Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote: What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? I think this exact point is often overlooked. I actually have a fairly trivial way to look at the whole thing. I think that people want to(, and) donate to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't properly exist. So they donate to the people hosting the content of Wikipedia, and which cleverly entitled itself as the only entity capable to use the sitenotice for fundraising. As the sistenotice is probably the most visible place in the web (beside Google search page and Facebook blue bar), it was enough to get 90% (or maybe more) of donations from Wikipedia users. The WMF said that they deserved that right and took it. Every other WM entity was then to ask permission to them. The problem, to me, is that we are not and they are not Wikipedia. So either everyone (asking community) has the right to use the sitenotice or neither of us. Aubrey ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:29 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Unfortunately, some accounts are currently not unique across all our wikis, but instead clash with other users who have the same account name. To make sure that all of these users can use Wikimedia's wikis in future, we will be renaming a number of accounts to have ~” and the name of their wiki added to the end of their accounts' name. This change will take place on or around 27 May. For example, a user called “Example” on the Swedish Wiktionary who will be renamed would become “Example~svwiktionary”. Why did you choose to insert the character ~? Many keyboards do not have such a key. Cruccone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
hi Erlend, I want to shortly comment on your letter, which raises legitimate concerns, in my view, and I would like to address them. On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.nowrote: However, the gap between the legitimate demands of a donation-backed funding process, and the resources available in a chapter with 0 employees, is too big. Thus the hen-and-egg-problem that some have already pinpointed: Getting the first employee demands the resources that only come with the first employee. One result is the frustration of valuable volunteers, another is the under-utilization of critical resources. In the FDC we recognize the obvious fact that small chapters have different resources and abilities than the large ones. In my own view (not discussed with other FDC members), there are 3 categories of applicants: * a) the small chapters in incubation phase (typically below 100,000 USD), b) medium sized mature chapters, c) large organizations (above 1.000,000 USD). We should expect from the large organizations to meet the highest standards of budgeting, planning, and strategy. We should also be definitely more lenient and supporting for the small chapters, as well as recognize their limited resources. However, the FDC process is focused mainly on organizations, which want to professionalize and focus on structural growth. I think that bureaucratization should not be an aim in itself and that all applications, irrespective of the size of the organization, should have a clear mission-driven component, and basically aim at making some impact in line with our movement philosophy. And this is something that not all chapters agree on - it would seem that sometimes the administrative growth may be perceived as valuable on its own. * The gap between WMF headquarters and national hubs has rapidly increased, until now. WMF has a great number of employees in San Fransisco, and a very low number of resources in other global hubs, let alone elsewhere in the USA or in national language markets overseas. For any global organisation, this imbalance is not optimal. The FCA initiative is a reflex of this imbalance, but is presently to weak to cure it. Resources pile up in the center, with a headquarter location probably given by its address of registry. Are there really more wikipedians in California, than in the rest of the world combined? Among seven FDC members there is no-one from California, and only one is American. best, Dariusz (pundit) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation
2013/4/29 Mathieu Stumpf psychosl...@culture-libre.org Le 2013-04-26 20:27, Milos Rancic a écrit : OmegaWiki is a masterpiece from the perspective of one [computational] linguist. Erik made the structure so well, that it's the best starting point to create a contemporary multilingual dictionary. I didn't see anything better in concept. (And, yes, when I was thinking about creating such software by my own, I was always at the dead end of but, OmegaWiki is already that.) Where can I find documentation about this structure, please ? Here (planned structure): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OmegaWiki_data_design and also there (current structure): http://www.omegawiki.org/Help:OmegaWiki_database_layout And a gentle reminder that comments are requested ;-) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
Hello dear all, I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time. Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded. Greetings Ting Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker: On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone. Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their bosses.. That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions. The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the right people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done). I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time. Risker (Election Committee Member) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem ___ 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] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
Craig - this is a very good idea! best, dariusz (pundit) On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.netwrote: Thankyou Asaf, points 1.1 and 1.2 pretty much answered all my questions on this. If I might offer a humble suggestion though, might I suggest for the purposes of determining grant eligibility, rather than saying that it is Confirmed or Not Confirmed, a third status of Conditional Eligibility is introduced. This status would be used in situations like WMHK's, where they are eligible at the beginning of the FDC process but have deliverables due before the end of the FDC process that could potentially render them ineligible. This would make it very clear to the entity that while they can proceed with their request, they also have to complete some other tasks to receive an allocation. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 30 April 2013 13:04, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hello, everyone. 0. Meta 0.1. I do not respect the choice by Deryck -- an experienced Wikimedian -- to voice his (understandable) frustration in a letter full of wikidrama, and to follow it with a direct accusation of our team of foul play[0]. I think this should not go uncommented on. All of us deserve civility and courteous discussions. 0.2 I am starting this separate thread to address some of the legitimate questions asked on that other thread. 0.2 Please note I speak in my capacity as head of the Wikimedia Grants Program, since grants compliance has been a large issue in Deryck's narrative, but I do not speak for the (all-volunteer) FDC nor for the FDC staff, who can speak for themselves (though some are on vacation, so it may take a while). 0.3. This is a long e-mail, but I would like to believe I am both concise and direct. I just have a number of different issues to respond to. I have also tried to be systematic, so you can skip sections you don't care about. 1. Clarifications about Eligibility 1.1. WMHK _was eligible_ to apply for funding in FDC round 2, was informed of this publicly, and proceeded to apply. FDC eligibility is determined at a specific point in time, and the eligibility table is not changed after that point in time. The effort was not futile from the start, because at the time eligibility was determined, it was not clear that WMHK is in fact non-compliant, and the Finance team determined eligibility according to strictly formal/technical rules -- the grant reports _were_ submitted, just before the deadline, so WMHK was considered eligible. 1.2. After applying, WMHK has _fallen out of compliance_ with grant requirements, when it emerged (and it was not known in advance) that WMHK has in fact unilaterally re-purposed left-over funds from an old grant (a fact only revealed at our insistence to account for all funds[1], one day before the proposals were due) without consulting or even informing WMF. Some of the questions we have asked about those funds[2] have not been answered to this day. We require compliance in all existing grants before additional funding is sent out (though funding _can_ be _approved_ while some compliance issues are pending). I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here -- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically improper!), and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants. 1.3. It is WMF grantmaking staff's duty, within the FDC Framework, to provide a factual assessment of applying entities track record with previous grants. This we have done, and anyone may see our assessments[3] and compare them to the facts on Meta, in the grant and grant report pages and their respective talk pages. WMHK was repeatedly encouraged to address this non-compliance, with specific reference[2] to the FDC staff assessment deadline. We would have _liked_ to be able to report WMHK has addressed this issue and is in compliance! 1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and without any inside information -- I was not part of the deliberations), that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and that the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility, but rather on ground of [concerns] about WMHK's internal governance, financial management capacity, and capacity of its volunteers to manage a plan of this size. WMHK's proposal and past activities do not sufficiently demonstrate a record of, or potential for, high impact. It recommends that WMHK addresses these issues before undertaking a plan of this extent.[4]. I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record -- including not only compliance but
