Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
2009/8/7 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: Hi all, Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this; http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as the 'service provider') My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere, best, Peter, PM. Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws but that one is a complete killer. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/7 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: Hi all, Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this; http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as the 'service provider') My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere, best, Peter, PM. Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws but that one is a complete killer. We may consider to use Saudi Arabia and North Korea laws, too. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:21 AM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/7 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com: Hi all, Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this; http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf This is a german code of conduct - but there are many more (I've also spoken with these chaps =- http://www.iia.net.au/ - and I got the feeling that they'd very much like to engage with both communities, and the foundation as the 'service provider') My interest stems from discussing sexual content on wikimedia foundation projects, but obviously engagement with such external bodies / codes of practice etc. is far from limited to that sphere, best, Peter, PM. Is based on German law so no. There are rather a lot of other flaws but that one is a complete killer. We may consider to use Saudi Arabia and North Korea laws, too. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
Hi, the replies and discussion have been extremely informative and useful to me. Thank you all. I will carefully read your opinions again, and notify JaWp MailingList of these ideas. Thanks again, Best Regarads ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
I quite agree (the analogy of paying taxes comes to mind!) - however I don't see any tension between that position and also feeling that it's a good idea to take a look at the principles involved in such codes of conduct etc. and to see where 'we' (the broad WMF family, I guess) fit in http://www.iia.net.au/ also publish codes of conduct which we're under no obligation to follow - it's just that we might like to take a look, and discuss. I'll carry on / explain a bit more, if you might agree? cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: I quite agree (the analogy of paying taxes comes to mind!) - however I don't see any tension between that position and also feeling that it's a good idea to take a look at the principles involved in such codes of conduct etc. and to see where 'we' (the broad WMF family, I guess) fit in http://www.iia.net.au/ also publish codes of conduct which we're under no obligation to follow - it's just that we might like to take a look, and discuss. I'll carry on / explain a bit more, if you might agree? Of course. Discussion is a much better option than many other ones :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow. We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do. Don't think of this has obeying laws, think of it that there are some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our mission, and which would be in our interests. Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do— though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may be inadequate... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as in something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-) (which just in case folk haven't seen is here -- http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and looks really good to me!) cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow. We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do. Don't think of this has obeying laws, think of it that there are some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our mission, and which would be in our interests. Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do— though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may be inadequate... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
private musings wrote: Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) I think the key factor is that *anyone* - really anyone - can voluntarily put up a mirror (or fork) that complies with whatever arbitrary code of conduct in terms of what they display. The fact that such mirrors (and/or forks) will not have anything to do with our site but the fact that they may use all or some of our content, should not dissuade you from either financing such mirrors (A/OF) yourself, or encouraging others to finance such, nor should it cloud the fact that it would be quite untenable to attempt to try to make wikimedia go that route. I think it is clear this has been said to you likely so many times that you would probably already have to money for your own server, if you got a dime for every time people told you were tilting at windmills. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do. Don't think of this has obeying laws, think of it that there are some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our mission, and which would be in our interests. Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do— though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may be inadequate... Completely other thing is what do we want to follow, which is, actually, more restrictive than many legal systems. (A classical example for that are just for Wikipedia materials.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
