Talk:Strategy/Archive/WMUK activities and volunteers

Comments from Harry

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)

Hmm. I suspect others might have comments if they knew the page existed, but perhaps not. Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

We've put considerable effort into encouraging people to comment on the strategy documents. Sjgknight (talk) 22:45, 24 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)

Somebody could very easily attend a WMUK event and not know WMUK exists. I'm certainly aware of plenty of volunteers at the non-London meetups who have are only peripherally aware of WMUK's existence, but that's because I'm the closest thing to a representative of WMUK that most people outside London will ever meet. Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

On the first point, I doubt that's true. We don't 'count' meetups as "our" events, so they're moot in this case (although as someone who might be called a 'wmuk rep', whatever that might mean, I also challenge the point re: outside London having for example met you no less than 4 times outside London). See below for broader point Sjgknight (talk) 22:45, 24 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)

That definition is so broad as to be absurd. Take my upcoming event in Plymouth, for example; let's say a dozen people, with no previous connection to the movement, turn up to my event to learn about Wikipedia. How are they WMUK volunteers in any meaningful sense? Similarly, if I bring in helpers through personal contacts (as I've done before), this definition would claim them for WMUK and yet they could easily remain unaware of WMUK's existence. Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The point here in any case is that we are not counting volunteers we're counting volunteer activity units, transitory volunteers make a contribution, as do longer standing volunteers. We want volunteers to lead events, and we count that separately. But we also want to attract people to events, and recognise the efforts of individuals who contribute their time in perhaps more transitory ways. Sjgknight (talk) 22:45, 24 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)

Are we? I don't think we have been, in practice, for a couple of years. I'll concede that "on behalf of" is crap, but "in conjunction with" is still very broad and the document does nothing to narrow it down. Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 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 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)

Well, attending a board meeting is clearly an activity done as a trustee, but trustees do more than attend board meetings; some of those things are in their trustee capacity and some might be voluntary. I think it would be helpful to give an example to help define when a trustee is not acting in that capacity (for example, helping at an event, attending a conference on behalf of WMUK, etc). Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I broadly speaking agree actually that trustee activity could meaningfully be included as volunteer activity. A couple of reasons we might not want to do that are 1) trustee time is disproportionately spent on internal activities, 2) we might not want to count trustee time (at least on "trustee activities") as positive impact, that is, it is not necessarily a good sign to see trustees spending a lot of time on activities. Sjgknight (talk) 22:45, 24 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)

Fair enough on the first. On the second, may I suggest you read it again - "An external event or activity is not considered a WMUK activity solely because [WMUK volunteers] are involved in a non-leading capacity" suggests that an external event led by someone who happens to be a WMUK volunteer (but might be acting in a different capacity) could be a WMUK event. Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In such a case there might be a question over whether that individual's attendance (or leading) of the event was something we "counted" but the other attendees would clearly have nothing to do with us (aside from anything else there is a pragmatic component here - if it's not an event we have anything to do with, how would we gather details to track its impact?) Sjgknight (talk) 22:45, 24 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)

I don't want to cite specific examples because I don't want to be seen as criticising those involved or get bogged down on which capacity they were acting in. Suffice to say there has been confusion over this in the past, which led to an accusation that the chosen definition was the most convenient rather than the most accurate. Ambiguity will always lead to the temptation to pick the definition that best fits your point (and to accusations thereof), which is why I suggested clarifying examples. Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 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)

I don't think it's incorrect at all, and while I don't wish to be disrespectful, I think I'm much better placed (as an active volunteer) to judge. Perhaps I view things with undue cynicism (I'm not known for having much faith in any institution, within or without the Wikimedia movement), but I've seen, over the last few years, an increased centralisation of WMUK's activities; more and more activities being done by staff that volunteers would be perfectly capable of doing if only they were asked; a decline or stagnation in the number of volunteers (using an ad hoc but much more realistic definition); a board paralysed by the so-called "governance review" to the extent that it no longer does much of anything; the apparent exhaustion of staff capacity without it occurring to anyone that volunteers could do a lot more if only people would let them; no meaningful attempt to recruit or retain volunteers; no process for volunteers or potential volunteers to get involved in WMUK's activities; a lack of focus on anything outside the M25; a focus on expensive, high-profile projects at the expense of small initiatives with potentially (proportionally) larger rewards; a focus on WMUK's position within the movement and in promoting WMUK, at the expense of focus on fulfilling its objectives; and a lack of responsiveness to comments or suggestions from volunteers (this is one thing the board was quite good at when it was still involved in 'operational' matters). I could provide examples, but most of my evidence is anecdotal (from having been involved with WMUK since 2010, and through all the changes that have happened since) and again, I don't want to get bogged down in the detail of individual cases. Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ouch - 'eleven reasons why I hate WMUK'. Harry, you have raised some fundamental issues here, and I would be keen to get to the bottom of why you feel as you do, and to hear and learn from your personal experiences. It might not be a good plan to set out anecdotal cases here, on the public wiki, but I would very much like to have the opportunity of meeting and discussing these issues with you in person. Would that be feasible? Not sure where you are based - Coventry area? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there are twelve actually, but I don't hate WMUK. WMUK, like the movement as a whole, is full of good people trying to do the right thing; I think it has its problems, but if I hated it, I wouldn't have given thousands of hours of my time to it. I'd very much like to discuss it further with you, but a wiki doesn't lend itself to that sort of discussion so I've sent you an email. Harry Mitchell (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say, please listen to Harry, as he has many great points here that WMUK would really benefit from listening to. Please also consider coming to some non-London wikimeets to hear the views of other community members. Or perhaps do both at the same time? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:44, 4 March 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)