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hey Deryck, On Apr 29, 2013, at 10:25 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: But you say we … We refers to WMHK I assume, but did you do this after a discussion with the Grants Programme, or did you decide this on your own? I work for the non-profit sector, and there is not way that any organisation I know could get away with something like that I am afraid. If you are given money for a reason, you cannot simply decide to take it as an advance on a possible next grant without agreement of the party that supplied you with the grant. I am sorry, but this is not Irony, this is governance… From my reply to THO (also on this thread): We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie. the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end of Wikimania. Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating we want, that is not that same as together with the grant giver we agreed… I cannot overstate the importance of the difference between the two… (and again: this is not the only issue with the WMHK request that the FDC pointed out). Additionally I see that the community consultation phase asked for the annual report and you stated that it would be available on the WMHK website after the meeting of the 16th of March… I wanted to go through it, but could not find it on the home page (I would assume its under documentation?) Can you point me to it? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Hong_Kong_2011-12_Annual_Report_and_Financial_Report.pdf (or scroll halfway down the proposal page) Thanks! Jan-Bart ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: ... I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here -- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically improper!), and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants. Was this ever formally audited, and if so, is there a link to this report? Just your implication using the word mismanagement sounds like Bad faith to me... ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed
James answered this in his original email: It will now only be possible for accounts to be renamed globally; the RenameUser tool will no longer work on a local basis - since all accounts must be globally unique - therefore it will be withdrawn from bureaucrats' tool sets. It will still be possible for users to ask on Meta for their account to be renamed further, if they do not like their new user name, once this takes place. On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: Will the affected users be given a one-time offer to have their accounts renamed, or are they stuck forever with the ~ ones? On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:01 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 29 April 2013 20:59, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James, personally I'm comforted by your prompt reply. Happy to help. :-) My intuition is that this would be unlikely to affect any accounts with more than 5,000 edits, possibly fewer. I have no doubt that you intend to take special care to help users with significant contributions, such as those with a well established contribution history at this level. Yes, I'll be personally reviewing the renaming list to make sure we can catch any particularly-major issues early. Yours, -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester ___ 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 -- David Richfield [[:en:User:Slashme]] +27718539985 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed
David Richfield, 30/04/2013 10:50: James answered this in his original email: No, that doesn't answer (see also talk page). Nemo It will now only be possible for accounts to be renamed globally; the RenameUser tool will no longer work on a local basis - since all accounts must be globally unique - therefore it will be withdrawn from bureaucrats' tool sets. It will still be possible for users to ask on Meta for their account to be renamed further, if they do not like their new user name, once this takes place. On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: Will the affected users be given a one-time offer to have their accounts renamed, or are they stuck forever with the ~ ones? On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:01 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 29 April 2013 20:59, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks James, personally I'm comforted by your prompt reply. Happy to help. :-) My intuition is that this would be unlikely to affect any accounts with more than 5,000 edits, possibly fewer. I have no doubt that you intend to take special care to help users with significant contributions, such as those with a well established contribution history at this level. Yes, I'll be personally reviewing the renaming list to make sure we can catch any particularly-major issues early. Yours, -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester ___ 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] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed
On 30 Apr, 2013, at 4:02 PM, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote: Will the affected users be given a one-time offer to have their accounts renamed, or are they stuck forever with the ~ ones? Rename is still possible, similar to what we have now, but just on a global level. So no, they are not stuck forever with it, of course. One thing to note is the technical limitation on # of edits. If account has too many edits, he may not be able to get it renamed further. How will that be managed? I guess James will address this issue, as he said he'll look through the rename list (make a one-time offer etc? ) . Regards, Benjamin Chen / [[User:Bencmq]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Benjamin Chen bencmqw...@gmail.com wrote: ... One thing to note is the technical limitation on # of edits. If account has too many edits, he may not be able to get it renamed further. ... It just needs to be done server side, The same way it already is. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hey Florence On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes. Supporting chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown. I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this. I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others. Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) True, but just because things used to be bad is no reason that they should be bad now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of creativity when not absolutely necessary. It would be a poor use of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure. I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones). Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance) In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy. True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of make or break and thereby put themselves at risk. We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in chapter members) decrease as well. I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the big bureaucratic body of the WMF for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)... In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
Just a couple personal points: Asaf Bartov, 30/04/2013 05:04: [...] 1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter, wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret anti-WMHK agenda [...] I didn't read anything like that in Deryck's letter. [...] 4. Grants for growth 4.1. Nemo asserts: It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at. -- this is incorrect: As you mention me directly: that's just my opinion, I know it's not the official interpretation (see also Anthere's message). 4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards the Wikimedia Mission. That is the ultimate goal. Helping _impactful_ Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow _does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system: This is the same I said, just in a different way: you say you require the groups to _first_ be impactful enough; I say «first you develop your own strengths and then you go to the negotiations [with WMF] if you need to and have something to gain». There's nothing special with this, the WMF has the money and decides how to spend it. Grants are just a different way for the WMF to buy services they already want but can't execute directly, see the indian education program example. The WMF opens a call for bids on some services, entities present offers with prices detailing all the costs, the FDC ensures the cost of each pencil was calculated correctly, then the staff decides what to buy. If there are no good offers, the WMF may eventually just hire someone directly to act locally. The problem is that the WMF constantly (by design) abusing words and rhetoric makes us waste a lot of time because of the misunderstandings it produces. I agree that more information is probably not needed, but a glossary from official WMF speak to concrete clear language may help. 4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen some chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has specifically seen the coordinated professionalization of at least two chapters (WMAR and WMRS) via its grants. [...] This doesn't seem to contradict what Tomasz said. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
Ting, Risker, 1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be volunteer in the committee. 2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue Itzik On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: Hello dear all, I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time. Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded. Greetings Ting Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker: On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone. Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their bosses.. That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions. The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the right people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done). I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time. Risker (Election Committee Member) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** elections_2013/Post_mortemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://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] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
hi Federico, On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: 1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter, wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret anti-WMHK agenda [...] I didn't read anything like that in Deryck's letter. well, I think that this part does not leave much for good faith interpretations: On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: (cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints. Yes, I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.) best, dariusz (pundit) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