Hoi, You morals are fine. They are not mine and I am glad that we have to live to the best of our abilities with what we can achieve. The problem that I have with your morals is that you want to impose them onto others with a multitude of justifications. You have been given to understand that there is no consensus to be had for your point of view. You continue to persue you objectives and that is fine however, with your insistence you make the chance of actually succeeding less. It is ironic that I accuse you of something I am guilty off; never wavering in trying to achieve a goal. For me the support of the other languages, the support of the other cultures is what I am working for. It is the reason why I stand for election as a board member of the foundation. The big advantage that I have is that I can always work on achieving little things and making things ready to tacle the issues. that are big to me. The problem that you have is that you are in an all or nothing game. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/7 private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as in something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-) (which just in case folk haven't seen is here -- http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and looks really good to me!) cheers, Peter, PM. On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:41 AM, private musingsthepmacco...@gmail.com wrote: Well yeah Milos - but we probably won't - will we! - Seems a bit silly. I was hoping we could have a thread about the principle of discussing / evaluating some of the various voluntary codes of conduct out there - perhaps someone is aware of a US standard (is that what you're getting at, Geni - that the location of the servers is probably the most important factor?) I don't see any reason why should we follow any law which we don't have to follow. We don't have to follow the internet norm that making your web page text BLINKING YELLOW ON BLUE is something you don't do… and yet we do. Don't think of this has obeying laws, think of it that there are some things we don't have to do, which aren't in conflict with our mission, and which would be in our interests. Although the starting premise that we don't comply with a (multitude of) code(s) of conduct is a bit flawed. The projects clearly do— though they may not be ones written down by third parties and they may be inadequate... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Knol, a year later
2009/8/7 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com: More than a year ago Google lunched Knol. It was a sensation then (BTW, it was a sensation for more time than Wolfram Alpha was). Today I just may say that I don't remember when I heard for the Knol last time. Well, Wolfram Alpha is occasionally actually useful :-) But Knol was never comparable to Wikipedia. Basically, the media writing about Knol's launch needed to write something to fill space in an article, and Wikipedia was a handy comparison because they're both websites. There was and is no actual similarity. Don't believe the hype. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Knol, a year later
Hoi, What I like about Google is that they have the guts to try things out. I like Google because they allow their staff to things that intrigue them. This has brought me gmail among other things. With Google things may fail. What you express is the expectation that Knol would fail and I am with you, I had the same sentiments. A project like Knol is not of interest because it confirms our assumptions, it is of interest because it challenges our assumptions. I hope we will continue to have our assumptions tested because this will keep us on our toes. Thanks, GerardM 2009/8/7 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com More than a year ago Google lunched Knol. It was a sensation then (BTW, it was a sensation for more time than Wolfram Alpha was). Today I just may say that I don't remember when I heard for the Knol last time. More than a year ago, I've wrote a blog post about Knol [1] (I didn't read it again, so I am not so sure what did I write there :) ) and today I've got one comment about Knol at my blog post. Person who made it introduced himself as Michael: There is the Verifiability of Knol. I never found anything relevant or reliable on knol. Knol is starting to be used as a spam platform and self promotion platform. There are high chances that the info you get from knol is false or subiective, not to say that I’ve found articles promoting xenofobism, antisemitism and a lot of ill guided authors. At this time knol seem to be nothing more than a blog platform (with clever marketing) where people can write anything they want. I hardly see any resilience between Wikipedia and Knol, Wikipedia has Verifiability (”editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged”) while on knol you can write any phantasmagoric or lunatic thing you want nobody really cares if it’s false or true or what repercussions may have on people seeking knowledge. Knol has nothing to do with knowledge, it’s just library of opinions not knowledge, unless we agree on the fact that anything that can be written by anybody is knowledge. So from my point of view knol should not be taken serious at this time, at least not more serious than anybody’s blog on the internet. My response is: Michael, thanks for the comment. Yes, I’ve supposed, at Knol’s beginnings, that bias may become its significant problem. It doesn’t have self-regulation and collaboration as a default, like Wikipedia has. And the product is obviously bad. We’ve got, also, one significant lesson: An organization which is very good in many businesses, like Google is, don’t need to be even average in another business. (Wikia is, for example, much better than Knol in that business.) Also, I think that voluntarily knowledge building can’t be built as a [commercial] business model. Nobody cares to make a lot of money to someone else and almost nothing for herself, but a lot of humans care to build knowledge for all of us. [1] - http://millosh.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/google-knol-and-the-future-of-wikipedia-and-wikimedia/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
private musings wrote: Just wondering what folk think about the WMF heading towards compliance with things like this; http://www.gsmeurope.org/documents/eu_codes/fsm_code_en.pdf Are you saying that WMF is already heading in that direction (that would be news to me), and now you want our comments on that? Or are you suggesting that WMF should head in that direction? Organizations that agree to such a code of conduct do it for some benefit, for example to avoid the threat of government censorship. I'm sure that if Wikipedia self-restricted itself enough, Chinese authorities would never need to block Wikipedia. But do we need any such benefit? We would rather speak freely (within the scope of encyclopedic knowledge) and be blocked. So, if you are suggesting that any code of conduct would be appropriate, what benefit is it that you have in mind? Who threatens to block Wikipedia unless we voluntarily agree? -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
