[Wikimedia-l] WMCH resolution about providing a web conferencing system for the Wikimedia Movement
Dear member of the Wikimedia Movement, During our last Wikimedia CH board meeting, we resolved to set up a web conferencing solution. After reviewing our needs, we decided that the most effective solution would be that of setting up a dedicated server for that purpose. From a chapter level point of view, it could appear like an expensive investment, but put in the context of the Wikimedia movement, this investment (not such a large one, in fact) could be made profitable quite easily. We plan to give access to these tools at first to all the chapters and affiliated group, as then as well for thematic groups. Deployment is planned for the next Wikimedia Conference in Milan. In the meantime, people interested in getting access to the tools can contact us by email at supp...@wikimedia.ch, with a simple description of the project, an estimation of the number of people interested and the frequency of usage. For further information on the chosen solution, you can check the Big Blue Button website. http://www.bigbluebutton.org/ For the Wikimedia CH board Charles ___ Charles ANDRES, Chairman Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge – www.wikimedia.ch Office +41 (0)21 340 66 20 Skype: charles.andres.wmch IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMCH resolution about providing a web conferencing system for the Wikimedia Movement
On 22 February 2013 09:46, Charles Andrès charles.andres.w...@gmail.com wrote: We plan to give access to these tools at first to all the chapters and affiliated group, as then as well for thematic groups. Deployment is planned for the next Wikimedia Conference in Milan. Hi Charles, Thanks for choosing to open this up as a service. I will be recommending to my own chapter that we should test out this tool in preference to non-open source solutions that we are currently using (such as Skype and Google Hangout) and I would like to offer it to the GLAMtoolset project (there are regular sprint reviews that rely on video conferencing). It would be great if we could share a test platform in advance of deployment for Milan so that we can make sure that on-line guides and advice are well established. Could we make a general offer to all chapters that if they want to use this tool to have open board meetings or committee meetings (and preferably record proceedings), that we will offer this as an actively supported service? This may mean setting aside a small budget for technical support. It seems exactly like the type of inter-chapter initiative that the WCA should seek to promote. As part of a supported service, it might be an idea to recommend what sorts of hardware kit work well with video conferencing. In my own chapter we have a history of poor audio problems, and sharing experiences of good value multi-directional microphones, recommended bandwidth and so forth, would be helpful in deciding how to minimize our spend on hardware and provide high quality recordings at the same time. It may even be an idea to have a recommended virtual meeting kit box for chapters (mini-sound mixer, mic types, mini-tripod etc.), this would make it easy for any chapter to estimate and add a non-controversial line item in their funding proposals to support good quality virtual access, in line with our shared values of openness and transparency. ;-) Cheers, Fae -- Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae...@gmail.com Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
Le 19/02/2013 11:23, Christophe Henner a écrit : I would even add that chapters should, and perhaps are, be key part of our community. Online communities tend to die slowly over the time. The main reason is that virtual bonds are much easier to forget than physical ones. I mean it's easier stop sending email to someone than stopping to see someone. I think Wikipedia gathered such a community because of an ideal, not of social bonds. Though parts of the community may form social, professional or political bonds, and thus perdure through these mechanisms, the cause sharing the knowledge should be the main raison d'être of the community. Thus, I disagree that Chapters should be considered the key part of the community: the cause should be the key part. In fact, if the cause ceases to be the highest priority, then the community will tend to die and only the institutions will tend to remain because of their own inertia and interests. I don't consider that a good thing per se since this tends to lead to sclerosis and a hollow structure with no other point than perpetuating itself, instead of pushing for the next needed accomplishments to collect and disseminate knowledge. Yes, chapter as such do not edit the projects directly. But does this mean they're not part of the community? I don't think so. They're a different part of the community, but still are a part of the community. Being part of the community doesn't allow to act on the name of the entire community. The gap between the community and the Chapters is significant enough to distinguish both, in particular for political and communicational matters. So should the Chapters seats be considered asa Community seats ? I'd say that the term is wrong. We have the editing community seats, the meta community seats and the appointed seats. Perhaps we should differentiate the two sides of the community. Why not distinguish the community seats from the Chapters seats with the terms community seats and Chapters seats? Using the word community in both cases may induce to believe that's it's the same community with two branches. But nothing guarantees that unity. By the way, what would you say Chapters actually are? Is it correct to say that they're an administrative organization financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Your support is wanted: The WMF Board of Trustees is looking for a new Board member