Hello Itzik yes, you are right. But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is also a volunteer driven committee. It is a tremendous effort. They have weekly meeting since February, and they did a lot of things. It is unfair to stand out now and say you are doing a bad job. Greetings Ting Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri: Ting, Risker, 1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be volunteer in the committee. 2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue Itzik On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: Hello dear all, I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time. Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded. Greetings Ting Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker: On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone. Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their bosses.. That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions. The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the right people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done). I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time. Risker (Election Committee Member) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** elections_2013/Post_mortemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://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] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
Ting, I don't think that Itzik has said anywhere that the election committee is doing a bad job. I think he is simply saying that you shouldn't have to commit to having a meeting every week since February just to have an opinion on the topic that is taken seriously. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 30 April 2013 19:40, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: Hello Itzik yes, you are right. But, and this is a very big but. You organized Wikimania yourself, you know how much unseen and unthankable and unbelievable complicated and unnecessary work behind all the shiny things. The election committee is also a volunteer driven committee. It is a tremendous effort. They have weekly meeting since February, and they did a lot of things. It is unfair to stand out now and say you are doing a bad job. Greetings Ting Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri: Ting, Risker, 1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be volunteer in the committee. 2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue Itzik On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: Hello dear all, I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time. Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded. Greetings Ting Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker: On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone. Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their bosses.. That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions. The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the right people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done). I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time. Risker (Election Committee Member) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_**http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** elections_2013/Post_mortemhtt**p://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/** Wikimedia_Foundation_**elections_2013/Post_mortemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l h**ttps://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
And to come back to the topic. At least in the theory, if someone is blocked in a project, than he has a serious problem with that community. And the reason that his block is not lifted should be a serious one. And if someone has a serious problem with more than one community, than it is questionable if he should be eligible to take part in the decision of such an office. So from the theory I think the rule is ok. If in the praxis someone is blocked by a project arbitrarily and he is not able to appeal by that community, than that community and that project has a real problem. And we should look into detail what is going wrong in that project and in that community. But this is not an issue of the election committee. Greetings Ting Am 4/30/2013 11:24 AM, schrieb Itzik Edri: Ting, Risker, 1. To share thoughts and feedback about the elections, you don't must to be volunteer in the committee. 2. I indeed thought about it only when I saw the centralnotice and read the voting requirement, I may needed to raise it before. But it's still doesn't mean we need to ignore from this issue Itzik On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: Hello dear all, I would also like to ask everyone who has made their thoughts on the election to take part on the election committee themselves the next time. Unfortunately when I made the call for volunteer earlier this year not very many people responded. Greetings Ting Am 4/30/2013 12:57 AM, schrieb Risker: On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone. Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their bosses.. That's a very good point, and I think the chapter board members and staff definitely _should_ be given a voice _at least_ in the FDC elections. I leave it to the Elections Committee to propose solutions. The Elections Committee posted its plan weeks before the election started, with hardly any commentary at all; it is only now, after candidates may start entering the race, that people are complaining that we've failed to give the right people a vote (or alternately, that we've given too many people a vote). There is almost no variation between the voter eligibility this year and in the previous election; the only relevant changes are dates for eligibility and the developer commit process (which was changed because the Engineering Department changed the way that commits were done). I suggest that those who would like to see changes at the next election post on the election post mortem page[1] now, so that these ideas aren't lost to time. Risker (Election Committee Member) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_** elections_2013/Post_mortemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Post_mortem __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://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] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed
Global renames will be done by Stewards then, yes? -Dan Dan Rosenthal On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:17 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Benjamin Chen bencmqw...@gmail.com wrote: ... One thing to note is the technical limitation on # of edits. If account has too many edits, he may not be able to get it renamed further. ... It just needs to be done server side, The same way it already is. ___ 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] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed
On 30 April 2013 03:29, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.org wrote: Unfortunately, some accounts are currently not unique across all our wikis, but instead clash with other users who have the same account name. To make sure that all of these users can use Wikimedia's wikis in future, we will be renaming a number of accounts to have ~” and the name of their wiki added to the end of their accounts' name. This change will take place on or around 27 May. For example, a user called “Example” on the Swedish Wiktionary who will be renamed would become “Example~svwiktionary”. I was wondering if this would ever finally happen! One ide-effect of centralised renaming: a lot less work for individual projects and a lot less confusion over where and how names can be used/usurped, in which order, etc... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could use in parallel if FDC assessment. But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply to the FDC as a preliminary step. I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the appropriate grant process :-) Charles Le 30 avr. 2013 à 11:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org a écrit : Hey Florence On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes. Supporting chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown. I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this. I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others. Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) True, but just because things used to be bad is no reason that they should be bad now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of creativity when not absolutely necessary. It would be a poor use of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure. I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones). Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance) In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy. True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of make or break and thereby put themselves at risk. We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in chapter members) decrease as well. I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 30 April 2013 09:48, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Yes I read your reply, but you keep stating we want, that is not that same as together with the grant giver we agreed… I cannot overstate the importance of the difference between the two… People don't instantly agree on everything. There is always something the WMF grants team can disagree with anyone, if they so choose to. I'm referring to the sequence of events here (grant report accepted, then eligibility announced, then suddenly disqualification happened because the settlement of remaining funds hasn't been agreed to), not the nature. We all agree that the leftover grant funds eventually need to be settled by an agreement between WMF and WMHK. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
