Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-27/Board elections/Beauford Anton Stenberg


 * How did you become involved with the Wikimedia community? What contributions are you most proud of?

I first became aware of the Wikimedia Community when I was engaged in an assignment for Melbourne City Council, an urban municipal authority in Victoria, supporting the Public Relations Manager. It was around the time of the Tsunami and a number of Communications Professions were commenting on the quality coverage of the event by Wikipedia (& WikiNews by memory). It is around that time that I really started to notice Wikipedia entries foregrounded in my Google search results and queries. I soon became an active member of the Community. I am proud of the two Barnstars I have received for my contributions to the Mindstream and Holy well articles. Even though I have edited in excess of 8000 articles on Wikipedia, I am not highly decorated. I released tears of joy and am thankful for both of these accolades and the acknowledgement of the Community.

Engaging and resourcing the Community to fashion directives and institute auspice guidance and policy. I envision the ideal Trustee to be a mentor and a custodian of that which is in trust: to ensure the perpetuity and sustainability of the Wikimedia Community whilst preserving and enshrining the values of integrity and transparency. Sound leadership. Crysal clear and strong reportability, particularly in fiscal matters, is an imperative. The Board is a collective lens that focuses the Community gaze.
 * What do you see as the role of the Board of Trustees?


 * If elected, what would you bring to the board that it currently lacks?

I am a man of vision in action. I sought for a long time to find a leader and mentor to really model myself upon. I didn't find the qualities invested in one person particulary but valuable aspects and qualities evident in many. I have endeavoured to embody these manifold qualities. Historically, I am not and have not been overly and overtly political. I am not 'politiking' with my candidature. That said, everything that we do or do not do is fundamentally political. Moreover, to my knowledge, people like me don't often get elected and elevated into executive positions, let alone Boards. I, though educated, do not like to force my view or work the views of others. I value the richness of the many voices in a choir. Though my professionalism is grounded in the supportive administration of municipal governance, I bring my humble and bread-and-butter integrity, egalitarian vision, communicative prowess and mindful acumen to the Board.

I am just now beginning to familiarize myself with those who hold a remunerated tenure and those who are our specialist personnel. Disappointingly, I found a significant lack of clear, accessible role statements as well as contact details. I am not privy to skills invested in the current evocation of the Board, so will not venture an uninformed conjecture.

I am multidisciplinary in interests, activities and view and am contemplative and introspective by nature. I am a grassroots editor who is somewhat unconventional and truly love our manifold Projects. A lyrical non-sequitur, I knew instantly what Wikipedia meant for human culture, the great human family and the Human Condition. I have answered this question obliquely above; specifically, the Board currently lacks me.


 * What specific goals would you have as a trustee?

A particular initiative I would like to table is a committee to investigate and report on financial sustainability and financial independence models for the Community. This may have already been done but I would like it to be comprehensive and rigorous and implemented forthwith! If that is the wish of the Community.

In my experience of executive committees, I find them loud and boisterous. This may or may not be true of Wikimedia and the Foundation. If it is not already in situ within the regulations or bylaws, I aim to institute sound standing orders in committee matters. I never want to experience a Trustee taking a forced conversation turn or someone speaking or being talked over or being harangued or verbally bullied unless absolutely necessary by whomever holds Chair and is calling to order of business.

Transparency necessitates clear communication channels. To this end I would table a centralized meta-communication register with an automated-weekly-update or somesuch strategy to ensure integrity which is directly maintained by all members of the Community who are remunerated personnel (and volunteers if not too cumbersome). We are always going to have preferred communication channels as individuals, but as a Community we should work strategically at integrating our channels of communication to foster transparency and clarity and assist information flows. This initiative is to feed into an integrated communication platform, community tailored, directly embedded within Wikimedia Projects, for example. (*there's a coding, design and functionality challenge to be embedded in the Strategic Planning consultation)


 * The Wikimedia Foundation is beginning an organized effort at strategic planning, in which the board will play a major role. What are the key elements you would like to see prioritized in Wikimedia's strategy for the coming years?