Le 18/02/2013 20:35, Nathan a écrit : Cyrano - I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Board. It is self-perpetuating in every respect; the elections are advisory only, and the actual appointment of Board members is executed by the existing Board. The organization has no members, and no one who is not on the Board has any power or authority to exercise over the Board or the WMF. This merely describes the legal reality of the WMF and the Board. Nathan, you misunderstood me. We agree on the legal reality that you describe. I'm discussing two points: 1) community's majority is not guaranteed in the Board of Trustees, and 2) relying on paid third parties for the process of appointing one of the five expert seats is not neutral. Handling and filtering the candidates, and thus the list to choose from is a form of influence. Allowing such influence when you don't have the majority is a risk for the community. Le 19/02/2013 04:42, James Alexander a écrit : On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: I simply don't agree. a) Chapters are part of the community :-/ To be honest I don't particularly like this meme that the chapter are part of the community either. The chapters may be part of the community (and so the statement not false) but we use the phrasing in such a way as to say that they are more then they are. There may be a part of the community but they are really a very small part of it overall. Yes, in the best of cases, they are a tiny subset of the user and editor community with a strong bias towards political organization, administrative responsibilities, decision taking, vote collecting, power assuming. Maybe they're needed, I'm not discussing that, but they can't impersonate the community as if they were the community. Their voice is their own. They won't give up their two seats to the community because they're one with the community. They won't, and it means that they're different from the community, no matter how you try to think about this fact. They have their own agenda, which may coincide or not with the interests of the community at large. There's no guaranty of an alliance. There may be conflicts. Saying that the community has 5 seats is thus misleading. It has 3 seats. Saying that the community has an absolute majority guaranteed is simply false. Trying to analyze the Board of Trustees and its process with the belief that the community's interests are guaranteed is a mistake. Objectively, the Board of Trustees cannot guarantee a majority to the community. Its design makes it vulnerable to other influences, and possible schemes, alliances, power struggles and political moves. Maybe it's not bad, I don't know. I just think that things should be clear to the community, since they're the one being tricked by the words. My claim is that in a context of no majority guaranteed for the community, injecting third parties (which are layers of opacity) and money in the process of appointing new board members is a risk for the community. There is no guaranty that a third party understands or shares the values of the community; there is no guaranty that giving it influence over the candidatures for five seats will serve the cause of the community. That's a risk. I'm not to say if it should be taken or not, but we should be aware of that risk. It sounds reasonable to engage the scrutiny of the community when such risks are about to be taken. I would also like to underline that paying someone doesn't necessarily make things better done. A professional mercenary has skills, but doesn't necessarily share internally the cause of the community, or understand it, or even care to know it. In fact, giving money - or any other form of power - to someone to execute a task creates money-driven goals, which can be in conflict with the ideal-driven goals of the community. That's why in think that the more you rely on third parties or paid professional, the more you need to reinforce your control over them. The community's control through the Board of Trustees is too weak to guarantee its interests, too weak to relinquish power as it's currently done and planned. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Your support is wanted: The WMF Board of Trustees is looking for a new Board member
On 22 February 2013 17:42, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Le 18/02/2013 20:35, Nathan a écrit : Cyrano - I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Board. It is self-perpetuating in every respect; the elections are advisory only, and the actual appointment of Board members is executed by the existing Board. The organization has no members, and no one who is not on the Board has any power or authority to exercise over the Board or the WMF. This merely describes the legal reality of the WMF and the Board. Nathan, you misunderstood me. We agree on the legal reality that you describe. I'm discussing two points: 1) community's majority is not guaranteed in the Board of Trustees, and 2) relying on paid third parties for the process of appointing one of the five expert seats is not neutral. Handling and filtering the candidates, and thus the list to choose from is a form of influence. Allowing such influence when you don't have the majority is a risk for the community. I really don't follow that argument... you're talking about a professional recruitment firm. They're only interest is in getting more business from us, which they achieve primarily by doing a good job. They have no bias we need to be worried about. They won't give up their two seats to the community because they're one with the community. They won't give up the seats because it isn't their decision - the WMF board decided on their own structure. I don't recall the chapters even being consulted on it at the time. The board decided the foundation would be best served by having the chapters select two board members, and the chapters have complied with that request. I suppose they could just refuse to select anyone, but there is no guarantee the WMF would put those seats up for election rather than just filling them themselves. