The Board approves the following letter to be sent to the community:
Dear members of the Wikimedia Movement,
As you are probably aware we have been discussing the the future of
fundraising and fund dissemination for the Wikimedia Movement for almost
6 months now. After discussing fundraising
I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in suggestions and
take it no further rather than take the next step and begin editing themselves.
Definitely important to watch for any changes in the rate of new editors
contributing. It also implicitly makes it someone else's
Hi Ting,
thank you for the letter. Could you clarify to what extent this is the end
decision, and how much discussion/process should be expected ahead of us?
Going up to this board meeting I have heard both the opinions that the
final decision would be made quickly, and also that definitely no
On 9 February 2012 09:04, n...@thebabbages.com wrote:
I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in suggestions
and take it no further rather than take the next step and begin editing
themselves.
At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
Definitely
Ting,
Thank you for this. I'm confused, though. You say you want to have another
month of discussions, but I don't see any questions in your letter. What is
it you want to discuss?
Everyone that wants to has expressed their views. The numerous debates on
meta and elsewhere have reached their
That's the plan. Neil, this is a concern we've taken into account; we'll be
testing whether (for example) the presence of the feedback page adds 2,000
comments, but kills half of our anonymous edits, or whatever. If the harm
outweighs the benefits, we'll go back to the drawing board.
On 9
Hi Lodewijk,
In this board meeting we were trying to see if we had a general
consensus on the direction we wanted to go (rather than take a final
vote). There are still lots of aspects to be resolved, though -- what
the FDC looks like, what criteria are used for payment processing, and
many more
On 8.2.2012, at 22.03, Tom Morris wrote:
I have contacts to the European Fablab folks and we probably could start
with them a project on an Incubator.
Just noticed that the Incubator is now only for new languages. Is it so that
the Wikimedia is not looking for new projects?
Fabbing isn't
The largest problem I see with this is offering a 3D modelling software
that is free and (somewhat) easy to use. I know some exist, but they are
not nearly as friendly as Solidworks or Pro e. secondly, we would need to
offer a free viewer, so that they could be accessed from Wikipedia articles
or
A couple quick comments:
For folks that are interested in this topic, please consider attending
Oliver's Office Hours on the topic. Oliver hosts an IRC Office Hours
approximately every week to discuss the project. Some are about specific
topics (e.g.., today's is about oversight of comments and
Hi Phoebe,
thank you for the clarification and thanks to the board for sharing
this kind of summary soon after the meeting.
On 9 February 2012 18:08, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lodewijk,
In this board meeting we were trying to see if we had a general
consensus on the
Thanks Ting for posting, Phoebe for jumping in already, and everyone for
questions so far. As the WIkimedia Board member most focused on financial
issues, I thought i should share some personal observations on the fundraising
letter and issues behind it. See my blog post:
On 02/09/2012 09:11 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
* The board is sharpening the criteria for payment processing. Payment
processing is not a natural path to growth for a chapter; and payment
processing will likely be an exception -- most chapters will not do so.
Without any financial autonomy (that
On 9 February 2012 20:01, Emmanuel Engelhart emman...@engelhart.org wrote:
Without any financial autonomy (that means the ability to raise and invest
funds), a chapter can only beg for money. I do not share your vision of the
chapter's future - neither for the old nor for the young ones.
(Sharing this oped published in the Washington Post today. Will be printed
in tomorrow's paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-are-the-media-and-so-are-you/2012/02/09/gIQAfNW81Q_story.html
We are the media, and so are you
By Jimmy Wales and Kat Walsh, Thursday, February 9, 4:15 PM
(Sharing this oped published in the Washington Post today. Will be printed
in tomorrow's paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-are-the-media-and-so-are-you/2012/02/09/gIQAfNW81Q_story.html
We are the media, and so are you
By Jimmy Wales and Kat Walsh, Thursday, February 9, 4:15 PM
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Emmanuel Engelhart
emman...@engelhart.orgwrote:
On 02/09/2012 09:11 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
* The board is sharpening the criteria for payment processing. Payment
processing is not a natural path to growth for a chapter; and payment
processing will likely be an
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Ting for posting, Phoebe for jumping in already, and everyone for
questions so far. As the WIkimedia Board member most focused on financial
issues, I thought i should share some personal observations on the
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 04:52:49PM -0500, Jay Walsh wrote:
(Sharing this oped published in the Washington Post today. Will be printed
in tomorrow's paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-are-the-media-and-so-are-you/2012/02/09/gIQAfNW81Q_story.html
We are the media, and so are
I wanted to share an experience with regards to a future FDC.