I'm very excited to announce some new upcoming hiring for tech... I've also posted this on our tech blog which is mirrored on Planet Wikimedia: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/cto-position-split/ -- Back in 2005, Wikimedia brought me on as the Foundation's first paid employee after two years leading MediaWiki development as a volunteer. Naturally as the *only* member of the tech staff, I started at the top: Chief Technology Officer. In the 4 years since, we've gone from one tech employee to a dozen, from 50 servers to 350, from upstart novelty to established web juggernaut. As our operations and our staff have grown over the years, so have my responsibilities. Beefing up our tech staff is in some ways just like adding servers to our data center -- we can get more things done with less task switching, but scaling still has its overhead. With the increase in administrative and organizational duties, I've been less and less able to devote time to the part of the job that's nearest and dearest to me: working with our volunteer developer community and end users -- Wikimedians and other MediaWiki users alike -- who have bugs, patches, features, ideas, complaints, hopes and dreams that need attention. The last thing I want to be is a bottleneck that prevents our users from getting what they need, or our open source developers from being able to participate effectively! Multicore brain upgrades aren't yet available, so to keep us running at top speed I've suggested, and gotten Sue Erik's blessing on, splitting out the components of my current CTO role into two separate positions: As Senior Software Architect, I... * maintain the MediaWiki development roadmap * give timely feedback and review on feature ideas, patches and commits * ensure that end-users and bug reporters are treated respectfully and that their needs are met * get developers users involved and talking at local and worldwide events as well as online * represent the face of the developers interacting with our user community (both Wikimedians and third-party MediaWiki users) As CTO, I... * set high-level strategic priorities with the rest of WMF * handle administrative management for the Wikimedia Foundation's technical department internal IT ** budgeting ** vendor relations purchase approval ** hiring personnel details * work with the fundraising side of WMF to seek out and make use of potential resources: ** grants for projects we need ** in-kind donations of infrastructure ** sharing development work with like-minded orgs * ensure that the operations team has what they need to address current and predictable future site needs * ensure that the developers have what they need and are coding smoothly * plan and implement internship programs and volunteer dev events both on-site and elsewhere I'll continue to act in both roles until we've found a satisfactory candidate to fill the CTO position (full job description will go up soon), at which point I'll be freed up to concentrate on being a full-time Senior Software Architect. (Yes, I'll review your patch!) I will of course continue to work closely with our eventual CTO... the idea is to find someone who'll make the decisions I would have wanted to if I only had time. ;) -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org) CTO, Wikimedia Foundation San Francisco ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Voluntary self-regulation of multimedia service providers
On 8/7/09 12:25 AM, private musings wrote: actually - might a WMF 'code of conduct' for projects be a good idea? (as in something perhaps a dollop more pragmatic than 'comply with our mission statement'!) - sounds like an idea for the strategy wiki... :-) I'd say yes, but that a code of conduct is primarily about personal interaction, reminding people to treat other people reasonably. This is traditionally covered by common-sense rules like http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick -- but sometimes we really need a few basics written down! ;) As far as things apply to _types of content_ that's a much trickier road to navigate; we want to concentrate not on limiting _what_ can be posted but _how it's presented_ and discussed... preferably civilly and respectfully. -- brion ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
Thank you for the update, Brion. You've been effectively wearing every hat there is to wear for a person with technical skills in the Wikimedia Foundation. That's an enormously challenging set of responsibilities, and you've managed them very well, both in good times and in emergency-crisis-mode-times. ;-) Please note that nothing is going to change immediately, and we won't hire a candidate for the CTO position unless and until we're happy that it can work. We'll of course also clearly define the responsibilities of the two positions. Brion, thank you for taking this step, and for all your hard work over the years doing an impossible job. :-) -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
I think this is a fantastic idea. I think the biggest problem the tech side of the WMF has had over the last year or two has been prioritisation and splitting the job like this should help that no end. I'm curious - would the Senior Software Architect report to the CTO? If so, that means Brion has, technically speaking, proposed his own demotion - there aren't many people big enough to do that! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] EN Wikizine - Year: 2009 Week: 32 Number: 114