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On 22 February 2013 18:42, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Le 19/02/2013 11:23, Christophe Henner a écrit : I would even add that chapters should, and perhaps are, be key part of our community. Online communities tend to die slowly over the time. The main reason is that virtual bonds are much easier to forget than physical ones. I mean it's easier stop sending email to someone than stopping to see someone. I think Wikipedia gathered such a community because of an ideal, not of social bonds. Though parts of the community may form social, professional or political bonds, and thus perdure through these mechanisms, the cause sharing the knowledge should be the main raison d'être of the community. Thus, I disagree that Chapters should be considered the key part of the community: the cause should be the key part. In fact, if the cause ceases to be the highest priority, then the community will tend to die and only the institutions will tend to remain because of their own inertia and interests. I don't consider that a good thing per se since this tends to lead to sclerosis and a hollow structure with no other point than perpetuating itself, instead of pushing for the next needed accomplishments to collect and disseminate knowledge. The starting point is the ideal. But if I've lasted so long in here it's because of a bunch of awesome people I met, not the ideal only. It's because of the people that Wikimedia is making me grow, not the ideal. The iseal is a shared value, the bond is, well, a bond. One isn't the opposite of the other. They benefit from each other. Why should we have only one priority? I mean, yes free knowledge is our goal, but isn't ensuring we have a healthy community another important goal? And well, I'd say community health isn't our best achievement now on most of the projects. Ignoring that is dangerous on the long run. I mean your point is moot in itself as so far the ideal has been our top priority and the community is slowly shrinking :) Yes, chapter as such do not edit the projects directly. But does this mean they're not part of the community? I don't think so. They're a different part of the community, but still are a part of the community. Being part of the community doesn't allow to act on the name of the entire community. The gap between the community and the Chapters is significant enough to distinguish both, in particular for political and communicational matters. When do chapters act as such? I mean I read that a lot, but I still have to wait clear cases. And please Beria, read what I wrote They're a different part of the community, but still are a part of the community.. :) So should the Chapters seats be considered asa Community seats ? I'd say that the term is wrong. We have the editing community seats, the meta community seats and the appointed seats. Perhaps we should differentiate the two sides of the community. Why not distinguish the community seats from the Chapters seats with the terms community seats and Chapters seats? Using the word community in both cases may induce to believe that's it's the same community with two branches. But nothing guarantees that unity. Because chapters are part of the community. The editing community elect board members, and chapters propose board members. But all those seats are chosen by the Community at large :) By the way, what would you say Chapters actually are? Is it correct to say that they're an administrative organization financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees? Nope. That is sad if you see your chapter like that :) I mean administrative organization, with all the programs we do, admin is actually the thing we're behind... So no. financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees that is each chapters' choice, nobody is forcing anyone to get grants or money from the FDC. Actually, we, WMFr, are working on alternate funding (for the programs) to top FDC/grants. Because we believe a chapter has the ability to get money the movement wouldn't have other wise (local public funding, local sponsorships, local major donors, etc.). So if you would describe your chapter as dministrative organization financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees, and that you don't like it. Too bad, but nobody forces your chapter to be that, you (or your board) did :) Best exemple I can remember, if it has not change, is WMPL that is mostly self sufficient for years and doing really cool stuff (though we don't hear about it enough ^^). Christophe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
