The next candidate in the ongoing series is current Board member Erik Möller, also known as Eloquence. Erik has been around about as long as Danny, and has been on the Board since last fall. Erik's statement talks mostly about the Board's accomplishments, and relatively little about his own or the details of his role in those accomplishment; his personal accomplishments are mainly things related to but not part of the Foundation's work. Erik's campaign platform is explicitly a repeat of his platform from the last election, which is in itself interesting; it begs the question as to why he has not accomplished what he set out to do nine months ago.
Erik has perhaps the most extensive answers to questions of any candidate, other than perhaps Danny. Given that he is a current board member, I would certainly expect more and more germane questions. There is more to be found in Erik's answers about his personal accomplishments as a Board member.
One thing that really struck me was Erik's statement that he spends about 20 hours per week on Board activity. This is highly dysfunctional; in a more properly run organization this would be 20 hours a month at most, and more likely 20 hours a quarter. Statements from Florence indicate that this is not unusual. That the members of the Board have to work this hard is, ultimately, an indictment of the Board and its inability, or mere unwillingness, to delegate. Erik, as a member of that Board, ultimately shares in the responsibility for that state of affairs. He's been a Board member for nine months; surely he could have done something about it in that time, or at least described what efforts he's made toward resolving it and why those efforts have not been successful.
Another thing I notice in Erik's answers is his tendency to take credit for other people's work. For example, Erik claims to have "worked closely with Philipp Birken on the coordination of the FlaggedRevs development project". However, VoiceOfAll, the primary implementer, states that Erik's contribution to the project amounted only to "a few comments", and that Erik's main involvement was to suggest that someone coordinate the project using a mailing list. For Erik to claim this as a significant accomplishment is disingenuous at best, and (for me, at least) it seriously calls into question the credibility of his other claims. This is consistent with my past experience: Erik is very willing to take full credit for anyone else's accomplishments, based on even the most tangential contact.
There are seven members of the Board of Trustees at present. In my mind, they are divided into three groups. The first group, consisting of Anthere, Jan-Bart, and Oscar, are trustees who I consider untrustworthy, incompetent, or otherwise useless. The second group, consisting of Jimmy and Erik, are people who seem generally interested in the basic principles of the project, but whom I also do not trust because their personal need to advance their own egos interferes with their commitment to the project. (The remaining group, consisting of Michael and Kat, are the only people on the Board who I believe are actually acting responsibly as trustees.) In Jimmy's case, this takes the form of celebrity appearances, speaking engagements, and so forth (who didn't wince all the way through his painful appearance on The Colbert Show?). In Erik's case, it consists of getting his fingers into as many pies as he can so as to be able to claim credit for any one of them should it develop into something important. Erik is a power broker, and a rather good one at that. Power brokers, however, rarely make good leaders, and Erik fails quite miserably in that regard. They are also notorious for putting personal interest first and foremost, and Erik does a lot of that too. Erik's failure at establishing appropriate institutional controls within the Foundation during his nine months as a Board member is telling; I do not believe that Erik actually intends to push for a more open Foundation (even as he promises to do so during this campaign) as that would interfere with his multifaceted approach to power manipulation. Power brokers want information to be controlled tightly, because (as we know) information is power, and those with access to the information will therefore have more power. This is reinforced by Erik's passionate defense of the so-called "secret minutes", and his excuse-making for the failure of the Board to maintain the records required of it by Florida corporations law. (What neither Erik nor anyone else will actually say, but which is hinted at by Erik's response to my question, is that the Foundation changed to a nonmember structure to avoid being sued by a member for failure to comply with Florida law. It's still possible that the Attorney General might sue them, but the AG probably won't do so unless given a really good reason, which at present it does not.)
One of the disquieting things I've noticed in the Foundation in recent months have been the expansion of staff positions without corresponding oversight of those positions. The Foundation has, in recent months, hired both Cary Bass as a volunteer coordinator and Vishal Patal as a business developer. As far as I can tell, both positions are sinecures. Neither person has any managed expectations on what they do, measured performance goals, or really any of the things that I normally associate with employment. These jobs appears to be "gimmies" to people who ingratiated themselves with the right people. Please note that Erik takes credit for both positions.