During two years, I was a member of the comité de pilotage (which I
will here translate in steering committee) of the ANR (National
Research Agency in France).
The ANR distributes every year about 1000 M€ to support research in
Ah yeah. From what I understood, what I outline as a process is very
similar to any type of academic call of projects/funding in the USA,
such as NSF, NASA, NIH, DOE etc.
Most basic principle: peer review evaluation.
Florence
On 2/9/12 11:52 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
I wanted to share
I say the design needs improvement; I suggest taking a look at
Usernoisehttp://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/usernoise/screenshots/
for
a bit of refinement.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Howie Fung hf...@wikimedia.org wrote:
A couple quick comments:
For folks that are interested in this
I believe Brandon is going to give it the once-over pretty soon :)
On 9 February 2012 23:09, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
I say the design needs improvement; I suggest taking a look at
Usernoisehttp://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/usernoise/screenshots/
for
a bit of refinement.
On Thu,
Thanks you so much, Florence. This is really interesting and
definitely valuable food for thought - a very good starting point for
the conversation about funds dissemination.
Arne
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
Ah yeah. From what I understood, what
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As said above...it is being moved ;p
Where / on which lists were the location experiments discussed prior
to implementation? Both with regards to the locations to be tested
and to the pages to test on?
--
-george
On 9 February 2012 23:14, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As said above...it is being moved ;p
Where / on which lists were the location experiments discussed prior
to implementation? Both with regards
Today, we are excited to announce the start of our building of a new
department called the “Legal and Community Advocacy Department.” This new
alignment recognizes that we can combine the best of legal and community
advocacy to foster new ways to advance the interests of the community
consistent
This is something I penned prior to reading this, whilst on holiday. It
will probably be published somewhere eventually when complete, but seems
directly relevant to this.. so have a draft. It may be lacking in places as
a current work in progress.
So we had a revolt on the internet; some
On 9 February 2012 23:49, Geoff Brigham gbrig...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today, we are excited to announce the start of our building of a new
department called the “Legal and Community Advocacy Department.” This new
alignment recognizes that we can combine the best of legal and community
Yes thanks, Florence. My view is that agreeing on a community-driven process
(the Funds Dissemination Committee, or Funds Allocation Committee, whatever it
wants to be called) to allocate funds is the easy part. The hard part is
figuring out all the details:
- how many people on this
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:52 AM, M. Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and some people don't like the fact that we tell the truth about, say,
the Taiwan situation (or at least we try our very best to), or the
Tienanmen Square protests of 1989.
So if members of the public looking for a
Geoff Brigham wrote:
Today, we are excited to announce the start of our building of a new
department called the ³Legal and Community Advocacy Department.² This new
alignment recognizes that we can combine the best of legal and community
advocacy to foster new ways to advance the interests of
I'm not really sure where you get that, MZ. Politics and lobbying were not
mentioned at all.
What was mentioned was advocacy... advocacy for the community, in varying
roles and flavors.
So to clear it up: this is not a lobbying or political wing. Or anything
that even resembles it. :)
Thomas Morton writes:
Politics is a game, a game that politicians are bred to play. I know this
because, having spent several years helping fight stupid law making, I've
seen all the tricks. And, boy, have we been played.
Dude, what am I? Chopped liver? I spent a huge part of my professional
I think the better question is what will this department actually do?
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I'm not really sure where you get that, MZ. Politics and lobbying were not
mentioned at all.
What was mentioned was advocacy... advocacy for
On 10 February 2012 02:32, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the better question is what will this department actually do?
