User talk:Mike Cline/USCAN Working Group Drafts/Phase I Task Forces/U.S. Canada Education Program Proposed Structure/Proposal


 * Link to Proposal: Structure Propsoal

Debate on Specific Sections
Use this section for debate about specific sections.

General Feedback and Questions
1. Could individuals be part of more than one caucus? For example, could a physics professor in DC be part of both the DC "geographic caucus" and the physics "topic-based caucus"? Pjthepiano (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No limitations on cross membership was my feeling on this. The Interior  (Talk) 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the task force is that people can join as many caucuses as they want. They can also choose to not join any caucuses and would still be considered a member of the education program/organization. Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's correct ~ we thought some people might like to join both a thematic caucus and a regional one; that when people join, there would be a list of all caucuses that had been formed and people could check off to join the ones they wanted. DStrassmann (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

2. I'm a bit confused about how the geographic caucuses will work. Let's say I start a DC caucus and then someone from Baltimore wants to join. Is that ok, or is the person from Baltimore required to form another caucus? Pjthepiano (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We didn't specifically discuss this, but I imagine a geographical caucus would accept members from nearby locations if they have no existing caucus. The Interior  (Talk) 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Frank had told us he is a member of some chapters in other countries; I thought we had a sense that it should be ok for people to freely choose caucuses for regions where they had an interest in participating. DStrassmann (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what we discussed. Even if a person in Iowa wants to join the DC Caucus, if s/he feels some benefit/part of the group from that, that's no problem. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Education Program Structure Proposal
Overall good job. Without a proposed Governance structure (ie By-laws), answers to these questions may be difficult, so consider them more observations than questions.

1. The Caucus structure. Is there a limit to the number of caucuses? It seems there is potential for 100s—both geographic and topical. There are ~2600 universities in the US and ~ 100 in Canada. On the topical side, I suspect one could identify 50-100 unique topics (There are ~730 active WikiProjects)
 * We talked about the potential problem of caucuses forming and then not being active, leading to proliferation. The reporting requirement would be designed to ensure that only active caucuses remain on the books as caucuses.  There would likely be some emphemeral caucuses, but only those with ongoing communities of interest would continue. I'm not sure there would be a problem of too many caucuses if they all contain groups of people actively engaged together. However, it would be desirable for the bylaws to include provisions to address the issue if needed were problems to develop. In the meantime, not sure if we should worry. DStrassmann (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see Mike's point. Suppose there are two caucuses, each with only 5 members, that are geographically very near to each other. It may make sense for the two caucuses to combine so they can share resources, minimize central staff burden, etc. Do the staff have the authority to combine caucuses if they deem it appropriate? Pjthepiano (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment below in item 3; I think it could be done where appropriate as a condition for funding.DStrassmann (talk)

2. Supporting Caucuses versus National (Universal) support. There are two sets of statements in the proposal that I think need clarity, or a sense of priority.

The central staff is responsible for the overall strategy of the program, and developing the organization into one that can achieve the desired future picture. They will develop measures of success and attempt to assess impact through data-tracking and analysis. The central staff will also develop materials such as handouts, syllabi, grading rubrics, and training videos and can curate materials developed at the local level, pointing members to best practices. Central staff organize an annual conference and market the program, recruiting instructors and local trainers and officers, with the aim of developing local caucuses ("training the trainers") to the point where some of the instructor recruitment and training can be done locally by the caucuses. For this and related purposes it would be good for the central staff to include an instructional designer with experience in pedagogical methods utilizing new media. The central staff will also recruit, train, and coordinate online ambassadors.


 * I see the above as National or Universal support to the Education Program. ie such activities support and the resulting products and services benefit all caucuses (and individual participants) equally.

The central staff will likely provide financial support to the caucuses through an application process, and can provide "swag" as well as legitimacy in the form of a webpage presence, email addresses, or business cards


 * I see this type of support benefiting only the local or thematic caucus, although caucus results may have application on a universal scale. But when the numbers of caucuses grow, this type of support becomes much more difficult to manage and allocate when funding is limited and typically generates a lot of contentiousness over who gets what.
 * The application process will need to be designed to be fair and to provide support that can legitimately be seen as reasonable.DStrassmann (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What does the task force envision would be a recommended percentage of available funding devoted to both these types of support—local or universal?
 * I see this as a decision that the CEO/ED should be charged to make, as part of the business plan.DStrassmann (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

3. Caucus obligations, authorities and responsibilities: What does the task force envision (if any) as specific obligations and responsibilities of a caucus? Do they have any fund raising responsibilities for the overall program? Who is responsible for dealing with major disruptions of Wikipedia by student/professors etc. under the purview of a specific caucus—the caucus members or the Education Program organization? Can a Caucus commit the Education Program organization to something without prior approval?
 * These are excellent questions. Do you have some suggestions or recommendations? We did not discuss these issues in any detail (other than the reporting requirement for caucuses) but I agree they will be important to flesh out. I would definitely prohibit caucuses from committing the EP without prior approval.DStrassmann (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the caucuses should be required to do some sort of fundraising or pay dues, even if it is a nominal amount. It will allow the central organization to weed out dormant caucuses and ensure that those that sign up are actually interested. Pjthepiano (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do members of Wikipedia chapters pay dues?DStrassmann (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Different ways caucuses may function and have different needs:
 * I can imagine several different ways that caucuses may function, corresponding to different group needs, and in developing in different institutional contexts..