Erik waxes eloquent (double meaning intended) on the role of chapters in his response to Arne's question about chapters. Another questioner asked about Erik's attitude toward a US chapter. Erik is very supportive of the existing chapters, but not very much of a US chapter. This is not surprising. There is a significant element in the WMF community that exhibits strong anti-American attitudes. Also, the current governance of the WMF gives a great deal of power to the chapters, and especially to the German and French chapters, whose relationship to the Foundation is, in some areas, closer to superior than to the subordinate position one would expect. Unsurprisingly much of the anti-American attitude is aligned with the French and, to a lesser degree, German chapters. Erik's ambivalence to a US chapter is political fence-riding; he is telling his European friends that he won't devolve power to the dirty Americans while at the same time trying to paint a hopeful picture to the Americans who still comprise the largest segment of the Wikimedia community.
And while we're on the topic of chapters: does anyone really know what the chapters do? As far as I can tell, their main function is to hold parties. They seem to be little more than social clubs, with no real function otherwise, and as power centers. Erik talks a lot about how the chapters could do more, but I don't believe he actually expects them to. Their current incarnation serves his powerbrokering interests quite well. (There are other structural reasons why I think a US chapter has foundered when the European chapters have "succeeded", but I'll save that for a post after this series completes.)
I'll be quite honest; I don't like Erik and I think he's a poor choice for the Board of a functioning organization. (But seriously, if you've actually read this far you already know this.) However, the simple fact is that most of the voters in this election aren't voting for people to exercise oversight over the operations of the Wikimedia Foundation; instead, they are voting for the Grand Poobahs of the Wikimedia Foundation Social Club. As Erik is admirably suited for that role, he should win reelection easily.
Erik has perhaps the most extensive answers to questions of any candidate, other than perhaps Danny. Given that he is a current board member, I would certainly expect more and more germane questions. There is more to be found in Erik's answers about his personal accomplishments as a Board member.
One thing that really struck me was Erik's statement that he spends about 20 hours per week on Board activity. This is highly dysfunctional; in a more properly run organization this would be 20 hours a month at most, and more likely 20 hours a quarter. Statements from Florence indicate that this is not unusual. That the members of the Board have to work this hard is, ultimately, an indictment of the Board and its inability, or mere unwillingness, to delegate. Erik, as a member of that Board, ultimately shares in the responsibility for that state of affairs. He's been a Board member for nine months; surely he could have done something about it in that time, or at least described what efforts he's made toward resolving it and why those efforts have not been successful.
Another thing I notice in Erik's answers is his tendency to take credit for other people's work. For example, Erik claims to have "worked closely with Philipp Birken on the coordination of the FlaggedRevs development project". However, VoiceOfAll, the primary implementer, states that Erik's contribution to the project amounted only to "a few comments", and that Erik's main involvement was to suggest that someone coordinate the project using a mailing list. For Erik to claim this as a significant accomplishment is disingenuous at best, and (for me, at least) it seriously calls into question the credibility of his other claims. This is consistent with my past experience: Erik is very willing to take full credit for anyone else's accomplishments, based on even the most tangential contact.
There are seven members of the Board of Trustees at present. In my mind, they are divided into three groups. The first group, consisting of Anthere, Jan-Bart, and Oscar, are trustees who I consider untrustworthy, incompetent, or otherwise useless. The second group, consisting of Jimmy and Erik, are people who seem generally interested in the basic principles of the project, but whom I also do not trust because their personal need to advance their own egos interferes with their commitment to the project. (The remaining group, consisting of Michael and Kat, are the only people on the Board who I believe are actually acting responsibly as trustees.) In Jimmy's case, this takes the form of celebrity appearances, speaking engagements, and so forth (who didn't wince all the way through his painful appearance on The Colbert Show?). In Erik's case, it consists of getting his fingers into as many pies as he can so as to be able to claim credit for any one of them should it develop into something important. Erik is a power broker, and a rather good one at that. Power brokers, however, rarely make good leaders, and Erik fails quite miserably in that regard. They are also notorious for putting personal interest first and foremost, and Erik does a lot of that too. Erik's failure at establishing appropriate institutional controls within the Foundation during his nine months as a Board member is telling; I do not believe that Erik actually intends to push for a more open Foundation (even as he promises to do so during this campaign) as that would interfere with his multifaceted approach to power manipulation. Power brokers want information to be controlled tightly, because (as we know) information is power, and those with access to the information will therefore have more power. This is reinforced by Erik's passionate defense of the so-called "secret minutes", and his excuse-making for the failure of the Board to maintain the records required of it by Florida corporations law. (What neither Erik nor anyone else will actually say, but which is hinted at by Erik's response to my question, is that the Foundation changed to a nonmember structure to avoid being sued by a member for failure to comply with Florida law. It's still possible that the Attorney General might sue them, but the AG probably won't do so unless given a really good reason, which at present it does not.)
