Chapter-selected Board seats/2012/Candidates/Questions/Patricio Lorente

Patricio Lorente (Patricio.lorente)

Please ask here your question to be answered by Patricio, the moderators will pass the questions to the candidate and place the answers in this page.

Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)
When Wikimedia Argentina was founded it was the only chapter in Latin America and the only one in a Spanish speaking country (consider that the Spanish Wikipedia is a major Wikipedia and that Spanish is an official language in 26 countries, being the second most natively spoken language in the world). It was quite natural, in that situation, that we assumed a role of promotion of similar groups of wikimedians who were trying to organize themselves (in Chile, Mexico, Spain). As these groups were developing into potential chapters, the idea of Iberocoop started to grow, which is in fact an effort to empower local groups, coordinate activities and exchange experiences in a permanent and not merely circumstantial basis.

Iberocoop was proposed during Wikimania 2010 as a cooperation network between chapters and working groups, and officially launched in 2011, in Buenos Aires, in the "Encuentro Wikimedia Iberoamericano 2011" ("Wikimedia Iberoamerican Meeting 2011") also called "Iberoconf". After this meeting, the working groups of Mexico and Venezuela concluded their organization process and were recognized by WMF as new chapters and several activities were planned between all chapters and working groups of the network.
Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)
To be accurate, I should say that Amical is not a chapter-like organization. Chapters operate on a geographical, territorial basis and this territory should correspond to a recognized political unity, be it a state or a subnational entitity in the case there is not corresponding national chapter. Amical once claimed some territorial boundaries, but this territory was based on some linguistic and cultural criteria and covered part of Spain, part of France, part of Italy and Andorra. That proposal was rejected by the ChapCom and the group was unable to work with it to adapt their proposal or seek a viable, agreed solution.

They don’t fulfill the definition of a Wikimedia chapter not only in the geographical sense but also regarding their scope: they recognize that their active interest is to promote Catalan language and culture, whereas chapters promote free knowledge and Wikimedia projects in general. However, Amical promotes Wikimedia projects as part of their core activities and I think that this kind of organizations should be recognized by the Foundation under what the Movement Roles Initiative called “new models”, as a partner organization with all the necessary resources to actively support their interest and our common mission.

But before that, some kind of interaction rules between Wikimedia organizations should be set up: otherwise, wherever there are overlapping organizations we risk to build a competitive and conflictive environment instead of a cooperative and synergical network. This part of the work is in progress but is yet to be done, and I consider really important that a schedule is not forced before this can be worked out in a way that fits all the involved parties.

Because of their geographical range, it’s natural for chapters to deal with national institutions, both public and private. We need to be clear before these institutions on which is the “Wikimedia organization of reference” for different situations or projects. It’s my opinion that Wikimedia chapters, per their development and characteristics, can be expected to coordinate Wikimedia activities between different partners, associations and affiliates within a given geography --of course, they can fail as any other organization can do, and there are both internal and external mechanisms to prevent and act in those cases. We need to find the way that, even if cultural or language-centered partner organizations develop activities in the same territory a chapter or series chapters do, those are coordinated in the constructive and collaborative spirit that has long been our movement’s banner. Neither chapters nor partners (Amical is one of them, the only concrete one we have) can be “against” each other, they must in my opinion ensure that they support each other and don’t divide efforts nor resources of all kind when it’s counterproductive to do so. We need that framework.
Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)
I believe that empowering local communities should be at the core of our international organization. With that in mind, we should not only allow, but encourage chapters to do local fundraising, even in areas where the possible amount of revenues from local fundraising could be negligible: local fundraising builds commitment with others and pushes the organizations to be accountable to third parties, donors being one of the most important of them. On another note, chapters are able to adapt donation campaigns to local customs, regulations and procedures, and to provide alternative mechanisms other than the ones supported in the international fundraising campaign.

Of course, local fundraising must be directly related to transparency, accountability, and also funds dissemination within other organizations of our movement. This is particularly important when talking about doing payment process of the online fundraising campaign, where the requirements of accountability and administrative capability should be raised.

I believe the Foundation should support all chapters willing and able to do local fundraising, but please don’t get me wrong: local fundraising and payment process of the online fundraising campaign are different instances with different requirements and procedures.

