On 6/17/06, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The main arguments against a membership model last time around were that
it was too *limiting* in requiring a contribution, and too unclear in not
demanding that potential members opt in... are there other reasons not to
do this?
SJ
I must confess this conversation has, to me, been completely bizarre.
Membership organizations (open your wallet and see which of them you belong
to) involve a quid pro quo - you give something, you get something. You
give dues, you get to "belong" and call yourself a member. You attend a
meeting of other members, maybe, and perhaps you are part of a particular
local organization of that group. Churches, civic organizations, soup
kitchens, environmental groups, etc., all exist in this paradigm for good
reason; they include as part of their fundamental mission a dichotomy
between those who *are* in the group and those who *are not* in the group.
Part of the worldwide appeal of Wikimedia projects is their egalitarianism
and respect for the contributions of *everyone*. There is no us and them -
if you want to be a Wikimedian, you can be; you edit, you are. It's simple,
and only goes in one direction. If you edit enough, you can vote for a
person you want to see on the board. Without money changing hands, you have
the same representation you would under any other circumstances. The
Wikimedia you would see with stark membership requirements is a dark place
indeed. What happens to members who don't pay? Are they prevented from
editing? If there is no meaningful distinction in categorization of either
one or the other, what exactly is the point in the first place, except to
give those who are interested and active another membership ID in their
wallet - and this is the point - which confers no additional rights or
privileges?
As to the suggestion above by SJ that "Real name" is a field to be filled
in, required or otherwise, I think recent history has shown that part of the
lingering appeal to many in the community is that anonymity will be
respected. As soon as you cross the line into a "real world" membership
situation, that is undermined substantially, if not eliminated. To be sure,
we have anonymous donors now. But that is a quid without a quo - it is a
gift from an unknown individual to an organization they want to support.
Membership cannot be sustained the same way for any valid reason...there is,
again, no meaningful distinction.
The essence of this openness to all will be lost as soon as an us/them
dichotomy is established. It does not exist today, except as a relic of the
bylaws which are long overdue to be changed. The badges of "membership" -
if you give money, if you contribute to projects, if you volunteer for
various positions in the organization - all exist independent of that.
Other than providing a political means for takeover of the organization
directly (and that's a whole other conversation), I don't see the point.
The Apache model has some strengths, but my personal opinion is that the
difference between producing software alone and producing encyclopedias,
news, etc. yields a gap that is difficult to close. My hats are off to the
Apache folks. But they have a much more narrow mission and fewer moving
parts to achieve that mission. Different parts of the free culture movement
are more or less affected by each undertaking of the Foundation, and are of
varying degrees of interest to many. I think the Foundation's mission is
simply too broad to decide to govern it through direct reliance on
formalized elected constituencies. Creating representation from the
existing pattern of projects is also inherently political. If the
Foundation is successful, the massive trend will be towards languages and
projects with many fewer articles and users now, and millions more speakers
and writers worldwide yet to be connected. So, there is a shift ahead no
matter which way you look at it, provided the projects continue to grow as
they have.
Those who are concerned about this kind of governance issue would be better
served, I think, by focusing attention on board composition and expansion,
as some have done. Jimmy and the other board members are of an open mind as
to what the future of the board will be, what it will/should/could look
like, and there is a lot of discussion about all this. We may disagree on
various points for legitimate reasons, but I hope everyone agrees the
conversation is healthy and beneficial to the organization.
-Brad
--
Brad Patrick
General Counsel & Interim Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com
727-231-0101