** ____ _ __ _ / / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___ \ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \ \ /\ /| | | |/ /| | | | | __/ \/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___| .org Year: 2009 Week: 32 Number: 114 ** An independent internal news bulletin for the members of the Wikimedia community // === Technical news === [Full downtime] - All of Wikimedia's services (sites, mailing lists, etc.) were down on July 31 at 12:00 (UTC) to allow the primary router at the Tampa hosting facility to be rebooted. http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/pmtpa-router-reboot-scheduled-downtime/ http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-July/044406.html http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Downtime [SysAdminDay] - System Administrator Appreciation Day was held on July 31st; it's the day where you appreciate and thank all the system administrators who make your lives easier! http://www.sysadminday.com/ [Override this function] - on August 6, users were temporarily getting the message 'Override this function' when visiting pages on Wikipedia, due to a server only partially getting an update. The issue was supposedly fixed but the sysadmins are still getting reports, it needs further investigation of the problem. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20081 === Request for help === [WikimediaMobile] - Wikimedia Mobile, the mobile interface for Wikipedia, has started accepting translations on betawiki. Help is greatly appreciated in localizing it for your local Wikipedia. http://m.wikipedia.org/ http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Wikimedia_mobile [Flickr tool maintainers] - Bryan Tong Minh posted a request for co-maintainers for his flickr tools on the toolserver. The bots are written in Python and use the mwclient library to edit and upload. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2009-August/004976.html [Best practices team] - Best practice in public outreach is a collection of articles describing experiences in winning new volunteers, partners, content and audiences. The group will help coordinate the creation and enhancement of the best practices documentation pages on Meta-Wiki, which will help share the knowledge about engaging new target groups or deepening relationships to new Wikimedians. Volunteers are needed! http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Best_practices_documentation_team [BLP task force] - Cary Bass is in the process of launching a new task force on Biographies of Living People (as a result of the board resolution on the subject). The task force will be focusing on the English Wikipedia, but its recommendations and guidelines will probably be useful on other projects too. Volunteers are needed, see the blog post for more information. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-August/102667.html -- call for volunteers http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people -- resolution === Proposals === [Strategic Proposals (Call)] - the Strategic Planning team has sent out a call for proposals. They'd like to encourage people to put their ideas into proposals for what the Wikimedia movement should be doing over the next five years. What's more is that you can write it in the language of your choice. === Foundation === [Guidestar] - the Wikimedia Foundation has finally received a profile on GuideStar, one of the largest American databases for non-profits. Be sure to visit the profile and write a review! http://tinyurl.com/wmfGuidestar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GuideStar -- article on the site [Usability: Babaco] - the Usability team is preparing for its next release and has some new designs and ideas that need feedback from users, community members, and interested parties. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/29/the-abcs-of-usability/ -- blog post http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Babaco_Designs -- designs [Transcom newsletter] - the Translation committee (the people whose job it is to coordinate translations of Wikimedia Foundation-related items) has released its newsletter, which is a summary of open requests. If you speak another language, please look and see if there's anywhere that you can help out! http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2009-July/000982.html [LSS: foundation-l] - a new list summary of foundation-l posts between July 16-31 has been published. Phoebe has also posted a request for help, reminding others that she's not the only one who can do it and there are other lists that could be summarized too! http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2009_July_16-31 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS -- main LSS page === Legal === [EFFNPG update] - Another update on the National Portrait Gallery legal issue, the Electronic Frontier
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:24 PM, David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: I'm pleased to accept the epithet. Pro-freedom dogmatist describes me nicely with respect to many areas of life, including both sexuality and access to information. I think it comes close to describing most of the people at Wikipedia in matters of personal life and of information. I agree with access to information - and further concede that shining light on dark concepts helps to destroy them. I agree also with pro-freedom concepts, though I must ask that you concede my point that being dogmatic is not as good as being intelligent. And that's not to mention that dogmatists will often do more damage to their cause than help. Those who support censorship are obviously not going to be our sources of funding. Well we did turn down that NAMBLA funding for *some reason - was it because they were not pro-freedom? - Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
On 8/7/09 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: I think this is a fantastic idea. I think the biggest problem the tech side of the WMF has had over the last year or two has been prioritisation and splitting the job like this should help that no end. I'm curious - would the Senior Software Architect report to the CTO? If so, that means Brion has, technically speaking, proposed his own demotion - there aren't many people big enough to do that! It sure beats letting the organization succumb to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle :) -- brion ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is a fantastic idea. I think the biggest problem the tech side of the WMF has had over the last year or two has been prioritisation and splitting the job like this should help that no end. I'm curious - would the Senior Software Architect report to the CTO? If so, that means Brion has, technically speaking, proposed his own demotion - there aren't many people big enough to do that! Without changing anything else about this proposal, I'd like to suggest that Brion's job title come with a more imposing description than Senior. For example Chief, Lead, or Head Software Architect. There is only one Brion, and I assume he will remain singularly important in his role overseeing software development (even if he gets a new boss). By contrast large corporations often have many people who are titled Senior this-or-that but are still relatively unimportant. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