On another note, I consider the grants model (especially after the Paris discussions) to be a positive development as long as it is flexible enough and based on fair rules convened by all the involved stakeholders. Especially for the smallest or newest chapters, grants are an excellent way to ensure that their financial needs are not a problem and they can instead focus on developing successful educational, community outreach, GLAM or PR programs.
Answer to Question 4 (see above the questions)
I have a friendship relation with Jimmy, who has been always very solicitous to our requirements, being those formal or not. He came to Argentina more than a couple of times during the last years (Wikimedia Academy 2008, Wikimania 2009, etc.) and I’ve seen him at every international Wikimedia event where we did both attend since Wikimania 2007. With Sue and Erik, we had to work and to spend some time together when organizing Wikimania 2009, and we had always a very constructive rapport.

Besides, I consider myself a friend of Phoebe, Arne and SJ, and I know and appreciate Kat Walsh. I don’t have any relation with other members of the Board, except for some incidental conversation at Wikimania or things like that, though other close friends of mine do.
Answer to Question 5 (see above the questions)
I don’t know what level of detail you are asking for. Anyway, I think I know members from all --or almost all-- the existing Chapters and have many long-time friends (measured in wikitime, of course) from different chapters. Of course, I have a particular intense and productive communication with the participants of Iberocoop (Latin American chapters and working groups, plus our fellows in Europe), and where we’ve developed already some coordinated activities in the educational field.
Answer to Question 6 (see above the questions)
I had personal conversations with members of Iberocoop chapters and had the opportunity to have informal conversations in the Finance Meeting about my candidacy (and about other candidates and the selection process itself) with people of different chapters. In all cases were more interchanges of opinion and information rather than requests for endorsement. However, I can say that I only decided to present my candidacy after I got sure that my possible presence on the WMF BoT was considered desirable and valuable by a diverse group of Wikimedia enthusiasts I appreciate and value for their commitment.
Answer to Question 7 (see above the questions)
I’ve been quite active in my own chapter about the whole fundraising and funds dissemination thing but tried to avoid adding confusion to the lists discussion. In that sense my decision was to express myself through the Iberocoop statement (which I think is pretty clear in its principles) and personally in the Finance Meeting in Paris.
Answer to Question 8 (see above the questions)
I think that the complete answer for this question is my statement. If you want me to expand in particular anything that’s said there, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Answer to Question 1 (see above the questions)
I am not very familiar with those websites, as they mostly refer to the English Wikipedia, and therefore it is difficult for me to give a very informed opinion. As a general rule, I condemn any form of personal attacks or harassment that prevent our active editors from doing good work on the projects and I believe we should, where possible and sensible, provide protection to our community from such attacks (by ensuring the necessary privacy tools are in place, for example). However, I do know some parodies of the Spanish-language Wikipedia, but I wouldn’t say their purpose is to attack or harass Wikimedians and as such they do fall into the category of simple parody.
Answer to Question 2 (see above the questions)
No.
Answer to Question 3 (see above the questions)
On-wiki issues, like consensus manipulation, should be solved primarily by the editing community. The Wikimedia Foundation should provide as much technical support to give the legitimate editing community tools to fight these problems, but should not interfere in editing processes.

Under certain circumstances, on off-wiki harassments (specially if a minority is targeted), the community, the Foundation and the chapters could help an individual contributor that’s being attacked, when internal mechanisms seem not to work. This might go from legal counsel how to respond to a threat, to workshops on conflict resolutions, for example. As said above, I think Wikimedia Foundation’s main role should be to ensure privacy to editors, so as to keep these problems as low as possible.

Answer to the question (see above the questions)
You are asking about my everyday job. My University is run by a council of 70 representatives of teachers, students and graduates, and has a General Assembly of 285 members. A substantial part of my work is to get decisions done by those large and many times difficult deliberative bodies, where different views and interests are represented.

What I’ve learned in my position is that to reach consensus in an heterogeneous community you need patience, determination and respect for others’ views. You have to keep in mind the goals you want to achieve, but at the same time, you need capability to listen to everybody and flexibility to adapt your original plan on the move. Many times, you can include others by making little adjustments or changes on your initial plan, but that is not possible if you are obsessed only with making your point instead of willing to listen others’ concerns and proposals.

Consensus making when the starting point shows diversity is not a speed race, but a marathon. We are running a very young organization, and perhaps because of that many times we seem to be in a hurry, and there’s the feeling that things have to be decided just now. But, for most decisions, that is never true: there is always chance to get consensus if we have the nerve, the patience and, above all, the general determination to keep the cohesion of our movement.

