Talk:Strategy/Archive/WMUK activities and volunteers

From Wikimedia UK
Revision as of 15:27, 23 February 2014 by Sjgknight (talk | contribs) (add note on 'lead volunteer')
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The way this page is tucked away (and the talk page didn't exist until I created it, after stumbling across it) doesn't give me a great deal of confidence that you're going to get a useful consultation on its contents; perhaps it should be more widely advertised?

I welcome clear definitions of these terms; it may allow progress in working out where we stand rather than relying on the current estimated figure, the methodology for which is unclear at best. However, this definition is too broad.

  • It includes everyone who has ever done something on WMUK's behalf (including, quite possibly, people who don't even know that WMUK exists), so there's no way to tell whether the volunteer base is growing, stagnating, or shrinking.
  • The definitions are ambiguous, for example activities in conjunction with WMUK; what does "in conjunction" mean? Does that mean that the hosts of WMUK events count? What about the attendees of an event? Because my reading is that both could be counted as doing something "in conjunction" with WMUK, regardless of whether they pursue their involvement with the movement any further. If there are different interpretations on this, it's going to lead to different methods of calculating the number of volunteers, and the temptation will be for people to use a definition that fits the point they're trying to make (however well-intentioned they may be), and we'll be no closer to having a realistic figure that we can all agree on.
  • The definitions need firming up with examples of the sorts of activities that are and aren't "WMUK activities".
  • "In conjunction with" needs to be changed to something much less ambiguous, like "on behalf of".
  • "In the course of his or her WMUK duties" needs to be "in the course of his or her employment" or similar; volunteers arguably have "duties", but not in the same sense as staff.
  • You need examples to define "trustee-related activity" versus 'voluntary activity'; I suggest something like attending board meetings versus running an event in a personal capacity.
  • What purpose does the caveat "involved in a non-leading capacity" serve? By that definition, if I'm involved n an event that has nothing to do with WMUK but I'm involved in it in a "leading capacity", it's still a "WMUK activity".
  • More detail is needed on when staff count as volunteers and when they count as staff, otherwise the sorts of accusations that have been made in the past about massaging figures will resurface.
  • We seem to have dispensed with the principle of volunteers being "at the heart" of WMUK. I don't think this has been the case in practice for a while, but it would be a shame to abandon the pretence of being a volunteer-led organisation altogether. Similarly, we seem to have moved away from the idea that staff only do those things that volunteers can't or won't do.
  • This document would be a good place to attempt to define the roles of staff, trustees, and volunteers. For example, do the former two have to go through the same rigmarole to get approval for their projects that volunteers do? I very much doubt it, but it would be nice to see that they do, even if it is only on paper.
  • More broadly, it's disappointing that the board did not think to ask the volunteers how they define the term "volunteer".

Of course, there are different types of volunteers, and some are more involved than others, which is too nuanced for a purely statistical analysis, but I'm pretty sure I could count on one hand the number of volunteers who come to WMUK with their own initiatives rather than participating in initiatives led by other volunteers or staff. Personally, I think that's a serious problem, but the board and staff seem satisfied with the latest version of this number, which uses an extremely broad definition of the term and seems to be incremented on an ad hoc basis with no consistent methodology. Harry Mitchell (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Rather than interpolating comments in the middle of your text, above, I have re-copied below in order to start a separate thread for each point. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The way this page is tucked away (and the talk page didn't exist until I created it, after stumbling across it) doesn't give me a great deal of confidence that you're going to get a useful consultation on its contents; perhaps it should be more widely advertised?

I welcome clear definitions of these terms; it may allow progress in working out where we stand rather than relying on the current estimated figure, the methodology for which is unclear at best. However, this definition is too broad.

Not sure about 'tucked away' as the page has been advertised on the Engine Room, and is also part of the Draft Strategy collection of pages, all of which are linked by a navbox which points to this page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It includes everyone who has ever done something on WMUK's behalf (including, quite possibly, people who don't even know that WMUK exists), so there's no way to tell whether the volunteer base is growing, stagnating, or shrinking.

The whole purpose of this is to define exactly what we mean by 'WMUK volunteers', going forward, so that we can tell whether the numbers are growing or decreasing. I accept that we don't have definitive numbers for the past, and that is what we are trying to fix for the future. I honestly don't see how it would be possible for a person who (1) is carrying out voluntary activities in conjunction with WMUK, or (2) is carrying out a WMUK activity (including attending a WMUK event) in a voluntary capacity not to know that WMUK exists. If you have a particular example in mind, could you indicate here please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The definitions are ambiguous, for example activities in conjunction with WMUK; what does "in conjunction" mean? Does that mean that the hosts of WMUK events count? What about the attendees of an event? Because my reading is that both could be counted as doing something "in conjunction" with WMUK, regardless of whether they pursue their involvement with the movement any further. If there are different interpretations on this, it's going to lead to different methods of calculating the number of volunteers, and the temptation will be for people to use a definition that fits the point they're trying to make (however well-intentioned they may be), and we'll be no closer to having a realistic figure that we can all agree on.