One of the disquieting things I've noticed in the Foundation in recent months have been the expansion of staff positions without corresponding oversight of those positions. The Foundation has, in recent months, hired both Cary Bass as a volunteer coordinator and Vishal Patal as a business developer. As far as I can tell, both positions are sinecures. Neither person has any managed expectations on what they do, measured performance goals, or really any of the things that I normally associate with employment. These jobs appears to be "gimmies" to people who ingratiated themselves with the right people. Please note that Erik takes credit for both positions.
Erik waxes eloquent (double meaning intended) on the role of chapters in his response to Arne's question about chapters. Another questioner asked about Erik's attitude toward a US chapter. Erik is very supportive of the existing chapters, but not very much of a US chapter. This is not surprising. There is a significant element in the WMF community that exhibits strong anti-American attitudes. Also, the current governance of the WMF gives a great deal of power to the chapters, and especially to the German and French chapters, whose relationship to the Foundation is, in some areas, closer to superior than to the subordinate position one would expect. Unsurprisingly much of the anti-American attitude is aligned with the French and, to a lesser degree, German chapters. Erik's ambivalence to a US chapter is political fence-riding; he is telling his European friends that he won't devolve power to the dirty Americans while at the same time trying to paint a hopeful picture to the Americans who still comprise the largest segment of the Wikimedia community.
And while we're on the topic of chapters: does anyone really know what the chapters do? As far as I can tell, their main function is to hold parties. They seem to be little more than social clubs, with no real function otherwise, and as power centers. Erik talks a lot about how the chapters could do more, but I don't believe he actually expects them to. Their current incarnation serves his powerbrokering interests quite well. (There are other structural reasons why I think a US chapter has foundered when the European chapters have "succeeded", but I'll save that for a post after this series completes.)
I'll be quite honest; I don't like Erik and I think he's a poor choice for the Board of a functioning organization. (But seriously, if you've actually read this far you already know this.) However, the simple fact is that most of the voters in this election aren't voting for people to exercise oversight over the operations of the Wikimedia Foundation; instead, they are voting for the Grand Poobahs of the Wikimedia Foundation Social Club. As Erik is admirably suited for that role, he should win reelection easily.
It's always interesting to see how people's minds work when they apply a strong emotional filter to everything they see or hear. For instance, you accuse me of both highlighting my achievements and at the same time not highlighting them. You accuse me of doing too much work for the Board, and at the same time, of not having made enough progress. No matter what I do, say, or write, you would apply a healthy dose of your seething hatred to it and portray it in the most negative light possible.
ReplyDeleteBut there is little substance. You know very well that the WMF has operated without an Executive Directory since January; that is the main reason for the high workload of the Board. Could we have hired a new ED sooner? Yes, absolutely, and you'd have a very valid point if you criticized that this process has been dragged on for months. I have been just as critical of that, both privately and publicly, and frustrated that sometimes the Board falls into paralysis instead of taking action.
Your comments on the stable version projects are, of course, a textbook example of your brand of criticism: get a single piece of information and then reach an extremely harsh conclusion. Here are some more facts for you, which I expect you to ignore fully, failing to correct your public statement in any way whatsoever.