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
I’m president of Wikimedia Argentina, serving my third term. On that capacity, I was chair of the local organizing team for Wikimanía 2009. Also, as part of Wikimedia Argentina, I’ve worked with members of other groups in Latin America and Europe, on the creation of the Ibero-American Cooperation Initiative (Iberocoop) and organized its first summit in Buenos Aires, in July 2011.
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
If the decision is not a general resolution, but about a particular issue regarding specifically my chapter, I should decline to participate in the process of decision making, other than providing information. This applies to any resolutions that either harms or benefits my chapter.

On the other hand, if we are talking about general resolutions affecting chapters in one sense or another (and mine between them) it would be my duty to take responsible part of the decision making process and to take into account the best interests of our broad movement, with all its people, communities and organizations inside. I would, of course, take into account my previous experience but I don’t feel there’s any binding relation between a Foundation trustee and any chapter or group in particular, nor between him and the opinions or input provided by the Foundation’s staff, which are valuable but not definitive if we don’t take into account the word of every involved stakeholder.

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
I think it is important to keep in mind that, in our movement, there are several entities with different degrees of development. Most of them are being run by volunteers, while other entities are larger with professional staff, so it is difficult to find one-size fits all requirements for levels of accountability.

But, there should be guiding principles that any kind of organization should share.
Some guidelines should be:
- programmatic work should always be in line with the mission (accountability to donors)
- of course compliance with local laws when applicable (for chapters and Foundation, for example)
- transparency about what we do with the money (what we plan with the donations, what we’ve done with them)
- transparency about our goals and how well we have achieved them (progress reports)
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
- Support staff and community in developing reasonable and fair standards for all (this will be different for each trustee, as we all have different experiences within and outside of Wikimedia)
- Make sure safeguards are in place so that rules and standards are not subject to wild interpretation (clear communication, clear role definition)
- Review and assessment of implementation of the standards so that they can be adjusted should the need arise (periodic consultation and review of how the process for applying these standardsd works, on a movement wide basis)

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
- Working closer with the actual editors communities: trying to persuade the community about the need of new editors, offer more support for the editing communities, as well as even more dialogue with the established community: we need to provide more off-wiki possibilities for editors to train themselves in conflict resolution or have established editors meet newbies in real life so they can measure the problems that a newbie might face, for example. This would probably help established community members to simplify rules and welcome newbies in a different way.
- Outreach with educational institutions: activities with universities and colleges are perhaps one of the most successful outreach initiatives we know and they are receiving the input of either the Foundation or the Chapters with great interest.
- GLAM: the most interesting initiatives over the past years within the Wikimedia movement have been some of the GLAM activities, not only the massive ones as WLM but also localized projects with specific institutions. We should encourage all of these projects not only to recruit new editors but also to settle new alliances with third parties committed to knowledge dissemination.
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
- Have a certain number of editors participate in outreach events, or offline workshops is a way to measure effectiveness, for example
- Having more and more people and groups joining a new model affiliation program would also be a measure of success (having more partner organisations, and more informal group recognized by the movement, for example)
Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)
I think WMF put in numbers what wikimedians already knew and thus helped to have a more accurate approach to the problem, but it is a difficult task to exactly know why editors are leaving. For one, because we’d have to find a way to reach out to the people that have left, which makes it difficult. I think we should try as much as possible to observe the trends in all projects, and try and find the differences between projects where people are leaving and people are staying, and try different approaches to see what works, this might help us to understand why people are leaving.

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
If the expression exists, I would support some kind of “coordinated decentralization”. Our projects are so successful because they promote distributed content creation, with very few rules and encouraging everybody to participate. Although organization is not the same as content creation, I’m convinced we should keep decentralization for everything we can decentralise. Anyway, central rules should apply and a central coordination body should coordinate these decentralized efforts. Decentralization is not against central and participatory coordination.