Hey So my 2 cents I do consider the chapters to be an integral part of the community. Some of our community members prefer to work individually and some prefer to work together. Some things can be done by individuals and some things require organisations like chapters or thematic organisations. Wiki Loves Monuments is a great example of supporting the cause and it could only be done by collaboration between several chapters. Discussion about the role of chapters, thematic organisations or indeed the foundation itself are very healthy, but lets not forget that we are all part of the movement and share the common goals. If any one of the players of the movement does not support the goals, we should address that, but lets not disqualify those people that choose to help that are simply not editing individuals (as someone once said: it takes all kinds to make the world go round So I regard both the elected and the selected seats to be community seats. Jan-Bart On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:42 PM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Le 19/02/2013 11:23, Christophe Henner a écrit : I would even add that chapters should, and perhaps are, be key part of our community. Online communities tend to die slowly over the time. The main reason is that virtual bonds are much easier to forget than physical ones. I mean it's easier stop sending email to someone than stopping to see someone. I think Wikipedia gathered such a community because of an ideal, not of social bonds. Though parts of the community may form social, professional or political bonds, and thus perdure through these mechanisms, the cause sharing the knowledge should be the main raison d'être of the community. Thus, I disagree that Chapters should be considered the key part of the community: the cause should be the key part. In fact, if the cause ceases to be the highest priority, then the community will tend to die and only the institutions will tend to remain because of their own inertia and interests. I don't consider that a good thing per se since this tends to lead to sclerosis and a hollow structure with no other point than perpetuating itself, instead of pushing for the next needed accomplishments to collect and disseminate knowledge. Yes, chapter as such do not edit the projects directly. But does this mean they're not part of the community? I don't think so. They're a different part of the community, but still are a part of the community. Being part of the community doesn't allow to act on the name of the entire community. The gap between the community and the Chapters is significant enough to distinguish both, in particular for political and communicational matters. So should the Chapters seats be considered asa Community seats ? I'd say that the term is wrong. We have the editing community seats, the meta community seats and the appointed seats. Perhaps we should differentiate the two sides of the community. Why not distinguish the community seats from the Chapters seats with the terms community seats and Chapters seats? Using the word community in both cases may induce to believe that's it's the same community with two branches. But nothing guarantees that unity. By the way, what would you say Chapters actually are? Is it correct to say that they're an administrative organization financed by the WMF through Fund Dissemination Commitees? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: Hmmm I might be mistaken but WMF board members, selected or not by chapters, haven't access to chapter-l. But I might be mistaken on that. -- Christophe Correct; I didn't have access to chapters-l before, during or after being selected (or after leaving the board). I have no idea what people said about me, which is totally fine. What *wasn't* fine, in my opinion, is that lots of other non-chapter people were surprised when the chapter-selected seat results were announced in 2010, because it wasn't very clear that a process was even going on. As Bence said, this improved a lot in 2012, so that's great. -- Phoebe, who is also a little biased about being part of the community :P -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] 2012 Picture of the Year
On behalf of the 2012 Picture of the Year committee, I'm proud to announce the seventh Picture of the Year. About 4,000 Wikimedia editors helped select this marvelous image, shattering previous turnout records. You can view the top 12 results right now on Wikimedia Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2012/Results. Stay tuned for a blog post on the Wikimedia blog and an upcoming 2014 calendar from the top 12 images. The contest is a fun and enjoyable event that not only celebrates our excellent photographers and illustrators, but everyone who contributes to Wikimedia. You are encouraged to donate your own work to the Wikimedia Commons as our library of freely licensed media files grows past 16 million files. Thank you for your participation! User:Mono POTY 2012 Committee ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
I believe chapters are tools for the local communities to achieve certain goals that otherwise would be very difficult or (almost) impossible, and a great aid in local community building. Balazs 2013.02.22. 19:41, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com ezt írta: On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote: Hmmm I might be mistaken but WMF board members, selected or not by chapters, haven't access to chapter-l. But I might be mistaken on that. -- Christophe Correct; I didn't have access to chapters-l before, during or after being selected (or after leaving the board). I have no idea what people said about me, which is totally fine. What *wasn't* fine, in my opinion, is that lots of other non-chapter people were surprised when the chapter-selected seat results were announced in 2010, because it wasn't very clear that a process was even going on. As Bence said, this improved a lot in 2012, so that's great. -- Phoebe, who is also a little biased about being part of the community :P -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On 22 February 2013 20:15, Balázs Viczián balazs.vicz...