The wording is intended to reflect a reasonable interpretation of volunteer work that we can reasonably 'claim' for WMUK, in the sense that WMUK has in some way contributed or added value over and above what the volunteer might have been able to do working entirely alone. The attendees of a WMUK event do indeed count - see the second point of the volunteer definition which explicitly states "(including attending a WMUK event)". A person who attend one WMUK event and then does nothing else would be included in the three-month report on Volunteer Activity Units during that period: see Measures and targets, and in particular the proposed KPIs user the section "G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers". A "Volunteer Activity Unit" is defined as one volunteer attending one WMUK event - see section [4] of the table Measures and targets#Notes and Definitions. But that person would not subsequently appear in the reported figures. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The definitions need firming up with examples of the sorts of activities that are and aren't "WMUK activities". "In conjunction with" needs to be changed to something much less ambiguous, like "on behalf of".

I don't think that's right, as we are a volunteer-led organization. Volunteers are not in my view "acting on behalf of" WMUK, but rather are doing things that they themselves want to do with WMUK support. "In conjunction with" seems to capture that balance quite well, and is less likely to be objectionable to volunteers whom we are attempting to help not control. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"In the course of his or her WMUK duties" needs to be "in the course of his or her employment" or similar; volunteers arguably have "duties", but not in the same sense as staff.

Agreed, and Yes check.svg Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You need examples to define "trustee-related activity" versus 'voluntary activity'; I suggest something like attending board meetings versus running an event in a personal capacity.

Well, that seems pretty clear to me from the wording given. Do you think that readers might consider board meetings a non-trustee activity? Otherwise I'm unsure what the need would be for more wording here. I'm not against examples, if they would help in edge cases, but there don't seem to be any here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What purpose does the caveat "involved in a non-leading capacity" serve? By that definition, if I'm involved in an event that has nothing to do with WMUK but I'm involved in it in a "leading capacity", it's still a "WMUK activity".

"In a non-leading capacity" is intended to cover volunteers who get involved in some way other than turning up to an event (eg who submit a photo to WLM UK). On your second point, the word "solely" is important, and the intent is that if you as a volunteer were for example given a WMUK travel grant to attend an OpenStreetMaps conference your attendance does not in itself magically convert the entire conference into a WMUK event that we can claim as ours. You would count as one WMUK volunteer attending one relevant event (though not one of ours) and hence would show up in the statistics as one Volunteer Activity Unit for that quarter. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

More detail is needed on when staff count as volunteers and when they count as staff, otherwise the sorts of accusations that have been made in the past about massaging figures will resurface.

The definitions seem very clear to me, but if you have edge cases that would benefit from some examples that would be good. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have dispensed with the principle of volunteers being "at the heart" of WMUK. I don't think this has been the case in practice for a while, but it would be a shame to abandon the pretence of being a volunteer-led organisation altogether. Similarly, we seem to have moved away from the idea that staff only do those things that volunteers can't or won't do.

Harry, that is unfair and I think incorrect. The Volunteer Policy is still in force, and as a Wikimedian chair myself I feel it critical that the charity continues to put volunteers at the heart of what we do. I'd be interested to hear how you think we could do better in that respect. Do you have some examples? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This document would be a good place to attempt to define the roles of staff, trustees, and volunteers. For example, do the former two have to go through the same rigmarole to get approval for their projects that volunteers do? I very much doubt it, but it would be nice to see that they do, even if it is only on paper.

I don't really understand this. Volunteers can do anything they like, and it's entirely optional whether they wish to be associated with WMUK and work in conjunction with us. Where volunteers do want to work with us the board has a legal duty to ensure that the charity's money is properly spent in an efficient way on work that falls within our charitable objects, and trustees who failed in that duty could be liable to legal sanctions. To that extent, we have to be careful about the work we support, though we do try to avoid 'rigmarole'. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

More broadly, it's disappointing that the board did not think to ask the volunteers how they define the term "volunteer".

Um, the entire purpose of putting this page up on the public wiki was to seek volunteer input. Perhaps you missed the yellow box at the top of the page which specifically says that "This is a draft policy that is open for community consultation" ? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course, there are different types of volunteers, and some are more involved than others, which is too nuanced for a purely statistical analysis, but I'm pretty sure I could count on one hand the number of volunteers who come to WMUK with their own initiatives rather than participating in initiatives led by other volunteers or staff. Personally, I think that's a serious problem, but the board and staff seem satisfied with the latest version of this number, which uses an extremely broad definition of the term and seems to be incremented on an ad hoc basis with no consistent methodology. Harry Mitchell (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right that we would like to attract more long-term and engaged volunteers, hence the focus in the draft strategy to increase volunteer numbers. See Measures and targets, the section "G2a.1 We have a thriving community of WMUK volunteers." The page you mention is one that is maintained by a volunteer, and although interesting is not a staff or board-supported page. It does not use the definitions set out in the Strategic Plan, which will - if approved - form the basis for our statistics in the future. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all these both Harry and Michael. It is also worth noting a distinction in the Measures and targets made between volunteer activity, and lead volunteer activity where the latter involves actually leading on events, etc. We recognise that this is a particular type of volunteer (and one likely with a longer lasting relationship), will set targets and report on numbers there, and are quite clear that this is central to the volunteer-oriented nature of the charity. Sjgknight (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strategy/Archive/WMUK_activities_and_volunteers&oldid=52455"