 * Some caucuses may simply be groups of scholars who teach courses in similar areas, who want to trade ideas for how to structure assignments for their courses. Such caucuses may make use of general materials provided for the education program, but not have any unique needs, and may not need any specific funding to work together.
 * Another type of caucus may be based at an insitution that has institutionally embedded support, such as a digital media or writing center. Such centers may be able to leverage funds provided by the university or college to provide needed support for faculty at their institution.  Both of these two types of caucuses may be able to function without additional support from the Education Program beyond materials provided for the Program overall.
 * A third type of caucus may be faculty at institutions where Wikipedia-based assignments do not yet have a foothold and would benefit from the legitimacy and prestige that would come from support tailored to assisting the work of a caucus at the institution.
 * In none of these circumstances would caucus dues really make sense, and would likely discourage valuable work.


 * However, I see two ways where funding could come from participants in ways that would cohere well with academic practices:


 * General dues to join the Education Program, applicable to all, regardless of whether a caucus member. These could be sliding scale, with reduced or waived fees for students or those below a certain income level.  Such a system would be consistent with academic organizations more generally and would prevent people from remaining members after they become inactive.  The fee could be quite low - no need to charge a lot for this; it is worth keeping in mind that faculty who teach with wikipedia are generally providing a benefit to Wikipedia in terms of quality content and new editors, and for the most part are spending extra time to do so.  You'd have to really think carefully about why you would want to charge them for this; like an inverse payment for all their time.
 * Another possibility would be to make it a plus for caucuses that apply for funds to get matching support from their universities. Such a plan would also be familiar to faculty, as it is common for many grant applications to show in kind university support.
 * Certainly if two caucuses with similar needs/locations/ etc. apply together for funds, the central administration could make funding contingent on the two merging.
 * More generally, however, I think that some of these more specific issues can and should be sorted out at a later point, and could be made the charge of the CEO/ED. These are just examples of how different caucuses might function and draw from the central organization. DStrassmann (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

4. Management of Caucuses versus Management/Development of Educational resources. What does the task force envision as far as this division of labor/resources at the Education Program Organization level:
 * a.% devoted to managing caucuses-applications, requests for resources, funds, etc. (there could be 100s)
 * b.% devoted to managing/developing universal products and services to support all participants (best practices, training, curriculum, etc.)
 * c.% devoted to marketing the program within Wikipedia and Academia
 * d. % devoted to assessing impact on Wikipedia and other projects (Measurement)
 * e. % devoted to fund raising

--Mike Cline (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike, I think these are really excellent questions. I would really love to know what you and others think.  Personally, I  think that the Program will need to take an initial guess and develop a staged plan which it will change over time.  For example, if we were to find fundraising comparatively easy, then more resources could be devoted elsewhere (and vice versa).  Regarding the division of staff effort, I would think developing new products for general use should be a top initial priority. Once these are developed,  a subsequent priority could be developing materials that tailored to specific types of caucuses and more intensive work with new caucuses. I would imagine that assessment would always be ongoing, but that developing good measures will take more time at the beginning of the new enterprise (time permitting) than later.  More generally, once some of the early goals are fulfilled, efforts could shift to such other goals as developing WIkipedia studies, etc.  I think that whoever is the CEO or ED should present a convincing plan and corresponding budget. DStrassmann (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Ambassador Task Force

 * For current Ambassadors, how do we transition them to these new caucuses (how will we be supporting them)? Will somebody in the beginning organize caucuses with current Ambassadors?
 * How many paid employees at the central office will be assisting caucuses/Ambassadors within the caucus?
 * Who will work with and coordinate Online Ambassadors?
 * What do you guys anticipate transitioning the role of Regional Ambassadors? Should they set up and participate in a caucus? JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

=Vote on Final Passage=

This vote is on adopting the proposal to be included in the recommendation to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Support
Place votes in support of the proposal here.


 * 1) Pjthepiano (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC):
 * 2) DStrassmann (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Sgelbman (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Jgmikulay (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7)  The Interior  (Talk) 18:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * :) as long as we change the word 'caucus' JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Brianwc (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC) (who has grown quite fond of the word 'caucus' and hopes it sticks.)
 * 2) Rburdette (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC) (despite not being a fan of the word "caucus" ;)
 * 3) Bob Cummings (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
Place votes in opposition to the proposal here.