Talk:Training the Trainers/Agreement for trainers

Problems with third clause

Whilst I think that having such an agreement is a great idea and that this draft goes long way to meeting that need, there is one clause I am not happy with

3) "The Participant undertakes not to approach any other person or organisation with the aim of providing Wikimedia-related training or services for a fee of any kind without the permission of Wikimedia UK."

I think this is really bad - it smacks of the sort of clauses which go in contracts for proprietary intellectual property, and is at odds with the concept of Open Educational Resources and Open Knowledge. Whist I understand the concerns that have been discussed at Board level concerning fears that individuals might do the course and then set up their own agencies - this is not the solution. It is not for Wikimedia UK to hold people in such a contractual vice. The fears expressed by the board mirror the responses that other firms have had in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.

1. It has no time limit.
2. It is put in such a way that anyone seriously wanting to wiggle around it could.
3. It means that someone mentioning they ahd done the course in a CV when applying for a teaching job which involves working with Wikipedia would be in breach if they didn't gain permission from WMUK.

Indeed it may well be in breach of the objectives "to promote and support the widest possible public access to, use of and contribution to Open Content of an encyclopaedic or educational nature." These objectives positively include the types of COI edits which the Board is concerned about

I understand the concerns of the Board that they might be criticised for providing expensive training which does not benefit the work of the charity. I also find the "paid to edit" approach of the PR industry distatsteful. However, as I have received payment for facilitating the use of Wikiversity in a University setting, I would not be happy signing such a clause. I am also concerned that it might have a negative impact on encouraging teachers and college lecturers from engaging with the programme.

What I would suggest is that we have a clause more like this:

3) "The Participant agrees to contribute towards Wikimedia UK activities designed to realise the objectives of the charity, and to apply the knowledge and skills they have gained in a way which is in harmony with ethos of the Wikimedia movement."

OK, it is equally unenforceable, however it give a clear, positive account of the intent of the TtT programme. .

I hope this goes someway to help formulating an agreement that everyone will be happy with. Leutha (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

On the assumption that this document will be used for attendees of the planned Manchester February training event in four weeks time, could someone comprehensively answer Leutha's concerns or adapt the agreement in advance of the board meeting of 9 February 2013? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

See below. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the risk we're trying to mitigate here?

What is this agreement actually trying to achieve? All the stuff about not misrepresenting yourself is just a restatement of trademark law so doesn't actually do anything except make sure people are aware of what they are and aren't allowed to do (which isn't a bad idea, but does it really require a signed agreement?). The important clause in this agreement, and which the rest of the agreement is clearly just there to distract attention from (whoever drafted it may not have thought about it in those terms, but it's true nevertheless), is the bit about not selling Wikipedia training. What is actually the harm from someone selling Wikipedia training? The risk with training people is that Wikimedia UK won't get anything out of it. Banning paid training doesn't mitigate that - in fact, it increases the risk since it prevents people doing something that would further our objects (another person that knows how to edit Wikipedia is another person that knows how to edit Wikipedia, regardless of whether they paid for it or not). If you want to mitigate that risk, then get people to commit to giving at least one training course on behalf of Wikimedia UK within a year of taking the course (obviously, you would need to make sure there were enough courses being run to use everyone). You can make it one of the requirements to get the certificate. You could even have a rule that you have to give one course a year in order to retain your certification if you want. --Tango (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

When will this be signed?

What's that bit about getting you a place on the course within twelve months for? Why would this be signed at any time other than when they are on the course? --Tango (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please answer this question? Thanks! --Tango (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am wracking my brains to know why 12 months. suspect this is a hangover for a previous concept. Would anyone object if we removed this altogether? Anyone signing it would be on a course as that is why they would be signing. Sorry about the delay in replying Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That was my thinking exactly. It seems odd to get people to agree to all kinds of restrictions before they've even arrived. Of course, it's important to make sure people know what they'll be expected to agree to before they go so they don't have a wasted trip if they don't want to sign. --Tango (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolving problems with third clause

Thanks for the comments Leutha - we are trying to come up with something that indicates a maximum of good faith. You make some good points and I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense. This agreement came out of a trustee discussion about how to protect the charity against people taking our training and making money out of it. In practice this has not proved a problem, yet, but of course could do.

I suggest adopting Leutha's amendment and continuing to assume the good faith from participants that has been demonstrated so far.

What do other think?

Jon Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Leutha's comments. I like his new words but I can see some participents worrying that they might be sued because they can't find an opportunity to contribute. I'm not saying anyone will be sued, I'm just saying some people would be worried. Maybe the words could be tweaked to state it as an intention, rather than an agreement. i.e.

"The Participant intends to contribute towards Wikimedia UK activities designed to realise the objectives of the charity, and to apply the knowledge and skills they have gained in a way which is in harmony with ethos of the Wikimedia movement."

Yaris678 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yaris, though I doubt the charity would ever consider legal action, I believe the intention was for the charity to have the potential to ask for its training costs back, and for the attendees to clearly understand they are making a meaningful commitment in order to have £800 or so of donated funds invested in improving their skills. If the agreement does not do this, then I am unsure of the tangible benefit of having it in place for either party considering it may cause some concern.