@wikimedia.hu wrote: I believe chapters are tools for the local communities to achieve certain goals that otherwise would be very difficult or (almost) impossible, and a great aid in local community building. +1 The vast majority of volunteers like the idea that there is a Chapter they can turn to to ask for help, or to get their idea for a project reviewed, funded and looking official. If a volunteer came to a wikimeet with a brilliant idea for a project, but said they could not stand the stupid bureaucracy of chapters, I'd say excellent mate, you go for it and I'll see what I can do to help with funding if you need it. Most of us started this stuff before our chapters were anything more that a society for a handful of embarrassed lonely encyclopedia fanatics meeting in a pub, confessing how much they loved the idea of the open knowledge movement. It's just unavoidable that chapters have to get formal once you have projects spending six figure sums rather than three figure sums. Getting formal without sucking all the joy out of it, well that's the real challenge for all of us. Fae -- Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae...@gmail.com Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] White House orders open access to federally sponsored research
This looks pretty substantial: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hereby directs each Federal agency with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the Federal Government. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Your support is wanted: The WMF Board of Trustees is looking for a new Board member
Hi Cyrano I generally agreed with your underlying sentiment in the earlier email. I do believe the board or any internal power structure of an organization, has a self-perpetuating nature that preserves itself from outside influence, and at times re-affirms its own direction. But what I do disagree is the trajectory you are taking the argument in now. On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:42 PM, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, in the best of cases, they are a tiny subset of the user and editor community with a strong bias towards political organization, administrative responsibilities, decision taking, vote collecting, power assuming. Maybe they're needed, I'm not discussing that, but they can't impersonate the community as if they were the community. Their voice is their own. They won't give up their two seats to the community because they're one with the community. They won't, and it means that they're different from the community, no matter how you try to think about this fact. They have their own agenda, which may coincide or not with the interests of the community at large. There's no guaranty of an alliance. There may be conflicts. Saying that the community has 5 seats is thus misleading. It has 3 seats. Saying that the community has an absolute majority guaranteed is simply false. Trying to analyze the Board of Trustees and its process with the belief that the community's interests are guaranteed is a mistake. I think its a trivial argument. In practice, appointed trustees have sometimes defended community interest better than elected ones, there have been times when the elected community trustees have been at complete odds with their electorate. If you deduce the underlying argument here, it would be that the community elects 3 trustees to the board, and a certain subset within the community elects 2. While the division might not be equally representative of the size of the electorates or the interests, a stronger distinctions here is between elected and appointed members. The fact of the matter is the community itself being as large as it is, chose to re-elect the incumbents. Some elected trustees have been there for 5 years at this stage, rivaling the oldest ones. It is a viable argument to suggest that whatever internal structures or influences at play, they are the oldest form of the establishment. On the other side, the chapter elected appointees have gone through a relatively healthy tenure. It could be argued that a smaller voting pool ensured that the candidate are well known and researched by their electorate. I see benefits and risks to both sides. If I had to argue, I'd say a community elected seat is easier to insure, and has kept the same power structures in play longer. In large electorates, incumbents always have the advantage, when you add the impersonal nature of our elections, this issue is exacerbated further. Objectively, the Board of Trustees cannot guarantee a majority to the community. Its design makes it vulnerable to other influences, and possible schemes, alliances, power struggles and political moves. Maybe it's not bad, I don't know. I just think that things should be clear to the community, since they're the one being tricked by the words. My claim is that in a context of no majority guaranteed for the community, injecting third parties (which are layers of opacity) and money in the process of appointing new board members is a risk for the community. I'm confused as to who is injecting money in this scenario. I am under the assumption that a service is being sought from a professional firm to help recruit and vet the candidates. It seems like standard procedure for highly visible positions to ensure that the opening is advertised as widely as possible, a large pool of candidate is prepared and they are throughly vetted before joining. There is no guaranty that a