I'm talking about more general policy, not ja.wp in particular. On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
Robert Rohde wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is a fantastic idea. I think the biggest problem the tech side of the WMF has had over the last year or two has been prioritisation and splitting the job like this should help that no end. I'm curious - would the Senior Software Architect report to the CTO? If so, that means Brion has, technically speaking, proposed his own demotion - there aren't many people big enough to do that! Without changing anything else about this proposal, I'd like to suggest that Brion's job title come with a more imposing description than Senior. For example Chief, Lead, or Head Software Architect. There is only one Brion, and I assume he will remain singularly important in his role overseeing software development (even if he gets a new boss). By contrast large corporations often have many people who are titled Senior this-or-that but are still relatively unimportant. So you're suggesting we should join in the rampant title inflation of corporate America, where everyone is a Sr. Executive Vice-President of something? Anyway, your assessment of Brion's ongoing significance to our operations is perceptive, and I hope everyone else maintains that understanding. And to address the question of title a little more seriously, I'm not sure the issue is that critical, but we'll certainly take the feedback into consideration as the organizational structure of the technical team gets defined more clearly. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
2009/8/7 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: So you're suggesting we should join in the rampant title inflation of corporate America, where everyone is a Sr. Executive Vice-President of something? Anyway, your assessment of Brion's ongoing significance to our operations is perceptive, and I hope everyone else maintains that understanding. And to address the question of title a little more seriously, I'm not sure the issue is that critical, but we'll certainly take the feedback into consideration as the organizational structure of the technical team gets defined more clearly. It's not really title inflation to give someone that is in charge of something a title which says that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
2009/8/7 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: It's not really title inflation to give someone that is in charge of something a title which says that. Our approach to job titles actually has an emerging basic pattern. :-) It's not 100% consistent because we sometimes have stuck with commonly used titles like Office Manager and General Counsel, but generally one we try to follow: Chief positions = senior level positions with direct reports and departmental budgets; Head of positions = positions with their own budget, and sometimes 1-2 direct reports, reporting to a c-level position Senior positions = positions requiring significant experience; positions w/ high influence and sometimes direct reports As you can see from the current tech department, it's unusual in that it doesn't currently have any Head of roles with the exception of IT support. With that same exception, the budget is at present centrally managed by Brion. We're considering multiple approaches to division, including the introduction of a Head of Operations role for all site ops, and that'll be a conversation that we'll have with the new CTO. We may or may not revisit the job title for Brion's new role at that point, and he continues to serve as the CTO until then. -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] The end of donations
Dark concepts? Really? As encyclopedists, it is rarely our job to judge, rather we are here to document from a neutral point of view. Please remember that darkness is subjective, I'm sure there are practices you consider dark that I do not and probably vice-versa. Anyhow, David Goodman said those who support censorship are obviously not going to be our sources of funding, NOT we will gladly accept funds from anybody who is opposed to censorship. Mark On 8/3/09, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:24 PM, David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote: I'm pleased to accept the epithet. Pro-freedom dogmatist describes me nicely with respect to many areas of life, including both sexuality and access to information. I think it comes close to describing most of the people at Wikipedia in matters of personal life and of information. I agree with access to information - and further concede that shining light on dark concepts helps to destroy them. I agree also with pro-freedom concepts, though I must ask that you concede my point that being dogmatic is not as good as being intelligent. And that's not to mention that dogmatists will often do more damage to their cause than help. Those who support censorship are obviously not going to be our sources of funding. Well we did turn down that NAMBLA funding for *some reason - was it because they were not pro-freedom? - Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote: Our approach to job titles actually has an emerging basic pattern. :-) It's not 100% consistent because we sometimes have stuck with commonly used titles like Office Manager and General Counsel, but generally one we try to follow: [snip] It's not bad to have an internal pattern, but I think it's more important to match the practices in industry. By containing the magic words senior and architect the proposed Senior Software Architect is, in my experience, not inconsistent with industry naming practice for the most important tech guru who isn't primarily a manager. It's not a bad title in any case. (I was previously a manager and made a decision to hire a boss because I realized I'd rather be doing technical work than performance reviews. These days I'm just a lowly 'Senior … Engineer', and I'm quite happy with that, thank you very much) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