For details, please go to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/LCA_Announcement.;
___
foundation-l mailing list
Obviously, we have some ideas - several of them are listed in the
announcement page. However, one of the most exciting bits of this is
that since it's a community advocacy department, we're asking you to
help us define that. There's a page on meta (also linked from the
announcement page),
I'll admit that that's what I thought it meant when I read it too - that
the WMF was setting up a congressional lobbying department. So it's not
that an outrageous thing to assume. From the link it says that you will be
(in part) focusing on ...seeking ways to increase capacity to safeguard
the
Quite right, inasmuch as any of our jobs can work in that much of an
insular fashion. We'll do quite a bit of dealing with the external
community (defending takedown challenges, etc), but you're quite right
that it's in a posture of focusing on the existing community. However,
our hope is that
I believe Liam puts it very close to how I read the announcement.
Does this mean Pb is a Chief now? or will that department still be under
community/Zack?
Also, how does the relation between legal come into this. Is Geoff also in
charge of this department or is legal separate from this?
And
No, I report to Geoff. Geoff is the Chief for the legal and
community advocacy department. I run the C.A. side of it. :-)
On Thu Feb 9 18:48:34 2012, Theo10011 wrote:
I believe Liam puts it very close to how I read the announcement.
Does this mean Pb is a Chief now? or will that department
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I'm not really sure where you get that, MZ. Politics and lobbying were not
mentioned at all.
What was mentioned was advocacy... advocacy for the community, in varying
roles and flavors.
So to clear it up:
On 2/9/12 7:19 PM, Andreas K. wrote:
Well, what do fighting for content online, providing information about
legislative initiatives worldwide that impact online content and
censorship, and support the advancement of legal conditions that enable
unimpeded access to information online,
I'm all for a shift from the community department, and dividing focus
between existing community and things like new editor retention. Zack and
the community department, primarily focus on fundraising, with only
indirect involvement with the existing community affairs through Philippe,
Maggie and
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
A political (lobbying?) arm of Wikimedia? And the Wikimedia community and
Board have said they're okay with this?
I'm not really sure where you get that, MZ. Politics and lobbying were not
mentioned at all.
What was mentioned was advocacy...
On 10 February 2012 14:43, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
A political (lobbying?) arm of Wikimedia? And the Wikimedia community
and
Board have said they're okay with this?
I'm not really sure where you get that, MZ. Politics and
2012/2/10 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com:
With the specifics of is this a political lobbying wing of the WMF or
not...
I think it is quite clear to everyone that Wikimedians have a hard time
agreeing about *anything* but that the two things we all agree on is Free
(in the technical sense)
Liam Wyatt wrote:
I imagine that it is this kind of thing that would be in the scope of the
advocacy aspect of this new department. Certainly, I too do not want to
see an overt political lobbying department created, but that is not what is
being created. For comparison, the formal job title of
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
However, the issue of advocacy is not generally agreed upon by the entire
community. SOPA blackout was the first and official action of its kind,
before we consider an advocacy department, do we have consensus that it is
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
However, the issue of advocacy is not generally agreed upon by the entire
community. SOPA blackout was the first and official action of its kind,
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
Advocacy is a much more general term in this context than people
seem to be taking it as. It does not mean lobbying or fighting for
something controversial with outside organizations. As I understand
it, it's the opposite:
Congratulations! I think this is a valuable effort in the right direction.
anirudh
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
Advocacy is a much more general term in this context than
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
Advocacy is a much more general term in this context than people
seem to be taking it as. It does not mean lobbying or fighting for
something
I must say that after reading all this and the detailed page with the
beautiful graphic I am still confused what the department will actually do.
There are beautiful abstract goals which everybody would obviously agree
with, and there are highly diverse skills involved from on one end Maggie
and
While reading the detailed Legal and Community Advocacy/LCA Announcement,
on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/LCA_Announcement , I stumbled
upon the following sentence: We would like to build a community advisory
board to reinforce our commitment to a global perspective while
understanding
55 matches
Mail list logo