2013/4/30 Charles Andres charles.andres.w...@gmail.com: In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could use in parallel if FDC assessment. But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply to the FDC as a preliminary step. I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the appropriate grant process :-) Hi Charles! That would be really helpful. I'd also like to remind that the process for next year's proposals includes a Letter of Intent as first step, which will allow the both the FDC and the applicants to work on the proposals four months in advance to the presentation deadline and hopefully helping to improve the applications and/or help to decide which should be the choice of grant process. I hope some concerns expressed in this thread will be addressed with this change in the process. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125199.html for more details. Patricio -- Patricio Lorente Identi.ca // Twitter: @patriciolorente ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 30 April 2013 10:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hey Florence On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in some way equitably distribute those funds around the world. What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ? Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent processes. Supporting chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach, publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same way the WMF itself was created and has grown. I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some months ago to deflate WMF role. But we may agree to disagree on this. I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for others. Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a slightly more ideal view of the past :) True, but just because things used to be bad is no reason that they should be bad now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck in finding the right ED) the scale of the organisation now makes it impossible to tolerate that kind of creativity when not absolutely necessary. It would be a poor use of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite criticism and Sue's impending departure. I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become WMF ones). Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say in these matters as a matter of governance) In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated volunteers to stay healthy. True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into positions of make or break and thereby put themselves at risk. We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk about irl volunteers (as in chapter members) decrease as well. I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes different ways to keep motivated. These are important topics to discuss and keep track of. But lets not fall into the trap of blaming the big bureaucratic body of the WMF for all the problems we have. Volunteers burn out because of lots of reasons and we should all take care to fix those problems that are within our reach to control, and try to reduce the risk of burnout for all those involved (and again: meeting each other physically and exchanging experiences is a really good way of recharging)... In the past years, we have seen
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Fundraising 2013] Wikimedia France stepping back from payment processing
Christophe, About this reconnaissance d'utilite publique or supercharity concept; is there a link to an analysis (preferable) or even just the text of the law/provision/regulation? Even one in French only would be OK, I'm just curious to know more about how it works in practice. -Dan Dan Rosenthal On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 April 2013 21:28, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@wikimedia.fr wrote: ... In face of that situation, Wikimedia France board has asked WMF to stop being a payment processor in 2013 Hi Christophe, thank you for giving this difficult decision some suitable context, and for doing so openly and promptly. Could someone advise me, is there an official table on meta showing the current list of Chapters with payment processing agreements in place for the 2013 fund raiser? Independently of any hat I happen to be wearing, I am planning on putting aside some volunteer time to examine the admin:fundraising:program ratio for our organizations over the next few months, so it makes sense to ensure this is achieved for the current payment processors, rather than just those organizations that are easy to find the figures for or come forward spontaneously. I would support other sensible top level performance indicators should they be identified and become available soon, FDC members may have a view on what might work well as the top 5 indicators. Hopefully at least the admin ratio can be publicly shared before October this year to help foster a pragmatic discussion on simple dashboards and governance. I'm hoping that the WMF can set a lead by publishing a calculation of admin ratio for themselves. ;-) PS staff salaries are not all automatically 'admin', I hope we can agree that some program activities are entirely justifiably supported by paid staff and contractors. Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm 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 mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: Many members of the community (as it was confirmed in the discussions on Milan conference) are e.g. uncertain about part-time employment possibilities through GAC, as well as about professionalization efforts being funded through GAC scheme (both possible to some extent). I believe that it is imperative that a clear guideline is prepared. Actually it is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Eligibility_requirements Grants through this program do not fund full-time permanent staff salaries and other recurring operating expenses, such as the rent of an office. In some cases, WMF Grants Program grants may fund part-time positions or full-time temporary positions with a limited focus and scope of work related specifically to the activities of the funded project. Requests for part-time staff will be accompanied by an assessment of the applicant's ability to effectively manage staff, and may require necessary infrastructure to support staff (such as policies around travel reimbursements, and hiring). Full-time staff and recurring operating expenses will only be funded via the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) process. Note that entities receiving funds through the FDC process may not receive funds through the WMF Grants Program during the same fiscal year. although it is a bit misleading, as in several cases (WM AR, WM SR, WM IN, WM DC) it was accepted to pay for renting an office. I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-) -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-) That's probably not as silly an idea as it sounds - having a local person on the ground with relevant expertise who can assist the chapter not just in preparing their application, but also help them set realistic goals on what could be achieved would no doubt increase the quality of FDC applications and also focus chapters on delivering useful programme work, without causing any bitterness about the Foundation at the same time. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 30 April 2013 20:42, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: Many members of the community (as it was confirmed in the discussions on Milan conference) are e.g. uncertain about part-time employment possibilities through GAC, as well as about professionalization efforts being funded through GAC scheme (both possible to some extent). I believe that it is imperative that a clear guideline is prepared. Actually it is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Eligibility_requirements Grants through this program do not fund full-time permanent staff salaries and other recurring operating expenses, such as the rent of an office. In some cases, WMF Grants Program grants may fund part-time positions or full-time temporary positions with a limited focus and scope of work related specifically to the activities of the funded project. Requests for part-time staff will be accompanied by an assessment of the applicant's ability to effectively manage staff, and may require necessary infrastructure to support staff (such as policies around travel reimbursements, and hiring). Full-time staff and recurring operating expenses will only be funded via the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) process. Note that entities receiving funds through the FDC process may not receive funds through the WMF Grants Program during the same fiscal year. although it is a bit misleading, as in several cases (WM AR, WM SR, WM IN, WM DC) it was accepted to pay for renting an office. I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-) -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz ___ 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] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals whose funding would be at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources. Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do. And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement. Florence My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like not needed anymore, and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could use a new thread! 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 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals whose funding would be at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources. Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do. And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement. Florence My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like not needed anymore, and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization. Cheers Yaroslav __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://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] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as community members) voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin! (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections) I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members). Moving this discussion on-wiki would definitely be good, to reduce the chances of this discussion being forgotten about next time around... BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here. Thanks, Mike (personal viewpoint) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
On 30.04.2013 12:14, James Alexander wrote: Very side note: I'm not sure if you're talking in the past sense or not here but I did want to stick up for Wikiversity a bit here in the more presente tense. I don't think I've checked in the past couple weeks but I've trolled the recent changes there every month or so for a while and have been really excited to see it doing some cool looking work for a while now. It seems that many of the issues in the past have been mostly resolved. I am sure, like us all, they still have some skeletons they would like to get rid of but it seems that the internal process there did end kicking into gear some. /offtopic James ___ The founder and guru of the Russian Wikiversity was banned from Russian Wikipedia several years ago for trolling and disruptive behavior, and also made himself infamous for introducing obligatory user reputation template on the talk pages and blocking users with zero contribution (some of them indefinitely). Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