2009/8/7 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com: It's not bad to have an internal pattern, but I think it's more important to match the practices in industry. By containing the magic words senior and architect the proposed Senior Software Architect is, in my experience, not inconsistent with industry naming practice for the most important tech guru who isn't primarily a manager. If, God forbid, Brion ever has to write a resume, it just has to say http://wikipedia.org/ , got it? and an address to back the dumptrucks full of money up to. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote: Our approach to job titles actually has an emerging basic pattern. :-) It's not 100% consistent because we sometimes have stuck with commonly used titles like Office Manager and General Counsel, but generally one we try to follow: [snip] It's not bad to have an internal pattern, but I think it's more important to match the practices in industry. By containing the magic words senior and architect the proposed Senior Software Architect is, in my experience, not inconsistent with industry naming practice for the most important tech guru who isn't primarily a manager. It's not a bad title in any case. snip I would like to note that it isn't just internal naming schemes and/or industry conventions that matter. Brion is also engaged in a significant amount of interaction with external communities, including the volunteer developers and the Mediawiki user base. In that context, I think a description such as head or lead would help explain his role more clearly than senior does. Anyway, that's my two cents. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
2009/8/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/8/7 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com: It's not bad to have an internal pattern, but I think it's more important to match the practices in industry. By containing the magic words senior and architect the proposed Senior Software Architect is, in my experience, not inconsistent with industry naming practice for the most important tech guru who isn't primarily a manager. If, God forbid, Brion ever has to write a resume, it just has to say http://wikipedia.org/ , got it? and an address to back the dumptrucks full of money up to. It's not just about resumes, it's also about being taken seriously when communicating with others. A Head Software Architect will probably be taken more seriously than a Senior Software Architect, since the former shows you are the boss, that latter could be one of many. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
2009/8/7 Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com: Well, we can still informally call him the lead developer. We can informally call him Brion. It's worked up until now! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
On 8/7/09 3:06 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: It's not just about resumes, it's also about being taken seriously when communicating with others. A Head Software Architect will probably be taken more seriously than a Senior Software Architect, since the former shows you are the boss, that latter could be one of many. Having many folks at that level is be a condition dearly to be wished for! -- brion ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
2009/8/7 Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org: On 8/7/09 3:06 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: It's not just about resumes, it's also about being taken seriously when communicating with others. A Head Software Architect will probably be taken more seriously than a Senior Software Architect, since the former shows you are the boss, that latter could be one of many. Having many folks at that level is be a condition dearly to be wished for! Well, in my experience it shows that the organisation's overall architecture is poorly thought-out, and with insufficient resource expenditure on correcting it (or, for that matter, stopping the rot getting even worse). But yes. :-) J. -- James D. Forrester jdforres...@wikimedia.org | jdforres...@gmail.com [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
On 8/7/09 2:35 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: By containing the magic words senior and architect the proposed Senior Software Architect is, in my experience, not inconsistent with industry naming practice for the most important tech guru who isn't primarily a manager. It's not a bad title in any case. (I was previously a manager and made a decision to hire a boss because I realized I'd rather be doing technical work than performance reviews. These days I'm just a lowly 'Senior … Engineer', and I'm quite happy with that, thank you very much) Exactly. Now, if we really think of a _totally badass title_ before we get the business cards printed up I'm open to changing it, but honestly I like it and it fits the role I see for myself just fine. :) Remember... titles are only useful when they're actually descriptive; otherwise they're just fluff. Certainly when I'm doing hiring I'm far more interested in asking what somebody did at their previous job than in what it was called... -- brion ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
On 8/7/09 3:39 PM, James Forrester wrote: 2009/8/7 Brion Vibberbr...@wikimedia.org: On 8/7/09 3:06 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: It's not just about resumes, it's also about being taken seriously when communicating with others. A Head Software Architect will probably be taken more seriously than a Senior Software Architect, since the former shows you are the boss, that latter could be one of many. Having many folks at that level is be a condition dearly to be wished for! Well, in my experience it shows that the organisation's overall architecture is poorly thought-out, and with insufficient resource expenditure on correcting it (or, for that matter, stopping the rot getting even worse). But yes. :-) Well ideally it would be because we really do have that much work to do... ;) -- brion ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed. I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language. Birgitte SB --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:41 PM I'm talking about more general policy, not ja.wp in particular. On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