third party understands or shares the values of the community; there is no guaranty that giving it influence over the candidatures for five seats will serve the cause of the community. That's a risk. I'm not to say if it should be taken or not, but we should be aware of that risk. It sounds reasonable to engage the scrutiny of the community when such risks are about to be taken. Again, the alternative would be WMF or the board itself appointing someone without due process. Would that be more agreeable to this alternative? I would also like to underline that paying someone doesn't necessarily make things better done. A professional mercenary has skills, but doesn't necessarily share internally the cause of the community, or understand it, or even care to know it. In fact, giving money - or any other form of power - to someone to execute a task creates money-driven goals, which can be in conflict with the ideal-driven goals of the community. That's why in think that the more you rely on third parties or paid professional, the more you need to reinforce
Re: [Wikimedia-l] White House orders open access to federally sponsored research
Looks like a US version of the UK's plan described at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17921442, which Jimmy was rather involved in! Excellent news for the US if it goes ahead. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 22 February 2013 22:33, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: This looks pretty substantial: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hereby directs each Federal agency with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the Federal Government. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Your support is wanted: The WMF Board of Trustees is looking for a new Board member
Theo10011, 22/02/2013 23:39: There is no guaranty that a third party understands or shares the values of the community; there is no guaranty that giving it influence over the candidatures for five seats will serve the cause of the community. That's a risk. I'm not to say if it should be taken or not, but we should be aware of that risk. It sounds reasonable to engage the scrutiny of the community when such risks are about to be taken. Again, the alternative would be WMF or the board itself appointing someone without due process. Would that be more agreeable to this alternative? Not really, there are many alternatives. One of them is a NomCom which works... how? no idea. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On Feb 23, 2013, at 4:27 AM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote: The vast majority of volunteers like the idea that there is a Chapter they can turn to to ask for help, or to get their idea for a project reviewed, funded and looking official. If a volunteer came to a wikimeet with a brilliant idea for a project, but said they could not stand the stupid bureaucracy of chapters, I'd say excellent mate, you go for it and I'll see what I can do to help with funding if you need it. I'm inclined to believe that the bureaucracy exists despite, not because of, the existence of chapters, and many volunteers, particularly those from the Global South, are one of two types: 1. They don't know about the avenues that are available to them when it comes to pursuing projects that they'd like to do. 2. They're too busy being involved in the community to be involved in the backstage (in my university, we call this joing down the hill). Chapters aside, how many know about the Foundation's grants system? Or the research program? Or, heck, even about forming Wikimedia User Groups or scholarships to Wikimania? The message is there, but it doesn't seem to translate into greater individual participation if bureaucracy was a concern. It's good that there now exist mechanisms to help individuals with the projects they want to pursue, and we should strive to make it as accessible as possible (with as little bureaucracy as possible) but it's all for nought if people are left unawares of it, especially in countries where there are no chapters, or if the bureaucracy is stifling. (Some people, for example, may be turned off by the bureaucratic rigor of the grants program.) Josh JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Block I1, AB Political Science Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Trustee (2010-2013), Wikimedia Philippines Member, Ateneo Debate Society Member, The Assembly jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (917) 841-5235 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://akira123323.livejournal.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Your support is wanted: The WMF Board of Trustees is looking for a new Board member
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Not really, there are many alternatives. One of them is a NomCom which works... how? no idea. So, a one time committee from 2008 made up of largely the same individuals as the ones who will decide now, in a closed process? Sure, though I think they might work with some dark conjuring magic and arcane rituals. :P Even if to assume that this closed unknown process would work again, it still leaves off half the process of advertising the position, arranging the actual interviews, logistics and then doing things like background checks etc.. Also, its better an outside firm approaches a candidate and corresponds with the board/WMF on their behalf, rather than what might be future colleagues/board members/boss interviewing and judging them first. I still think its better to leave those things to a professional firm. Regards Theo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?