Dariusz Jemielniak, 30/04/2013 11:34: 1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter, wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret anti-WMHK agenda [...] I didn't read anything like that in Deryck's letter. well, I think that this part does not leave much for good faith interpretations: On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Deryck Chan wrote: (cc. Patricio and Jan-Bart as the official contacts for FDC complaints. Yes, I'm accusing WMF grants staff of foul play with the FDC rules.) That wasn't in the original letter. :) Also, foul play doesn't seem to require a secret anti-WMHK agenda. It was just a convenient way to close a controversial discussion, as you confirm. Moreover, it's well known that the FDC decisions are based also on context i.e. private information not part of the proposals or discussions thereof. It's normal for people outside WMF not to understand them fully, and after all if the rules were so easy to apply you wouldn't need a double track decision with FDC+staff with final rubberstamping by the WMF board. It's quite obvious that there will always be room for interpretation, or in other words what made Jan-Bart «impressed with the level of [...] flexibility of the FDC members». Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania
On 30/04/2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like not needed anymore, and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization. I would just like to point out that there's no Program Committee for 2014 as the jury decision on host haven't even been made yet, and for 2013 there were an open invitation for people to volunteer to serve on the Programmes Commitee and Scholarship Committee - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-October/004375.html. Yes, as a movement in general we need to get better at showing apperication for others hard work, but let's not generalise. Regards, KTC -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania
On 30.04.2013 13:23, Katie Chan wrote: On 30/04/2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like not needed anymore, and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization. I would just like to point out that there's no Program Committee for 2014 as the jury decision on host haven't even been made yet, and for 2013 there were an open invitation for people to volunteer to serve on the Programmes Commitee and Scholarship Committee - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2012-October/004375.html. Yes, as a movement in general we need to get better at showing apperication for others hard work, but let's not generalise. Regards, KTC As I said, this is my personal experience, and not a generalization. I unsubscribed from wikimania-l I believe in 2010, and now I will not do it again even if personally approached. I am fine with doing community service, but I am not really fine with being insulted for doing community service because people do not care to figure out who is doing what and insult the first person who approaches them. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
I think it is important to remember what is the main premise behind the FDC: give resources to established chapter in some sort of long term capacity. We are dealing with proposals of over 100k to more than 4m. I've heard several times about how hard is to apply for the FDC, how terrible it is... I know it is not an easy task applying nor reporting (we are doing this right now) but it is not the hell that has been pictured. It is a much easier, simple and transparent process than most of the ways any other organization (for profit or not) does to get the level of money we are requesting, or at least that has been my experience. Not because the chapters have nice goals about disseminating free knowledge on local level, we should be treated especially and not being requested to be as serious and professional as possible. I think even the FDC is already taken in consideration the level of professionality of each institution and probably evaluates differently WMAR than WMDE, but both should be able to at least comply with the basics (like clearity in the proposals and goals of the organization, a set of programs, etc.) But, seriously, if we are not able to write a estructured long report or reply answers about usage of funds, is it possible that we are able to hire effectively and efficiently an Executive Director or run an office? The problem of growth is not much about were to get funds but how this growth is sustainable and makes sense. Although there is no clear path towards professionalization (it would be great to have at least some sort of recommendations and it is something that should be improved), most of the successful cases happened through a smooth transition with some sort of temporary hiring via GAC and then consolidation via FDC. And that makes sense, because moving from a volunteer-driven association to a professional NGO is not easy: it is not easy to find the right employee (probably all the cases hired someone and to fire him/her a few months after), to establish the balance between what should the Board do and what the staff, to solve all the belated paperwork that nobody was able to do before, etc, etc. After going through all of that, then you can think of a more structured way to request funds like the FDC. I think this is an interesting topic that would have been great to work with in the past Wikimedia Conference, too bad the idea came too late. Maybe a panel for Wikimania? Osmar Valdebenito G. 2013/4/30 Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-) That's probably not as silly an idea as it sounds - having a local person on the ground with relevant expertise who can assist the chapter not just in preparing their application, but also help them set realistic goals on what could be achieved would no doubt increase the quality of FDC applications and also focus chapters on delivering useful programme work, without causing any bitterness about the Foundation at the same time. Cheers, Craig Franklin On 30 April 2013 20:42, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/4/30 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: Many members of the community (as it was confirmed in the discussions on Milan conference) are e.g. uncertain about part-time employment possibilities through GAC, as well as about professionalization efforts being funded through GAC scheme (both possible to some extent). I believe that it is imperative that a clear guideline is prepared. Actually it is here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Eligibility_requirements Grants through this program do not fund full-time permanent staff salaries and other recurring operating expenses, such as the rent of an office. In some cases, WMF Grants Program grants may fund part-time positions or full-time temporary positions with a limited focus and scope of work related specifically to the activities of the funded project. Requests for part-time staff will be accompanied by an assessment of the applicant's ability to effectively manage staff, and may require necessary infrastructure to support staff (such as policies around travel reimbursements, and hiring). Full-time staff and recurring operating expenses will only be funded via the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) process. Note that entities receiving funds through the FDC process may not receive funds through the WMF Grants Program during the same fiscal year. although it is a bit misleading, as in several cases (WM AR, WM SR, WM IN, WM DC) it was accepted to pay for renting an office. I wonder if it will be accepted to apply to GAC for temporary position for the person responsible for preparation of FDC application :-) -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Fundraising 2013] Wikimedia France stepping back from payment processing
AFAIK , WMDE and WMCH are the last ones. I do not remember an announce about WMUK for the next fundraising. but I don't understand what's the link with the FDC. In general I would encourage to avoid to speak about paiement processing out of its specific context, that's mean fundraising process only. Cheers Charles Le 30 avr. 2013 à 12:00, Fae fae...@gmail.com a écrit : On 29 April 2013 21:28, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@wikimedia.fr wrote: ... In face of that situation, Wikimedia France board has asked WMF to stop being a payment processor in 2013 Hi Christophe, thank you for giving this difficult decision some suitable context, and for doing so openly and promptly. Could someone advise me, is there an official table on meta showing the current list of Chapters with payment processing agreements in place for the 2013 fund raiser? Independently of any hat I happen to be wearing, I am planning on putting aside some volunteer time to examine the admin:fundraising:program ratio for our organizations over the next few months, so it makes sense to ensure this is achieved for the current payment processors, rather than just those organizations that are easy to find the figures for or come forward spontaneously. I would support other sensible top level performance indicators should they be identified and become available soon, FDC members may have a view on what might work well as the top 5 indicators. Hopefully at least the admin ratio can be publicly shared before October this year to help foster a pragmatic discussion on simple dashboards and governance. I'm hoping that the WMF can set a lead by publishing a calculation of admin ratio for themselves. ;-) PS staff salaries are not all automatically 'admin', I hope we can agree that some program activities are entirely justifiably supported by paid staff and contractors. Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm 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 mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comments on compliance and the FDC Round 2 decisions