Of course the board has a legal duty to ensure the charity's money is spent properly. I feel (and perhaps I'm wrong) that when I want money for a project, I have to jump through hoops, which seem to move from time to time and from one budget-holder to the next. I'm sure people aren't putting up the hoops deliberately, but the more hoops, the more off-putting the process is. It's also opaque to the uninitiated. Further, it feels like staff (and to a lesser extent trustees) who want funding for pet projects don't seem to have to jump through the hoops. Perhaps they do and the opacity just means that I don't see it... Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 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)

Yes. Personally, I would have asked the people I was trying to define for their opinions before presenting them with a definition that they can take or leave. But then, crowdsourcing has its drawbacks, too. Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the definition given here hasn't come from nowhere, at the least it's built on the Volunteer Policy description Sjgknight (talk) 22:45, 24 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)

An attempt was made to come up with a number, which did use an unclear methodology, but evidently that page was not it. I think, in responding to that, you may have missed my point, but thank you nonetheless for your responses, Michael—your willingness to engage in discussion, at least, restores some of my confidence. Harry Mitchell (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just responded I think to most of the points briefly (some issues tracking replies). Sjgknight (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mike

It's good to see these definitions being thought about. Some suggestions:

1. Introduction:
   1. "For strategic measurement purposes only we use these definitions." - where else would they be used or not used?
      • For example individual projects might also have targets for volunteer activity, and might want to define volunteers in different ways for those (perhaps operational) purposes. Sjgknight (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I follow - shouldn't individual projects aim to match up with the strategic priorities, and as such shouldn't they set out their definitions in the same way? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Activity:
   1. This would be easier to read if it was a bulleted list, rather than prose
   2. What do you mean by 'a non-leading capacity.'? E.g. at a conference, where would the line be drawn between being on a panel, giving a presentation or organising a session? It would be worth rewording this to clarify what's meant.
   3. Where would scholarships fall under here - would they count as a WMUK activity or not?
      • I would think provision of a scholarship, and attendance at the event it is provided for, is a WMUK activity yes Sjgknight (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Great. :-) Can that be made clearer here then, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
   4. It isn't clear what 'in conjunction' refers to - it could go as far back in the sentence as 'carried out ... in conjunction'
   5. I'm not sure what the bit about sponsoring/paid for relates to that wouldn't be covered by 'conducted in conjunction' before - unless this is meant to cover scholarships?
      • It is I think Sjgknight (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
   6. Does contributing to this wiki count as an activity?
3. Volunteer:
   1. The bullet point sections could be merged together to make this more comprehensible. I.e. format it as 'someone is a volunteer if' and 'someone isn't a volunteer if' rather than 'a volunteer is', 'a volunteer still is' and 'an employee or a trustee aren't a volunteer unless'.
   2. As Harry, I don't like 'in conjunction with' here. The definition of what WMUK is should be *volunteers*, with staff support, rather than what seems to be the norm now of WMUK being the staff. I agree that 'on behalf of' wouldn't be right, but it is closer. 'to further the objects of' might be a bit too general but would be closer to the mark. 'that are directly connected with' perhaps?
   3. 'including attending a WMUK event' - I'd remove that bit, as people can be paid to attend WMUK events by their employer (e.g. at GLAM-WIKI conferences) so they don't really count as a volunteer there; they could also be attending to further their own goals in a way that isn't supporting WMUK. Also, saying 'in a voluntary capacity' in a definition of what 'volunteer' means is a bit circular!
      • I'd want to include individuals who attend WMUK events in the course of their non-WMUK employment, my first event was as an employee elsewhere, my time is in a sense volunteered to go to the event, and we want to build up attendance at such events. Having said that I can see an obvious concern here re: ensuring we don't just end up running events that people are (through some means) paid to attend. Any other thoughts? Sjgknight (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmm, it does sound like there's a nuance here between those that are paid to go to an event because of their work commitment and those that attend it because they're genuinely interested in contributing to the work that WMUK/Wikimedia is doing. Perhaps there should be a self-identification process where attendees of events should indicate either way. However, the assumption of 'attendee = volunteer' isn't a good one here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
   4. I find it very odd that there's no mention of 'member' here!
      • What do you think should be included? This is in part about distinguishing between members and volunteers (although of course there is a lot of crossover in membership of those groups) Sjgknight (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I've long advocated the use of CiviEvent for signing up for WMUK-run events. That would let you know how many members are active in attending WMUK events, which would be an interesting metric here. I'd also ask, how many volunteers are asked to become members? And should there really be a difference between 'WMUK volunteers' and 'WMUK members'? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
   5. I would include trustees doing trustee work as volunteer work, as it is.
      • See my reply to Harry on this point Sjgknight (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hope those points are helpful - and apologies if they have duplicated any of Harry's points above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)