With regard to the realities of who attends the courses, it would be neat if we had some published training delivery accounts showing who from the certified trainers has or has not taken part in delivering two or more events since receiving the training and certification. Knowing this was to be published would naturally strongly encourage all trainees to take part in delivering the events programme within six months of being trained. I don't know if everybody trained to date has done this, but if we can all see this minimal level of return on investment, there is unlikely to be an issue.

I would suggest that the agreements are a requirement a reasonable time in advance of the training, it would be odd for someone to refuse to sign the agreement on the day of the training. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If the idea is to ensure a reasonable return on investment for the charity in providing these trainings, then the agreement should reflect that. The current draft says nothing regarding a participant actually using what they learn to provide training on behalf of or with Wikimedia UK. All it does is a restraint of trade on a participant. In fact, since there is no time limit specified, it's a highly unreasonable restraint that is (IANAL and all that) probably unenforceable.

If this agreement is intend to be in place for all upcoming Training the Trainers events, including the upcoming February event in Manchester, then the chapter need to contact everyone who has signed up letting them know that. Even though I have never offered "Wikimedia-related training or services for a fee" in the past or have any plans to in the future, I for one for example would not have signed this agreement as it's currently worded if it existed at the Training the Trainers event I attended. I certainly would not had wanted to have travelled to the training only to discover I wouldn't be staying because of my refusal to sign the agreement. KTC (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I certainly agree that the agreement should be completely clear about the outcome the charity is looking for. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable that WMUK should want a reasonable level of commitment from participants. I think it is also helpful to state this clearly. But the very idea that they might be charged £800 if they didn't help out in a certain amount of time is just going to scare people off. I can see that this is a delicate balance that a charity relying on volunteers has to strike, but the £800 idea strikes the balance in the wrong way. The existing wording also strikes it in the wrong way.

I think the whole thing should be seen as a declaration of intent, rather than an agreement. It should clearly state that it has no legal force but is designed to make clear what WMUK can reasonably expect from the participants.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, this document was discussed at the Education Committee meeting on 30 January, and the decision is reflected by my edits on the page. Any questions could be directed to RexxS, or Jon Davies. As for the 'value for money' - how many training sessions the participants deliver - I am hoping to work on this with the upcoming Volunteer Support Organiser person.Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That's better, although you've missed out the "apply the knowledge gained" bit from Leutha's proposal, which I think is an important bit. There is no point training someone as a trainer if they are going to contribute in some other way. --Tango (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "The Participant agrees to contribute towards Wikimedia UK activities designed to realise the objectives of the charity." is sufficient to cover that. Yaris678 (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I like this wording, and it seems reasonable (and could be extended to any other MoU for training given). Perhaps "contribute towards relevant WMUK activities..." would resolve some of the previous concerns? Andrew Gray (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? It doesn't cover it at all. The objectives of the charity are far wider than giving training. If we want to make sure we're getting value for money out of these courses, then we need to make sure people are actually using what they're taught. If they contribute in other ways, then they might as well have not gone on the course. --Tango (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Tango, that's not necessarily true. For example, it may be that two volunteers meet as participants on the course and then come up with an amazing idea, which advances the purpose of the charity but is not about giving training. That said, the purpose of the MoU is to be clear about what participants are getting into and giving training is obviously what it is supposed to be about so I wouldn't be against tweaking the wording to make that clearer. (To put it another way, just because I think it is sufficient at the moment, it doesn't mean that I think it can't be improved.) Yaris678 (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The course is a valuable networking opportunity, certainly, but that alone is not worth sending people on it. They can go to meetups for that. --Tango (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Problems with fourth clause

Clause 4 could have similar problems to clause 3. Specifically, is the participant agreeing not to mention their accreditation on their CV? Yaris678 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I went off half-cocked on this one. Specifically the end of the sentence is sufficient to allay my fears: "with the aim of selling or providing Wikimedia related training independently of Wikimedia UK." Yaris678 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Memorandum of understanding

I notice that the changes by the education committee change this from an agreement to a memorandum of understanding. I think this is an excellent step forward in line with what I said above. As Wikipedia says, a memorandum of understanding "is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement." If this is the case, then perhaps it would be best to remove or alter the bit at the bottom, which says "This contract is to be construed according to English law."

Yaris678 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I would support that. I am increasingly uncomfortable with legal documents replacing agreements or MOUs. A lot can be achieved with social pressure and, for example, removing someone's name from an official on-wiki list of accredited and active trainers would often be the limit of any remedy the charity would want to implement. --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone who's been involved in putting this together. The last line of the current draft says this is a contract construed under English law, which doesn't seem to fit with the intention to make it a non-contractural understanding. Can I just check whether that's right, or is it a drafting problem? Thanks, The Land (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

diff - Thanks for handling it Yaris. --Fæ (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree delete the end bit (UK law) - looks like something there just for effect. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)