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Moreover, it's well known that the FDC decisions are based also on context i.e. private information not part of the proposals or discussions thereof. It's normal for people outside WMF not to understand them fully, and after all if the rules were so easy to apply you wouldn't need a double track decision with FDC+staff with final rubberstamping by the WMF board. It's quite obvious that there will always be room for interpretation, or in other words what made Jan-Bart «impressed with the level of [...] flexibility of the FDC members». I'm not sure what you mean by that and how/why it is well known (it is not well known to me, we make efforts to make sure that applicants are treated fairly, equally, and not depending on snippets of some private information, although naturally depending on the correspondence, dialogue etc. with the chapter, which to some extent is also not entirely public for obvious reasons). Tomasz: as I wrote, it is imperative that a CLEAR and UNDERSTANDABLE guideline is prepared :) best, dj ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point As I heard in Milan Long time staffing, must go trough FDC And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management (I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter board But what do you expect if they have day time or/ studies?) And going trough these year of struggle for survival We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more meaningful. As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies. But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers. Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by young people like us WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have such strong feeling It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be helpful all the time. we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the stuff in working hours and of course improve the area they accuse us That's it (also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting I know there are always some good helpful staff and people around Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are will And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which again a hell lot volunteer time) Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through all these frankly On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things go so inhumane. Sent from my iPhone On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) jerry.tschan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Probably a smoother transition would be much more appropiate. A part-time or temporary employee that can take care of the belated reports and paperwork that you, as volunteers, can't do and probably establish some basis for a future growth. WM-AR, WM-RS and WM-IL have professionalized in the latest years (correct me if there is any other chapter too), which are medium-sized chapters, probably similar to HK.You should take a look at their/our experience and that can be helpful to imagine what you can do. *Osmar Valdebenito G.* Director Ejecutivo A. C. Wikimedia Argentina 2013/4/30 Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan jerry.tschan...@gmail.com I think Jan-Bart did point out an interesting point As I heard in Milan Long time staffing, must go trough FDC And we exactly know our weakness on transparency and management (I already tried hard to push my rest of team when I was on the chapter board But what do you expect if they have day time or/ studies?) And going trough these year of struggle for survival We are already very clear to improve the situation we need permanent staff to stabilize the structure, to free up volunteer to work out something more meaningful. As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies. But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers. Also we understand the local environment can be how harsh to charity run by young people like us WMF is rather easy way to get funding, so I can understand why they have such strong feeling It is frankly a huge slam on the local communities faith on that WMF can be helpful all the time. we have plans and right connections, just need people to deal with the stuff in working hours and of course improve the area they accuse us That's it (also one note about the accusation of mismanagement previous fund we did have apply grant via projects, we finished the report, and we told them we have money left, nobody had tell us what to do clearly AND WMF STAFF CONTACTS JUST CHANGE ALL THE TIME Actually I do find this new grant system really disgusting I know there are always some good helpful staff and people around Frankly I dun think the FdC related person are will And now they force me to think of other harder local alternative (which again a hell lot volunteer time) Sorry frankly I dun have confidence on appeal or ombudsman after go through all these frankly On the other hands we need more (fxxxing) paperworks for appeal or ombudsman, which the team is super tired with, I just ponder why the things go so inhumane. Sent from my iPhone On 29 Apr, 2013, at 2:37, Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) jerry.tschan...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς ___ 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] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
hi Jeromy-Yu, thank you for sharing this personal note. On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan jerry.tschan...@gmail.com wrote: As we aware of problem, we are run out of way to improve, it is bottleneck we need to tackle. So the FDC decision suggests chapter like us should never professionalize? Or never hire staff? Or never apply grant? As without staffing we dun think we can really have a change, as everyone had to spent at least 60 hours a week for work and studies. I hope it is clear that the FDC decision DOES NOT suggest that you should never professionalize at all, or hire staff, etc. This decision is related only to your submitted project (its content, the evaluated impact, as well as volume - you applied for over 200,000 USD to start with; as well as the estimated capacity to deal with the project's scale, responsibilities, etc.). I also encourage you to go through the comments from the deliberation: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2#Comments_from_the_deliberation But the immediate effect of this (I-would-call-in-a-community-aspect) irresponsible decision is not just kill off the chance of development, the worse is liquidating the faith of volunteers. I'm really very sorry to hear that and I assure you that it has never been our intention to undermine the spirit of volunteers. On the contrary, the volunteer work is something you shine in, and Wikimania organization is something everybody on the FDC has been really impressed with. However, I also hope you realize that the project evaluation has to be done basing on its own merits, and it did not include Wikimania at all (funded separately). best, dariusz (pundit) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3 by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the board members would be not directly coopted. Many other varieties are possible, of course. The staff could together vote one elector who would take part in the selection by the chapters, the same for the Wikimedia User Groups. But then, this voting group should select ultimately not 2 but 3 seats. People who don't edit but belong to the movement can have their influence via the chapters and in future the thorgs. On 30 April 2013 11:54, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members). Moving this discussion on-wiki would definitely be good, to reduce the chances of this discussion being forgotten about next time around... BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here. An alternative proposal, as suggested by Risker and James above is that even if you don't necessarily edit substantially, you can still be part of the movement, so lowering edit requirements to allow *all *staff and board members of the WMF, Chapters and other thematic organisations (and everyone else that's part of the movement) to elect all 5 of the community seats (3 community + 2 chapters) would bring everyone in the movement closer together. This would arguably be the most fair option, can someone summarise the justification for chapters to be able to exclusively select 2 of out 5 community seats through a much less-transparent process? -- Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
On 30 Apr 2013, at 14:30, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 April 2013 21:01, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote: With 2 seats selected by the chapters and in future maybe the thorgs, and 3 by the editing community, and 1 by the staff, more than half of the board members would be not directly coopted. Many other varieties are possible, of course. The staff could together vote one elector who would take part in the selection by the chapters, the same for the Wikimedia User Groups. But then, this voting group should select ultimately not 2 but 3 seats. People who don't edit but belong to the movement can have their influence via the chapters and in future the thorgs. On 30 April 2013 11:54, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members). Moving this discussion on-wiki would definitely be good, to reduce the chances of this discussion being forgotten about next time around... BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here. An alternative proposal, as suggested by Risker and James above is that even if you don't necessarily edit substantially, you can still be part of the movement, so lowering edit requirements to allow all staff and board members of the WMF, Chapters and other thematic organisations (and everyone else that's part of the movement) to elect all 5 of the community seats (3 community + 2 chapters) would bring everyone in the movement closer together. This would arguably be the most fair option, can someone summarise the justification for chapters to be able to exclusively select 2 of out 5 community seats through a much less-transparent process? I'm not sure how low the edit requirements would have to be in order to allow all staff + board members to vote - has anyone looked at the statistics of edit counts of staff + board members to quantify this? It would also need to be balanced against the increased risk of election fraud (it's easier to create more new accounts with a smaller number of edits without being spotted). My understanding of the chapter-selected seats is that those were intended to bring in people from the chapters' sphere of contacts who were unlikely to want to stand through very public elections, hence the reduced transparency involved in their appointments. So I'd personally view them as a sort of cross-over between expert and community seats, rather than simply as community seats (e.g. they wouldn't necessarily be filled by a Wikimedian). Thanks, Mike (personal viewpoint) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] censorship in the german mailing list
Dear Readers, the german mailing mist is suffering from censorship by one of the list of administrators: Kurt Jansson, Daniel Baur, Arne Klempert. I could not send several Mails to the list. This is very irritating because of the present discussion about corruption in the german chapter. Reiner S., long time writer in the german wikipedia, was blocked today for one month by user Tsor, because of Reiners strong questions in this context. Tsor is famous for his sport-arguments against democracy in wikipedia. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Community-Projektbudget#Nachfragen_zur_Chronologie_des_Landtagsprojekts_von_Olaf_Kosinsky Blocking of Reiner S.: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalismusmeldungdiff=118056286oldid=118056234#Benutzer:Reiner_Stoppok_.28erl..29_2 Kind Regards, Thomas7 https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipedia.watch/ http://thomas7.bloggles.info/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Glossary vs. Glossaries