My point is that this situation has arisen many times in the past and the response is very frequently a simple We can't help you, it's a local issue. Of course it should be dealt with at a local level but I think that the foundation should be a little less hands-off than it has often been when it comes to smaller communities where people have been allowed to wield tremendous influence just because they got to a wiki first. Mark On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't know that it is useful to make a general policy for exceptions. I think it is better just to watch out for such problems to pop up and try to direct attention to them when they are noticed. I think it is a better use of time and energy to wait and react to the sorts of extreme situation you suggest, rather than to seek to proactively verify that no wikis are in danger of developing such situations. Not that I would stop anyone form volunteering to take such task on. It is just that it is very tricky. It probably would be more effective to wait till the locals complain and ask for help than to try and step in and accuse admins, who likely have put the most time and edits into the wiki, of mismanagement. Oftentimes locals that even have disagreements with the admins will be inclined to oppose your interference on the principal of solidarity, the devil you know, etc. It is very touchy situation that leans towards misunderstandings even when everyone speaks the same language. Birgitte SB --- On Fri, 8/7/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 3:41 PM I'm talking about more general policy, not ja.wp in particular. On 8/7/09, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: There are always extreme situations that merit exceptional treatment. ja.WP, however, has a great deal more than 3 active users. Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 7:45 PM Alright, but what about the case of a Wiki where there are perhaps 3 active users, and the administrator is imposing their will? It is the Foundation that gave the admins the power in the first place. I do believe that _most_ issues people want the Foundation to get involved in are best dealt with locally, but I feel there are some that should be dealt with at a higher level. Simply letting a megalomaniac run a Wiki as if it were their own personal fiefdom seems unacceptable to me. Mark On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Birgitte SBbirgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 8/6/09, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: From: Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 12:38 PM This problem of one or two strong-willed admins enforcing their will over others is not an uncommon problem at smaller Wikis. In many cases, uncommon or strange orthographies, nonstandard dialects, or strange editing rules have been enforced; people who complain are often ignored and referred back to the Wiki by foundation people because it's a local matter. The problem of a user dissatisfied with the actions of local administrators is not uncommon on any wiki. When people dissatisfied with local enforcement of non-foundation issues complain here they are often properly informed that it is a local matter and that the each wiki is self-governing. Frankly the autonomy of the wikis is hardly a choice, if you honestly consider the logistics of it. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Brion Vibberbr...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 8/7/09 3:39 PM, James Forrester wrote: 2009/8/7 Brion Vibberbr...@wikimedia.org: On 8/7/09 3:06 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: It's not just about resumes, it's also about being taken seriously when communicating with others. A Head Software Architect will probably be taken more seriously than a Senior Software Architect, since the former shows you are the boss, that latter could be one of many. Having many folks at that level is be a condition dearly to be wished for! Well, in my experience it shows that the organisation's overall architecture is poorly thought-out, and with insufficient resource expenditure on correcting it (or, for that matter, stopping the rot getting even worse). But yes. :-) Well ideally it would be because we really do have that much work to do... ;) -- brion My eleven cents - My consulting company gets brought in a lot to deal with this type of growth in commercial companies (few have this big a web presence, but operations concepts are operations concepts). Titles are important to some people (above in senior leadership, at level where people are sensitive about their title, below where line staff sometimes behave differently depending on management titles). Some people not so much. Either way works, but it does matter to know your own staff, leadership, and candidates mindsets. Separating out development lead role (engineering) from operations lead role is an important step. Second, and not too far behind, is usually separating out internal IT from web-facing operations - two very different environments and sets of customer expectations, and usually best served by different people and team leads. A good CTO / operations candidate will be able to look at the way WMF is operating those teams now and try to suggest paths forwards for those two functional roles etc. I believe some internal staff are focusing on office IT now, and a lot of the website operations people are volunteer. I suspect you're going to have to be prepared to do a lot of internal discovery and discovery with potential hires to show them the web ops side - it's not well documented now (I keep meaning to find out more about the ops team and finding I have no time to join the IRC channel 24x7 ;-P ). The team seems to function well - servers seem decently stable - but it's not clear to me if the process and documentation is up to industry standards for large website operations. At some point tribal knowledge has to yield to documentation and process and organizational knowledge. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Block update
Perhaps we do need a dispute resolution mailing list for resolving disputes that involve the mailing lists. It would be better than having the lists themselves filled with complaints. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Block update
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com said: Perhaps we do need a dispute resolution mailing list for resolving disputes that involve the mailing lists. It would be better than having the lists themselves filled with complaints. I'm always open to similarly creative suggestions, and I appreciate your ability turn lemons into lemonade here. But why would the new list you propose be specific to mailing list disputes only? A mailing list issues only list might get little traffic/attention, though, and maybe that's not a good thing. Could it not be generalized a bit to include even high-level discussion of on-wiki dispute handling? -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Block update