However, I think we should identify real decentralization from the atomization of unaffiliated enthusiasts and even organized groups. The latter can only happen while at the other end there is some body constantly gaining weight, concentrating resources and decision making on a few hands. I know this is one of the key concerns many Wikimedia volunteers face. I don’t believe the Wikimedia Foundation and its management should concentrate increasingly more resources and take increasingly more decisions --especially when those decisions are taken supposedly on behalf of “the community”.
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
I think that our international movement is so Anglo-American centered that hasn’t been able to see how isolated and invisible are some communities in other languages or geographies, while those communities are creating content and building some of the most important Wikimedia projects so far. Also, we are biasing some of these communities: only the members who speak English can participate in broader discussions, leaving behind a lot of valuable members of our global movement.

Of course, is not realistic to think we can communicate in every language and some kind of lingua franca is quite useful and, at this moment, that is English. But we could also improve the participation and dissemination of our movement introducing other working languages, just like different international organizations - for example, the United Nations has Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, French, English and Russian as working languages. Unlike content creation where voluntary translations are not only suitables but also desirables, the Wikimedia Foundation should be working more actively to reach the members of the movement. Board resolutions or communications from the Staff shouldn’t be communicated only in English and wait for a voluntary to translate them: at least they should be delivered in more languages as any international organization currently does.

Answer to the question (see above the questions)
No, I don’t.

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
My position is answered with the creation of Iberocoop: local communities should be empowered instead of being replaced or displaced. Local communities understand the challenges and opportunities in their environment, so their work has more chances to be effective and sustainable.

The Foundation’s presence should be exceptional and transitional, and any project developed by paid staff should be approached in permanent communication and coordination with the local organized community. WMF has the resources, but local volunteers know the local language and customs, and they have a different legitimacy vis-à-vis the local editing community and Wikimedia enthusiasts in general. The Wikimedia Foundation, in my view, should empower local volunteers rather than replacing them.

I think the Foundation has a huge work to do in developing countries (the so-called “Global South”) but this work should be linked to local communities. Initiatives like the ones being developed in Brazil and India should work next to the communities, helping them to develop so they can work on their own in the future. We can’t and shouldn’t expect the Foundation to be eternally leading the efforts of our movement in developing countries.
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
I think I’ve answered this with the previous question: coming from a country of the so-called Global South, I’m against the approach taken by the Wikimedia Foundation recently. I think we should work to empower local communities and organize them instead of trying to replace them: the work done by different chapters and groups driven by volunteers, even lacking resources, demonstrates this.

Fait accompli attitudes are real and unacceptable, and I think one of the BoT obvious tasks and competences is to oversee the way its staff (i.e. our movement’s staff) is working. The staff is here to help and not to replace the community or to act on its behalf without its consent (or, to be clear, not only there is no consent but there is some outcry on the matter).

Answer to question 1 (see above the questions)
The Wikimedia Foundation Board can only speak in the name of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Movement is so wide and diverse that no one single entity can pretend to represent it. At the same time, the Foundation is, to this day, the safekeeper of the trademarks (the name Wikipedia, or that of Wikimedia) and hosts the websites (and thus has legal responsibility about what may or may not be published on them) and as such has a high responsibility to ensure that organizations within Wikimedia fulfill certain standards, or that Wikimedia Projects don’t make decisions that go against our values of collaborative work, for example. There are cases where I can see that the Foundation should have to speak and act for the whole movement (again, trademarks etc.). However, I support the creation and existence of ad-hoc committees which give advice to the Board of Trustees, and ensure ways for broad participation in the process of decision making.
Answer to question 2 (see above the questions)
I’m not thinking on what I am going to do if that happens. We'll cross that bridge when we get there :) One thing is sure, I will continue in my Wikimedia involvement. :D
Answer to question 3 (see above the questions)
I think it is a good idea to reserve a number of appointed seats, as long as there’s a majority of seats filled with a more “democratic process”. However, in order to receive the opinion and input of experts of different fields, I’d prefer to strengthen the Advisory Board rather than reappointing members several times in a row if we can’t find Trustees with the skills we need.