Community consultation processes that inform strategic planning initiatives. Consulting the Community about how they would like to be consulted in this envisioning of stragegy. Platforms and processes to resource and capture Community views and not just secure the stock vocal voices. Let us ensure consultation is not tokenism but deep, that interpenetrates and informs the entire strategic planning process. I would definitely like to see scenario based planning amongst the consultative processes employed. Let us ensure the quietest, least-eloquent voices are also heard and supported. We need to harness the totality of our collective.

A co-ordinated integration of Projects that respects and honours each of their chartered specificities of aim and purpose yet fords and supports inter-project platforms and protocols. I have just recently commenced a Wikiversity initiative and I am aware that there needs to be a protocol for establishing an intelligent mortar between the fixed bricks of the Projects and disseminating this to our Community. (More on the Wall of Integrity later.) A co-ordinated protocol for maximizing efficient communication of initiatives and information flows between Projects.


 * What do you think the Wikimedia Foundation isn't doing that it should be? What is it doing that it shouldn't be?

Look at the Projects...they are wonderful. They are testaments to sound vision, activity and governance. Communication, communication, communication: I just keep my head down and ****-up editing and I really needed a consolidated digest of information sent to me, even somehow tailored specifically for me. We have coders that can automate such things in the Community yes? This should and could be augmented with quick, poignant insights into Community communications' possibilities.

We need to actively support editors and the Community to become involved in IRC and take up emergent communication modalities. We need to support such forums as reflective Blogging on their editing and contribution endeavours and experience. The salient learnings of this reflective meta-activity may be harvested and filter into a steering committee with a mandate. I am sure we have statistics and reports, but what about the heartful thoughts of those who are the blood, sweat and tears of the Community?

Implementing ongoing mentorship and community capacity building networks for all the Community, evident in all Projects. I would have loved a mentor but I didn't even know it was a possibility. If I didn't know, there will also be others. A censure of heavy-handed and authoritarian Administrators (PsyOps): this was the initial driver for my candidature.


 * The English Wikipedia community is increasingly concerned with questions of project governance: who has authority to set and reshape policy, and who should?; how can a project so large, with so diverse a community, make collective decisions?; does consensus scale, or will some form of democracy be necessary to address the project's problems?; and many others. What role, if any, do you think the Board of Trustees can or should play in addressing governance and policy problems on individual projects?

Democracy assumes informed opinion. Precious few constituents of democracies are informed. We are THE information Community. The world has never before experienced the likes of us! We should brainstorm as a Community appropriate communication and governance forums. I have recently started using Facebook. That is where the people are you know. Facebook may be a timewaster but not if you know how to use it. Our coders could take stock of the learnings and success of this social media and employ it in ways to capture dialogue forums, polls, policy initiatives etc. A Facebook functionality with a malleability of IRC. A dynamic, crystal reporting and interrogable, historical and referential database. We could establish as needs committees that report in real time. These committees could be organically determined upon logging in and members may elect their interest areas and the intelligent, impartial, secure system will establish the constituents according to changing priorities. It was not my intention to sidestep these questions but to convey alternatives to even needing to ask them.

A Facebook functionality integrated directly into the Projects, resourcing the Community. I have contemplated this you see. I wonder why we don't have direct democracy in our world when we have such amazing ever-refining communication forums. The argument is instability and risk management. Lets factor in safeguards constraining volatility. We are already leaders, let us also lead the way in governance.

It is my considered opinion that anyone and everyone in the Community should have the authority to set and reshape policy and we should collaborate and consult to ascertain a form of stable collective governance. Awaiting this, the Board is the lens but not the locus of power.


 * Wikimedia's partnerships with outside organizations--including for-profit companies like Kaltura and Orange as well as non-profits and public institutions like Mozilla Foundation and various archives and museums--have becoming increasingly prominent. What sorts of partnerships should and shouldn't the Foundation pursue?

I am a constituent of the Mozilla Community and favour open source coding and open accessibility of information. Most of the citizens of our world are poor in material wealth and do not have access to information or even a computer within the home (that is if they have a home). We are providing salient information infrastructure to redress that. I am poor in material possessions as well you see and I identify with them. That said, I fashion myself a visionary and social innovator who though introspective is not overly self-concerned and honestly, not very practical in certain real-life matters. My detractors may hold that not being a paragon of real-life practicality, problematic for a prospective Trustee. I am practical, but not the practical of those infected with Affluenza.