The "FlaggedRevs" project dates back many months, and is fundamentally based on a proposal by some German Wikipedians, which you will find documented here:
Gesichtete Versionen
Geprüfte Versionen
In late 2006 to 2007, I spent considerable amounts of time thinking about the issue of quality control, and considered acquiring independent funding for it (which turned out to be unnecessary). My final conclusions, and comments on the German proposal, can be found here:
WikiQA
As you can see, I had some significant objections to the proposal as it was written on de.wikipedia. Nevertheless, I also realized that the issue was of the highest priority. When I joined the Board, I almost immediately started discussions with Brad and then also Philipp about getting things implemented. In these discussions, we also concluded that the best compromise between the different positions would be to implement a system that is reasonably generic and flexible.
We proceeded, in 2006, to contact several contractors to work on the project. None of our early contacts worked out (one resulted in a very hackish implementation), but in 2007, a friend of mine recommended a PHP developer named Jörg Baach to me to work on the project. Jörg, Philipp and I met at my apartment and finalized the specifications under which he would be contracted.
Philipp agreed to do most of the project management work related to the actual development. I set up the quality mailing list to coordinate discussions about the specs and added several invited people to it. As the project got started, VoiceOfAll became interested in it and started contributing code at a higher rate than the contracted developer. Jörg has done a substantial amount of work, however, and is now working with an independent designer to improve the User Interface.
As the development is now proceeding at a reasonable rate, I have focused on the PR side of things. I have drafted a publicity strategy to go along with the public launch of the extension. The Board has also delegated authority to me to manage the launch process together with Philipp.
You can dismiss all this work and claim that the only thing that matters is the code that is written. But a successfully completed project depends on more than just code being written. It depends on specifications, funding, bootstrapping, testing, internal communications, PR, etc. etc. I have great respect for VoA and his contribution to the project. I do not have to diminish my own work to respect another's.
As for oversight of employees: I have had half a dozen phone calls with Vishal in the last few weeks; these will cease of course as soon as we have a new ED. I've worked closely with him on real projects that bring us money or functionality. Kat and I have also followed up with Cary several times to get a good understanding of what he is currently working on, and made recommendations for priorities. Now you can accuse me of micromanagement if you want, not delegating, or whatever else floats your boat. Nothing I could say, no explanation I could offer, would allow you to rationally analyze what is really happening. You know all about me already, after all.
To be fair, when Kelly talked to me about this, I did mention the possibility of private meetings between Erik and Phillip, my comments were based on what was public.
ReplyDelete"There is a significant element in the WMF community that exhibits strong anti-American attitudes. ... Unsurprisingly much of the anti-American attitude is aligned with the French and, to a lesser degree, German chapters."
ReplyDeleteDo you feel that this "anti-American" attitude was the reason that the British chapter was kept out of the fold for so long?
Isn't is really an anti-English (language) attitude by some?
@anonymous 10:42am: Since when was Cyde running for the board, not Erik?
ReplyDeleteSWATJester, you're right, Cyde is not running for the Board (nor does he deserve to be insulted in this fashion). I did, however, find his style of questioning me (accusing me of "dereliction of duty") extremely hostile and unfair, especially given that he ignored any arguments I presented for the current "triple reporting" model (private minutes, public resolutions, public reports). The notion that the community is not informed about what is going on is absurd, given that a full record of all Board resolutions, with only very few redactions, is publicly available.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, to view the current practice as opaque only displays a remarkable lack of familiarity with common practice among non-profits. Publishing all Board minutes, especially for working Boards of small non-profits, is very uncommon. Indeed, so is publishing resolutions and detailed reports. Outside observers, such as Teemu Leinonen, an eLearning expert on our Advisory Board with years working with governments and NGOs sector, conclude:
If compared to many other NGO’s I think Wikimedia is extremely community driven, very democratic and very transparent. Everything is online: in a wiki or in the publicly archived mailing lists, from discussions, to votes to resolutions and policies.
That is not to say that we could not do better. And indeed, I've been one of the strongest proponents on the current Board for making more information publicly available. I pushed for moving information from private committees into the more open "internal wiki" which has well-defined access procedures. I checked back with potential partners if they'd have a problem if we share details about a deal or an agreement.