v t e Questions from Laura Hale, from Wikimedia Australia
Question 1	In the past year, what work have you done to promote the interests of chapters in general and specific chapters, for example Wikimedia Australia, Wikimedia Poland, Wikimedia India, Wikimedia South Africa, Wikimedia Chile as organisations and the activities supported by dues paying members of these chapters on Wikimedia Foundation projects, to other chapters inside the Wikimedia Foundation, and in relation to the current board of Wikimedia Foundation?
Question 2	Amical is an organisation that has been the topic of recent discussion in a few locations. It is a chapter like organisation that has been denied recognition by the Chapters Committee. A look at the grant funding information available on meta shows Amical has received more funding than Wikimedia Espana, a WMF recognised chapter. What is your position specifically in regards to Amical? Do you believe Amical should be welcomed into the Chapters movement? For organisations like and including Amical that explicitly compete with Chapters, do you believe they should have an equal funding priority as board recognised chapters and should be treated as equal partners by being invited to events like the Chapters meeting in Berlin?
Question 3	Funding has been a major topic amongst chapters recently. Do you believe in a centralised or decentralised funding model? Why do you believe what you believe? How do you think your beliefs would impact the future of chapters in the future?
Question 4	Please describe your relationship with existing WMF board members. Please describe your relationship with Jimmy Wales, Erik Moeller and Sue Gardner.
Question 5	Please describe your relationship with existing chapter boards. Please provide details about your relationships with chapters and other Movement related groups (Education, GLAM, GAC, etc.) in Europe, North America, South America, Oceania, Asia and Africa.
Question 6	Did you approach any chapters about endorsing you who are not listed? If yes, which chapters and how did they respond? Did any chapters approached you about them endorsing you? If yes, which chapters and how did you respond?
Question 7	How active have you been in movement wide discussions regarding chapters, funding and the WMF in the past year? Where have you been active? (Meta, mailing lists, Outreach wiki, conferences, etc.) Which particular areas have you been active in recently in regards to the future of the Movement?
Question 8	Why do you want to be on the board of the Wikimedia Foundation and what do you hope to accomplish in this position should other Chapters vote for you?
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here.

v t e Questions by an Anonymous Source (by Request)
Question 1	Do you believe that 'badsites' (such as Wikipedia Review or Encyclopedia Dramatica) which have a history of being used to attack or harass Wikimedians and staff are protected as a legitimate form of criticism, parody and free speech?
Question 2	Have you ever contributed to such websites and to what purpose?
Question 3	Over the last year Wikimedians have been subject to off-wiki canvassing, hounding, sexual allegations and homophobic attacks, direct threats and a related group of disaffected users and banned users have formed an effective cross-project travelling circus of 'badsite' regulars manipulating consensus processes. Beyond suggesting that victims of direct threats and false allegations grow a thick skin, take legal action against the WMF or call the police, what are you going to do to ensure the Wikimedia Foundation's response to off-wiki and on-wiki attacks and gaming the system does more to ensure Wikimedia projects can be legitimately promoted as a safe space for contributors of all ages and minority groups?
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here.

v t e Questions by Deryck Chan (member of WMHK and WMUK)
Question 1	Please describe your current position, and any relevant present and past responsibilities, within your local chapter, or your nominating chapter if there's no local chapter in your jurisdiction.
Question 2	Should you be elected to the board, on which side will you stand, or what will you do, if the board or the WMF makes a decision that is against the interests of your own chapter?
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here.

v t e Questions by Jan Eissfeldt
Question 1	Please define concisely what you consider reasonable basic accountability and transparency standards that must be met by a wikimedia movement entity.
Question 2	how do you understand the role of a wmf trustee in developing, implementing and preserving such standards as defined in response to 1. within the evolving framework of the movement?
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here.

v t e Questions by a Second Anonymous Source
Question 1	Editor retention and recruitment are perhaps the most pressing issues facing the movement. Please specify three means by which editor retention and/or recruitment could be strengthened.
Question 2	If the effectiveness of any or all of your three methods of strengthening editor retention and/or recruitment can be measured quantitatively, please indicate how.
Question 3	How would you characterize the effectiveness of Foundation efforts to identify the causes of decreasing editor retention?
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here.

v t e Questions by AshLin
Question 1	In India, we have a case where two potentially competing bodies have been established in a single national jurisdiction - namely, the Wikimedia India chapter and WMF India Program. These are two entities which operate simultaneously with a significant potential for conflict/conflict of interest. In adition, community members are simultaneously holding positions under the country chapter (Wikimedia India) as well as paid positions under the WMF - India Program. What are your views about this system?
Question 2	What is your position on the recent significance accorded to "Global South" countries? Should the Foundation's focus over there be to run consultant-led programs or to empower volunteers and volunteer-run organizations? If you consider the Foundation's actions as a fait accompli, how then should this initiative develop so as to be the best in the community interest?
You can find all the questions asked to this candidate here.