I trust that my answers to these questions showcase that I have spent most of my personal life reading and questioning widely and most of my professional life writing and editing corporate communications and that I may contribute to the deliberation of sound determinations on complex issues and bring a fresh, complimentary vision to the shared visions of our Community, evident in the Board. I have supported senior executives and managers in almost all areas of general corporate administrative concern. I mentioned above that I envision a key directive and imperative of the Board to be the sustainability of that which is in trust: the rich fruit and flower of our Community.

We need strategic relationships and partnerships that are founded in mutuality, honour and integrity that will bring about a sustainable progression to the fiscal independance of the Projects and the Foundation auspice so we do not even need to rely on charity. We will never say no to charity but we will not need to curry cash and prospect financial impetus. Please forgive my ignorance, I am not as yet aware of Kaltura (AV?) and Orange (Orange deal signed on May 15, 2009) and will repair that presently.


 * Over the last three years, the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation has expanded rapidly, with a budget growing from $3.0 million in fiscal year 2007-2008 to a planned $9.4 million in 2009-2010. What strategy should the Board of Trustees pursue in planning for future financial growth?  What is your view of the current financial plan?

Notes
 * financial accountancy model to move towards triple bottom line & lifecycle costing through all reporting of Community and proposals for development, resource allocation and purchasing, etc.


 * support investment in revenue generating staff and seek grooming and cultivation within the Community, capture learnings for inhouse development (posit a 43% increase in revenue generation for FY10 from prior FY09, we are almost a month in so how are we tracking?)


 * more bandwidth and technical equipment to accommodate growing audiences on the site and to allow for new functionality (integrated AV with Wikimedia viewer)
 * ~Michael Dale works in the San Francisco office on open source video collaboration technology.


 * "stage-gate": I appreciate the vigilance and foresight of such a fail-safe, commendable. I uphold a gradated/graded program of mandates/initiatives according to a chartered/defined progress.


 * I wholeheartedly support the prospective engagement of remunerated specialist roles such as the Quality Assurance Software Engineer, Operations Engineer and a Software Developer (I would like to sight their role description, reporting and directives).

Addenda


 * What role would you like the board to play in fostering the initiation, growth and viability of local Wikimedia Chapters? What role do chapters play in your strategic vision for Wikimedia?

Indulge a little story. What makes a sound wall? Bricks or mortar? The fabrication and texture of the bricks and mortar is very important, as is the siting of the wall taking stock of spirit of place and its engaging communities and function. Yes I do nod my head and tilt my cap to dynamic evolutionary systems theory, we as a Community are a study in that. It is my considered opinion that what makes for a truly sound wall as Art is the integrity of its design and patterning: master builders and master designers talk.


 * How does the Wikimedia Advisory Board fit into your strategic vision for Wikimedia? Are there any specific tasks you would ask of them as a trustee?  Are there critical areas of expertise that are not represented on the Advisory Board and you think should be?

There will always be a role for such a specialist committee of advisors, though not necessarily in its current configuration. I envision less hierarchical structures and more set theory: dynamic workgroups focused on particular processes. Workgroups and committees arising on as-needs basis. A very organic, elastic and responsive model rather than a fixed roles and tenures. There must be ways to build strength and integrity and safegard against instability and volatility.

...I encountered the names of the Wikimedia Advisory Board members when I was farming for communication and contact details as well as role statements. For many these were not clearly evident.