Hi, On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Guillaume Paumier gpaum...@wikimedia.org wrote: * Google custom search: Waldir recently used Google Custom Search to created a search tool to find technical information across many pages and sites where information is currently fragmented: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-March/067450.html . We could set up a similar tool (or a floss alternative) that would include all glossaries. By advertising the tool prominently on existing glossary pages (so that users know it exists), this could allow us to curate more specific glossaries, while keeping them all searchable with one tool. Just a quick note to let people know that this is now up and running: https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=015296225943515200682:ds3sfewbbrw (Note to Ghostery users: you'll have to enable Google AJAX Search API to see search results.) I'm slightly annoyed that this is a third-party tool and I'd much prefer a floss alternative running on Tool Labs or something, but until that happens, we have a working tool we can use to search a term across scattered Wikimedia-related glossaries. I'd like to find people to help maintain the URL list (right now there's a version at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=5406259 ) so if you'd like to help, contact me offlist and I'll give you access. The next step is to better organize the glossaries, and actually add definitions; I'll start another thread later about this. -- Guillaume Paumier Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] censorship in the german mailing list
Complaining about blocks on mailing lists is rarely useful for anything but taking something out of your chest, I suggest you complain on Meta if you really need... oh wait, you're indef-blocked for harassment, too bad. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed
On 30 April 2013 01:01, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:29 AM, James Forrester jforres...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Unfortunately, some accounts are currently not unique across all our wikis, but instead clash with other users who have the same account name. To make sure that all of these users can use Wikimedia's wikis in future, we will be renaming a number of accounts to have ~” and the name of their wiki added to the end of their accounts' name. This change will take place on or around 27 May. For example, a user called “Example” on the Swedish Wiktionary who will be renamed would become “Example~svwiktionary”. Why did you choose to insert the character ~? Many keyboards do not have such a key. We picked a character which had very few clashes with the existing set of account names, but was allowed in account names and distinctive. Active accounts will be welcome to rename in the 'normal' process if they do not want to remain at the name to which the script will move them. J. -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
On 4/30/2013 3:54 AM, Michael Peel wrote: On 28 Apr 2013, at 21:25, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as community members) voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin! (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections) I'd like to +1 on this, as that only seems fair to me - either we have an inclusive solution for all Wikimedia organisation staff, or we don't involve staff in the elections at all (unless they are also active community members). I also agree that it would be best to treat all staff the same in this regard, whether they technically work for a chapter or the global foundation. I think that's particularly true because the technical employment arrangements don't necessarily line up with true function, and could lead to rather odd results in specific cases. As we've seen or could easily imagine, staff might be designated as temporary contractors, be delegated to work at another organization, or have their salary paid by one entity while working for another. All of these things could happen for perfectly good reasons in operational terms, but have no bearing on whether that person should be able to participate in these elections. BTW, It might also be worth thinking about spreading the community elected seats over multiple years - at the moment, all three are appointed at once, which means that there's not necessarily any sort of continuity in the community's perspective on the board. Having two elected one year, and one the next year, might be a better solution to maintain continuity here. This is a valid consideration, but I'd like to offer a counterargument, which is (at least in my mind) an important reason the rotation of board seats was set up the way it is now. As we've seen, the process of organizing and conducting these elections is a significant burden, especially on the volunteers doing the work but also for the candidates who choose to participate. I would suggest that it also imposes costs on the community at large in terms of the attention and energy directed to the election. I consider those costs well worth paying overall, but believe that it's also better not to run them up too often. I'm not sure that the benefits of this change warrant effectively doubling the load the process creates. --Michael Snow ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Single User Login finalisation: some accounts will be renamed
On 30 April 2013 02:56, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: Global renames will be done by Stewards then, yes? Yes. J. -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. jforres...@wikimedia.org | @jdforrester ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Fundraising 2013] Wikimedia France stepping back from payment processing
Hey Dan, Sure : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconnaissance_d'utilit%C3%A9_publique and http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/associations/F1131.xhtml In France all associations are, a priori, charities. The french fiscal services can withdraw that status for many reasons. One of them is if they believe the money raised using tax deductibility is not supporting french citizen/culture enough. Once you have that recognition, this charity status is much much harder to remove. We've been planning to ask for that status in 2013 for few month, Sébastien Baijard, our fundraiser, had that as one of his goal when hired. We didn't before because the process is a really complex one. We actually rewrote our bylaws in 2010 and 2011 to best fit RUP needs (it includes information about board member being forbiden to get paid, the rules for employees to run for board once they leave their paid job in the association, and other informations like that). If you have any questions, please feel free to ask -- Christophe On 30 April 2013 12:37, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: Christophe, About this reconnaissance d'utilite publique or supercharity concept; is there a link to an analysis (preferable) or even just the text of the law/provision/regulation? Even one in French only would be OK, I'm just curious to know more about how it works in practice. -Dan Dan Rosenthal On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 April 2013 21:28, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@wikimedia.fr wrote: ... In face of that situation, Wikimedia France board has asked WMF to stop being a payment processor in 2013 Hi Christophe, thank you for giving this difficult decision some suitable context, and for doing so openly and promptly. Could someone advise me, is there an official table on meta showing the current list of Chapters with payment processing agreements in place for the 2013 fund raiser? Independently of any hat I happen to be wearing, I am planning on putting aside some volunteer time to examine the admin:fundraising:program ratio for our organizations over the next few months, so it makes sense to ensure this is achieved for the current payment processors, rather than just those organizations that are easy to find the figures for or come forward spontaneously. I would support other sensible top level performance indicators should they be identified and become available soon, FDC members may have a view on what might work well as the top 5 indicators. Hopefully at least the admin ratio can be publicly shared before October this year to help foster a pragmatic discussion on simple dashboards and governance. I'm hoping that the WMF can set a lead by publishing a calculation of admin ratio for themselves. ;-) PS staff salaries are not all automatically 'admin', I hope we can agree that some program activities are entirely justifiably supported by paid staff and contractors. Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm 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 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] movement partners
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:33 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Here is a question that came up during today's US GLAM consortium meeting: what's the current status of the 'movement partners' affiliation? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Movement_Partners Is recognition of movement partners something that AffComm will be taking on in future, or will it rest with WMF/Chapters for now? Not sure what the latest discussions have been. This is still under discussion between AffCom and WMF, Phoebe. The current discussion is focused on sharpening the definition, translating the concept into a clear easy-to-follow affiliation pipeline or pathway, and on the division of roles between AffCom and WMF. We're hopeful that this will move to the next stage shortly. Best Bishakha Thanks Bishakha! Has that discussion been on-wiki anywhere? The context, as Sarah notes, is that there are a variety of big GLAM organizations who have done Wikimedia work who may well fit the idea of being a 'movement partner', and the question arose this past weekend of whether and where they might fit. -- 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement partners