2009/8/8 Stevertjgo o...@spaz.org: On Fri, Aug 7, 2009, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com said: Perhaps we do need a dispute resolution mailing list for resolving disputes that involve the mailing lists. It would be better than having the lists themselves filled with complaints. I'm always open to similarly creative suggestions, and I appreciate your ability turn lemons into lemonade here. But why would the new list you propose be specific to mailing list disputes only? A mailing list issues only list might get little traffic/attention, though, and maybe that's not a good thing. Could it not be generalized a bit to include even high-level discussion of on-wiki dispute handling? I think those high level discussion can take place either on-wiki or on existing mailing lists without a problem. Discussing specific disputes tends to annoy people on the existing mailing lists and it doesn't make sense to discuss mailing list disputes on-wiki, so the obvious answer seems to be a separate mailing list (or several, divided up by language, I don't know if the non-English lists have a problem needing this solution or not). I think it being a low traffic list would be a good thing - the moderators would all have to be there and a few mailing list regulars would sign up to keep an eye on things and disputes could hopefully be resolved with a minimum of drama. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Board election spamming
I have just received an email telling me I am eligible to vote in the board elections when I have already voted. Please don't send untargetted mass emails - they are spam. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board election spamming
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: I have just received an email telling me I am eligible to vote in the board elections when I have already voted. Please don't send untargetted mass emails - they are spam. telling me I am eligible and untargetted mass e-mails don't really make sense together, do they? Also, although you're only getting one e-mail once per year (will be every two years), you're free to opt-out (there are instructions in the e-mail you received). /me wonders why you wouldn't just hit reply to the e-mail and send this message to people who actually can do something about it, rather than foundation-l. On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Meno 25meno25w...@gmail.com wrote: and also please don't send e-mails to bot accounts. Yes, that's a good point. It seems this was an error this time around and they'll probably remember to leave those ones out next time. (Hopefully we'll have people writing up a how-to page for future years.) -- Casey Brown (who is not an election committee member, hence the third person) Cbrown1023 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board election spamming
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: I have just received an email telling me I am eligible to vote in the board elections when I have already voted. Please don't send untargetted mass emails - they are spam. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l and also please don't send e-mails to bot accounts. --User:Meno25 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board election spamming
Thomas, I'm sorry you got an email that bothered you. Trust me, we try to make sure no one is bothered by them. Sometimes people fall through the cracks, and I'm sorry that was the case here and in a few other cases. We try - hard - to make sure that everyone who is entitled to vote knows it. Hours of translator and committee time went into that email. This morning, folks from the translation team worked hard to make the email as close as possible to perfect. Werdna created and managed the scripts and other vols have worked hard to manage the (multi lingual) responses. My point here is that we take suffrage very seriously and in our effort to make sure that EVERY qualified voter knew it, we didn't get it perfectly. If that's the trade off for getting increased turnout in this critical election, I hope you can understand. I will sleep well tonight, knowing that we erred on the side of hitting TOO MANY voters, instead of not enough. For myself only, but quite sure others share my feelings, Philippe --Original Message-- From: Thomas Dalton Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Board election spamming Sent: Aug 7, 2009 10:40 PM I have just received an email telling me I am eligible to vote in the board elections when I have already voted. Please don't send untargetted mass emails - they are spam. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board election spamming
I already voted when I got my email, and I didn't think it was spam. I smiled at the fact that Wikimedia is making sure everyone who can vote has the opportunity. Steven On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thomas, I'm sorry you got an email that bothered you. Trust me, we try to make sure no one is bothered by them. Sometimes people fall through the cracks, and I'm sorry that was the case here and in a few other cases. We try - hard - to make sure that everyone who is entitled to vote knows it. Hours of translator and committee time went into that email. This morning, folks from the translation team worked hard to make the email as close as possible to perfect. Werdna created and managed the scripts and other vols have worked hard to manage the (multi lingual) responses. My point here is that we take suffrage very seriously and in our effort to make sure that EVERY qualified voter knew it, we didn't get it perfectly. If that's the trade off for getting increased turnout in this critical election, I hope you can understand. I will sleep well tonight, knowing that we erred on the side of hitting TOO MANY voters, instead of not enough. For myself only, but quite sure others share my feelings, Philippe --Original Message-- From: Thomas Dalton Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] Board election spamming Sent: Aug 7, 2009 10:40 PM I have just received an email telling me I am eligible to vote in the board elections when I have already voted. Please don't send untargetted mass emails - they are spam. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry® ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