This was one of the main points of disagreement between me and Danny as well. Danny felt that business development needs to strictly happen behind closed doors, with full confidentiality of all details. When I even suggested that contracts should be available at least on InternalWiki, he objected loudly, and argued that the (highly trusted) group on that wiki could not be trusted to keep information confidential.
I would have more respect for Cyde if he supported other candidates who have a record of advocating transparency. But guess what -- he endorsed Danny without asking him a single question. Indeed, he did not ask any other candidate or Board member about the issue.
Cyde's and Kelly's arguments are on the same level: they are driven by blind hostility, not thoughtful analysis. And I don't think our policies, or our elections, should be decided by those who scream the loudest, who judge the quickest, who think the least.
Erik: I reject your claim that my comments are motivated by "blind hostility". That is a classic ad hominem attack, offered up with no support, intent at discrediting me, and I will not have it. I want what's best for the Foundation, and judging by your past actions as Board member over the past nine months, including not taking minutes and then making up ridiculous excuses for it, I see what's best for the Foundation is not having you running it.
ReplyDeleteHave you read anything on the page, Cyde? Here are the comments by Anthere, Chair of the Board, on my keeping of minutes:
ReplyDeleteI must state that Erik has made huge improvement in the minute reporting system since he joined; Prior to him, minutes were taken by Tim, and were quite "raw". When Erik became secretary, I had to complain that minutes were provided very late, sometimes not complete and not fully neutral. This is no more the case, minutes are now very precise, concise, neutral and the delay is very satisfactory (within one or two weeks). Besides, he refined the reporting system, to include the resolutions, which makes it something much more satisfactory from an audit perspective I think. I guess the next step is to refine the public reporting now.
(Hmmm, should I discuss business really ? well, I could not help :-))
Just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they aren't there.
Why are they hidden? With the crappy reporting as of late I'm wondering what else the board is hiding... I also wonder about the lack of accountability that the board has at the moment, and the lack of minutes is not helping the matter. I have yet to see a justifiable reason as to why they must be private. Those that donate deserve to know what happens in these meetings. 9 months to find a executive, gee. Issues of funding for the future still unresolved... ect ect. What does happen in those meetings? (which the foundation pays to have you all attend by the way). The board needs more oversight, that is clear from the issues that have been raised of recently.
ReplyDeleteWhat does happen in those meetings?
ReplyDeleteJudging from Erik's and Anthere's writing, I'm guessing 1)they talk for months on end about things that need to get done, which don't get done. 2) Instead of making problems simpler and getting them solved, they make them more complicated, with whistles and bells and dangling doohickeys that sparkle and blink.
Just a guess
Your by-the-way remarks about the work of chapters seem quite strange. Have you ever read the activity report of ANY chapter? If yes, could you expand of your definition of "parties"? If no, could you please read up on the things you comment next time? If you were a board candidate, I'd expect you to reference your statements better. Luckily, you aren't, but still, your credibility decreases if you just say things you know nothing about.
ReplyDeleteOne of the few things that has a good case for privacy should be contracts with major vendors - good deals for computer hardware require that those prices not be visible for the world to see so not everyone on the street can try to negotiate towards those prices. One might argue that the foundation has an obligation to push to change that, but I think that at the very least, Danny's inclination to allow those to be private is a sensible position (not that there arn't other sensible positions).
ReplyDeleteErik, if you really want openness, how about you tell me you don't mind if I publish our little chat right after the last elections? I'm not doing so as a minimal courtesy to you (as I understand, I have no legal obligations on the matter)?
The reason so many people in the know support Danny is that he has integrity, he doesn't play your level of political games, and his ego doesn't hang in the sky like a sun above his head. He doesn't brag that he would never work for anyone he thought less intelligent than him, nor does he have the chutzpah to go up to other candidates and tell them, unsolicited, that he thinks they suck as a candidate. Danny has often been a stressed person and sometimes he snaps at people, but who he is, what he does, and what he cares about are clear and things that the community should embrace him for. Danny's record speaks well for him - this is why, Erik, people should be asking you the hard questions - to pry back your posing.
-- Pat Gunn (formerly User:Improv)