Addenda Ragesoss 2.02: Will the Stanton usability grant stop Wikipedia community atrophy?
 * Usability Project funded by the Stanton Foundation
 * cautious expansion in technology and programmatic capacity
 * key initiative for 2009-10: the collaborative strategy development project
 * three priority projects in the Program area:
 * ~Strategy Plan
 * ~Public Outreach Bookshelf
 * ~Communications Campaign


 * new allocations for awards and grants aimed at supporting volunteer initiatives (what were these and how are they administrated and how are wards/those-to-be-groomed and awarded ascertained?)
 * project manager position enabling faster implementation of strategic software projects and volunteer-driven MediaWiki extensions, as well as faster problem fixes and improved operations monitoring and backup procedures
 * ~who is project manager?
 * ~MediaWiki extensions Mediawiki:Category:Extensions


 * 'collaborative strategy development project': aimed at bringing together Wikimedians and external experts with facilitation support to create a five-year-strategic plan.
 * ~facilitation support? tokenism or rigorous and engaged consultation processes?

The collaborative strategy development project will start in July 2009, and run for roughly one year. Its purpose is to develop a strategic plan laying out a course of action for the Wikimedia movement, covering the next three to five years. The project will be designed to include input from a wide range of sources, including Wikimedia volunteers and supporters representing a diversity of geographies and projects, and also --in an effort to broaden our knowledge base and benefit from new ideas and information-- from parties who are currently not part of the Wikimedia community. Its core values will include transparency, participation and collaboration. The process will be led by the Executive Director on behalf of the Board of Trustees, and will require significant time and energy from everybody on the staff. The project team will include a Project Manager, Facilitator, and Research Analyst, and will include support from non-profit strategy development firm Bridgespan. It's our top priority for 2009-10.
 * ~how is the catchment to be charted? through consultation? first consult about channels and models of consultation yes?
 * ~how are external specialists and invited participants to be ascertained?
 * ~Its core values will include transparency, participation and collaboration.
 * +and the models and processes of participation and collaboration are?
 * +Bridgespan learnings from this strategic planning initiative and the specialist focus and tools forded by Bridgespan should be documented and uploaded in our Chapters/Projects for inhouse development in future...though it may always be wise to have external parties present, we should maintain the stock 'intelligence' inhouse


 * 'pilot mission activity grants program': for our chapter organizations and three program staff positions.
 * 'Public Outreach Bookshelf project': (non-recurring expense) to provide a library of outreach materials (what? for whom? units? where?)

The Public Outreach Bookshelf will be a repository of reference materials designed to 1) create awareness of the Wikimedia projects and provide basic information about them, 2) invite people to become contributors, and 3) provide information and training about how to participate. When complete, the bookshelf is intended to serve as a core set of instructional materials, to be translated, adapted and used for multiple purposes by Wikimedia chapters, individual volunteers, and partner organizations such as schools. The Head of Public Outreach will be the primary builder of the bookshelf. It will be built in 2009-10. The bookshelf project itself doesn't include translation or dissemination activities; it only includes the creation of the base set of materials. A project manager will be hired to run the Public Outreach Bookshelf project; that position will be advertised in July. The project will involve consultation with members of the editing community, and others.
 * ~Wikiversity: attendant syllabus for teachers as well as industry partnerships to embed Wikipedia learning-by-doing & sustainable education/learning models for educational professionals within their core activities? is that also piggy-backed with this Outreach activity? I intuit that this project is to redress the growth loss numbers in new editors yes?


 * 'communications campaign' aimed at driving the visibility and recognition of the Wikimedia Foundation as a charitable non-profit organization (internal focus as well as external?)

Wikipedia is extremely popular and famous, and also frequently misunderstood. Because it is the number four most-popular website in the world, people commonly assume the organization behind it is a massive for-profit corporation employing tens of thousands of people, like Google or Yahoo. The Communications Campaign is a two-part public relations and marketing campaign designed to help people better understand the Wikimedia Foundation and its goals. Part one is a “credibility campaign” aimed at increasing general awareness and understanding of the Wikimedia Foundation as a unique global non-profit promoting free knowledge. Part two is a set of communications activities designed to support the annual giving campaign with specific messaging. Wikimedia's Head of Communications issued a public Request for Proposals for the Communications Campaign in spring 2009, and will select a firm to execute the work in summer 2009.
 * ~Wikimedia's Head of Communications, Skype? role description, reporting and directives?

Sources
 * Wikimedia_board_manual
 * 2009-2010_Annual_Plan_Questions_and_Answers