On Feb 23, 2013, at 4:27 AM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote: The vast majority of volunteers like the idea that there is a Chapter they can turn to to ask for help, or to get their idea for a project reviewed, funded and looking official. If a volunteer came to a wikimeet with a brilliant idea for a project, but said they could not stand the stupid bureaucracy of chapters, I'd say excellent mate, you go for it and I'll see what I can do to help with funding if you need it. I'm inclined to believe that bureaucracy exists despite, not because of, chapters. As it is, volunteers, especially those from the Global South, can be classified into two types: 1. They're detached: they're part of the community, but they don't know about the support options open to them 2. They're so involved in the community, they could care less about the bureaucracy (in my university, this is called going down the hill, as my university is on a hill) Chapters aside, I'm in fact curious to know how many volunteers do know about the Foundation's grants system, or the research program, or heck, Wikimedia User Groups or Wikimania scholarships. Granted, it's a good thing that volunteers have options open for them whether or not they want to deal with the bureaucracy, but it's all for nought if they're left unaware of those options. Josh JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Block I1, AB Political Science Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines Trustee (2010-2013), Wikimedia Philippines Member, Ateneo Debate Society Member, The Assembly jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (917) 841-5235 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://akira123323.livejournal.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] White House orders open access to federally sponsored research
The US and UK plans may be similar in how they affect Wikimedia projects in that both make more research publications free to read, but they differ in numerous details (e.g. on whether the publications - and what versions thereof - should be freely available from the publisher or from a repository) In short, the White House directive means that about 19 US Federal agencies will have to develop, within six months from today, policies regarding read-access to publications about research they funded, similar to the Public Access policy implemented by the National Institutes of Health in 2008 (cf. http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ ). It is not clear yet what this will mean in terms of reusability of materials from such publications, as the document is rather silent on licensing issues. For further information on the directive, see the detailed comments by Peter Suber, who puts it into the perspective of proposed similar US legislation (which, if adopted, would have a more permanent effect), introduced to Congress last week: https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/8hzviMJeVHJ . Daniel On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Looks like a US version of the UK's plan described at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17921442, which Jimmy was rather involved in! Excellent news for the US if it goes ahead. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 22 February 2013 22:33, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: This looks pretty substantial: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hereby directs each Federal agency with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the Federal Government. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] White House orders open access to federally sponsored research
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 2:33 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote: This looks pretty substantial: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hereby directs each Federal agency with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the Federal Government. Yeah, this is pretty exciting. It is also a positive response to the OA petition that we promoted on the blog a while back. It's causing lots of excitement in the librarian community today: this directive means that a *lot* of public scientific research in the U.S., maybe the majority of it, will become openly accessible to the public, which is a huge step forward for OA. The NIH mandate that proceeded this was one of the biggest boosts to OA, and this is much more encompassing. SPARC (which is an academic library organization promoting OA) issued a press release in support: http://www.arl.org/sparc/media/sparc-applauds-white-house-for-landmark-directive-.shtml -- phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
