QUOTE(Kevin @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 12:03am)
Movement roles? WTF are they?
This is a major part of their problem: These people (being the only ones who are getting paid) have to pretend to see Wikipedia as a movement,
like the "civil rights movement" or the "world peace movement." They're not being paid to see Wikipedia for what it actually is, i.e., a time-wasting activity for (mostly) bored, socially-inept teens and housewives that just happened to be in the right place at the right time when Google needed a way to prevent itself from being made useless by blogspam.
As for the "roles" in question, movements need leaders, organizers, and idealist proselytizers, but they also need propagandists, apologists, spin doctors, and snake-oil salesmen. I suspect they simply want to formalize these roles among the people they already have, to avoid needless duplication of effort.
What, instead of developing a structure that attempts to avoid the scandal in the first place?
The term "robust" is organizational code-speak, a shorthand if you will - it means "as far removed as possible from what's actually going on." They're fortunate in that the people who run the big foundations don't read the tech press, so all they really have to do to keep the dollars rolling in is flat-out lie to them.
Here's the best bit though, from page 10:
Build the technological and operating platform that enables Wikimedia to function sustainably as a top global Internet organization
This is also code-speak - it means "catch-all bucket for legal and consultancy fees."
Strengthen, grow and increase diversity of the editing community that is the lifeblood of Wikimedia projects
"Administrative overhead." I mean, how are they supposed to do that, sitting in an office in San Francisco, forbidden to actually get down 'n' dirty with the users because of the need to maintain the Section 230-derived illusion that they're a "service provider, not a publisher"?
Accelerate impact by investing in key geographic areas, mobile application development and bottom-up innovation
This one essentially means, "We couldn't have just two bullet points because that would look retarded, so we added this bit to pad our buzzword count."