recommendation?
- 1.5 Q 3-2 Who specifically will be influenced by this recommendation?
- 1.6 Q 4-1 Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
- 1.7 Q 4-2 What could be done to mitigate this risk?
- 1.8 Q 5 How does this Recommendation relate to the current structural reality? Does it keep something, change something, stop something, or add something new?
- 1.9 Q 6-1 Does this Recommendation connect or depend on another of your Recommendations? If yes, how?
- 1.10 Q 7 How is this Recommendation connected to other WGs?
- 1.11 Q 8 Do you have anything to add that was not covered with previous questions, yet essential for understanding the recommendation?
Independently governed Capacity Building ‘Unit’Edit
Q 1 What is your Recommendation?Edit
We recommend an independent Capacity Building organization or unit, governed by a community based board.
This will ensure that capacity building recommendations are implemented, sustain the momentum of the WG:CB, recommendations that need readjustments are adapted correctly, further research is done where needed, and that capacity building programs are sustained and continuously improved until 2030.
The board will engage members of the working group and will additionally be composed of volunteer members of the Wikimedia movement with experience in Capacity Building inside and outside of the movement. The board will provide continuous expertise, guidance and engagement around those areas of Capacity Building drafted in the recommendations, as well as advisory and research knowledge to inform program development.
The capacity building unit and its leadership will be independent from the Wikimedia Foundation or any other affiliates.
Q 2-1 What assumptions are you making about the future context that led you to make this Recommendation?Edit
We assume that the need for skilled people in providing advisory support for Capacity Building will only increase with the implementation of the recommendations in the coming years. November of 2019 is not the end of the road, it is just the beginning. We assume that a capacity building unit/organization (as well as new structures recommended by other WGs) will fit somewhere into new, more functionally distributed movement structures based on principles of self-organization, post- adoption of WG recommendations.
Capacity Building will be a function of the ‘new’ more decentralized Wikimedia Movement. This function, its staff, resources, programs and practices will need governance. Therefore, the roles of the board could be:
- Community oversight and liaison with diverse communities across the movement
- Gathering expertise and reviewing evidence-based on capacity building
- Decisions about capacity building programs, staffing and technologies
- Accountability for movement funds used for capacity building
Q 2-2 What is your thinking and logic behind this recommendation?Edit
Theory of Change: By creating a new unit/organization for capacity building, with an independent governing body, we will assure that capacity building activities for the movement are developed according to the recommendations, sustained over the long-term, continuously evaluated and improved with impact for the communities and the strategic direction in mind.
Q 3-1 What will change because of the Recommendation?Edit
Capacity Building will be sustainably assured for the movement over the next 10 years.
Capacity building programs and resources will be overseen by a community-based board, which will assure accountability towards those served by and participating in building and growing the movement.
Q 3-2 Who specifically will be influenced by this recommendation?Edit
All key movement stakeholders providing and receiving capacity building.
Q 4-1 Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?Edit
Q 4-2 What could be done to mitigate this risk?Edit
- Displacing staff and their work currently engaged in capacity building
- mitigation: assure that the unit works with existing capacity builders and programs, and coordinates, aligns, channels and discontinues activities per the recommendations
- The unit may not receive enough funding
- mitigation: assure that Recommendation 6 is implemented, and a base budget for capacity building going to the unit is committed over a multiple year period
Q 5 How does this Recommendation relate to the current structural reality? Does it keep something, change something, stop something, or add something new?Edit
It adds a new element to the movement structure, and shifts decision making and accountability to the new functional unit and its board.
Q 6-1 Does this Recommendation connect or depend on another of your Recommendations? If yes, how?Edit
It connects to all other recommendations as it is designed to ensure their implementation and sustainability, as well as to assure community oversight and accountability.
Q 7 How is this Recommendation connected to other WGs?Edit
Roles and Responsibilities: The CB unit and governance of it will have to be fitted into the new movement governance model recommended by R&R Resource Allocation: Funding will have to be provided for the capacity building work of the movement, as part of a concise annual budget towards the new ‘unit’. Then the capacity building board is accountable for this annual budget.
Q 8 Do you have anything to add that was not covered with previous questions, yet essential for understanding the recommendation?Edit
Not at this moment.