Phoebe, As Bishakha indicated, this is still actively being discussed amongst AffCom and WMF folks. Most of what's being discussed is based on on-wiki comments - but the actual conversations are happening via email (AffCom mailing list) and face-to-face conversations. My understanding is this follows a similar process used when the User Groups and Thematic Org processes were setup. However, I will say that entities like GLAM partners has come up as examples of possible candidates in conversations I've had with folks. Again, it is premature to commit to anything, but my personal hope is that the final outcome will be a good solution for the groups you're talking about. As someone who frequently works with outside groups on Wikimedia matters, I am empathetic to both the sense of urgency and interest from potential partners. Also, AffCom members are available via wiki or email for comments about this - and I am generally lingering in IRC often. -greg aka varnent Disclaimer: These are my own views and not officially representative of any role I have within AffCom, Wikimania, or elsewhere. On 30 Apr 2013, at 1:16 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:33 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Here is a question that came up during today's US GLAM consortium meeting: what's the current status of the 'movement partners' affiliation? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Movement_Partners Is recognition of movement partners something that AffComm will be taking on in future, or will it rest with WMF/Chapters for now? Not sure what the latest discussions have been. This is still under discussion between AffCom and WMF, Phoebe. The current discussion is focused on sharpening the definition, translating the concept into a clear easy-to-follow affiliation pipeline or pathway, and on the division of roles between AffCom and WMF. We're hopeful that this will move to the next stage shortly. Best Bishakha Thanks Bishakha! Has that discussion been on-wiki anywhere? The context, as Sarah notes, is that there are a variety of big GLAM organizations who have done Wikimedia work who may well fit the idea of being a 'movement partner', and the question arose this past weekend of whether and where they might fit. -- 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 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] censorship in the german mailing list
Dear Readers, dear Nemo, in my last emails, which where objects to censorship, I did not complain about my indef-blockage by right wing student-groups in germany (f.e. Frank Schulenburg), which was taken as harassment. But I did, do and will complain in public about the blockage of people, complaining about corruption in the german wikipedia. Writing for wikipedia since 2003, I do not accept, abusing buttons by incompetent or right-biased people. My indef-blockage is an ad-hominem argument by you. My indef-blockage is unvalid, since the election (the fifth) gave not enough votings for my blockage. The blockers (User:Leon) was abusing his buttons. 2 and 2 is not 5 http://www.youtube.com/embed/3eTjftyAtIc. Thomas7 Am 30.04.2013 18:40, schrieb wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org: Message: 4 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:44:05 +0200 From: Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] censorship in the german mailing list Message-ID: 517fd8b5.8050...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Complaining about blocks on mailing lists is rarely useful for anything but taking something out of your chest, I suggest you complain on Meta if you really need... oh wait, you're indef-blocked for harassment, too bad. Nemo -- Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:23:38 +0200 From: Thomas Sieben camol...@web.de To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] censorship in the german mailing list Message-ID: 517fd3ea.3010...@web.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Dear Readers, the german mailing mist is suffering from censorship by one of the list of administrators: Kurt Jansson, Daniel Baur, Arne Klempert. I could not send several Mails to the list. This is very irritating because of the present discussion about corruption in the german chapter. Reiner S., long time writer in the german wikipedia, was blocked today for one month by user Tsor, because of Reiners strong questions in this context. Tsor is famous for his sport-arguments against democracy in wikipedia. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Community-Projektbudget#Nachfragen_zur_Chronologie_des_Landtagsprojekts_von_Olaf_Kosinsky Blocking of Reiner S.: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalismusmeldungdiff=118056286oldid=118056234#Benutzer:Reiner_Stoppok_.28erl..29_2 Kind Regards, Thomas7 https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipedia.watch/ http://thomas7.bloggles.info/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Le 4/30/13 12:52 PM, Richard Symonds a écrit : I think, perhaps, that the reform of the Wikimania bidding process could use a new thread! Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process, but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his effort and involvement. And boy... is that sad :( Flo 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 30 April 2013 11:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote: On 30.04.2013 01:12, Florence Devouard wrote: Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit : In the past years, we have seen several times organizers of Wikimania plain disappear after the event. Burn-out. I do not think it is a good outcome. For no-one. And I do not think it is a good idea to slap a chapter organizing Wikimania this year with words such as infant, minimal development, fuzzy strategic goals whose funding would be at an absolute minimum, mis-management and waste of donor resources. Organizing Wikimania is an effort which deserve a little bit more respect than this. Either we trust the chapter to host Wikimania or we do not. I do. And I think that even though you are free to think funding this chapter would be a bad move, it would be a good move from a human perspective to present apologies for using such a strong statement. Florence My personal experience after being an active program committee member on the 2010 Wikimania Organizing Committee was that my activity there (and I believe in the end of the day we did a good job - for example, we managed to accept all submissions with a very few exceptions) was only appreciated by my fellow organizers. I have not heard any good words from anybody else, a lot of bad words were coming from all kind of corners, and nobody in 2011, 2012, 2013, or, for that matter, in 2014 ever contacted me asking whether I would have any interest to do this job again. In 2011, someone duly revoked my Wikimania wiki administrator flag saying smth like not needed anymore, and nobody cared to thank me or even to inform me of that. I obviously decided afterwards that there are other, less painful ways I can be do my community service, and lost all interest in Wikimania organization. Cheers Yaroslav __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://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] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote: Yaroslav is not telling us about his experience on the bidding process, but about his experience about (not) feeling loved and appreciated for his effort and involvement. And boy... is that sad :( Flo Agreed, and I'll say it: to Yaroslav and everyone else who slaves away to make Wikimania work... thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Florence Devouard wrote: I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.). Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term hired secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members). Yes, this kind of association is also somewhat common in the United States as well. I agree that it might serve as a very good model for a healthy number of Wikimedia chapters. In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership fees. The Wikimedia Foundation seems to be in a good place to ensure that this need is met for chapters in need of a full-time staff person. A little seed money. What needs to happen in order to ensure requests like this are met if membership fees and sponsorships aren't sufficient? MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] The one-employee secretariat model
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:21 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Florence Devouard wrote: I was thinking of the numerous (quite successful) associations in France, which are simply made of entrepreneurs wishing to do things together (from networking, to training, to visits, conferences etc.). Most of those associations have only one staff member, a long-term hired secretary who takes care of secretarial work. The rest of the association activity is 100% taken care of by the volunteer entrepreneurs (usually through an extended board of volunteer members). Yes, this kind of association is also somewhat common in the United States as well. I agree that it might serve as a very good model for a healthy number of Wikimedia chapters. Yes, this model clearly works in some countries and for some non-profits. It has also been working for some Wikimedia groups, e.g. WMPL. However, it is not obvious that this model is what all (or even most) groups are looking for (judging by grant applications and informal conversations I have had with many groups). I would be willing to consider funding such a position on a part-time basis (say 3 days a week) if a group presented a compelling case for the need for such a person. In many cases, the secretary is paid with sponsorship and membership fees. The Wikimedia Foundation seems to be in a good place to ensure that this need is met for chapters in need of a full-time staff person. A little seed money. What needs to happen in order to ensure requests like this are met if membership fees and sponsorships aren't sufficient? The Foundation is indeed in a good place to fill this need, where it exists. I think very few groups have been able to demonstrate the need for _sustained_ support of this kind (i.e. not the two afternoons needed to finish some particular report, but actual ongoing labor of the order that would require such a position). Again, I am happy to discuss this with any group, on any channel, including privately if they prefer (I prefer public conversations). For example, in the context of the recent FDC proposals, WMCZ's staffing plan[1], assuming that student could be a *part-time* employee, could certainly have gone through the Wikimedia Grants Program (NB: not the GAC -- the GAC is the advisory body to the Wikimedia Grants Program), as in WMCZ's case, I am aware of a relatively large amount of administrative work around reimbursements, related to their two current grants. A case will still need to be made for such positions, each and every time -- we can't, and shouldn't, assume that this model is a panacea, so requests like this will be met wherever they make sense, in terms of both need and capacity (unfortunately, retaining paid help has a non-trivial up-front cost in time and planning, and the capacity to put in that time, responsibly, needs to be there for us to approve such a position). Asaf [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Czech_Republic/Proposal_form -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l