Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner
I should note it was a WMF design consultant that did this and not a volunteer (well - that it was not a committee volunteer I can verify). My understanding was they were working from UX team's guidelines as they design other banners for WMF. The request that we received was to go with a banner design that was intentionally not the same as others. However, I will pass the notes along for the next designs. Also, I recognize it wasn't about the banner's existence or performance - I meant that I hear complaints about the design of nearly every banner that goes up. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a recent banner that I haven't heard a few folks offer opinions about improving the look of. My personal opinion is that it's an ongoing process, and the banners used often reflect a snapshot in strategies being tried at that exact moment. -greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk tar.locesil...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, it's not about the idea of banners or about their usual performance, it's about this particular ribbon. When I set anonnotice or sitenotice on a big wiki, I aim the statement to be aligned with UX... discoveries. Don't set extensive dark backgrounds (unless it's about to be accessibility-oriented), use one colour palette, don't use many icons, borders or any additional/unnecessary/redundant elements in general, be consistent. WMF has UX team (it even has a Visual Experience Designer), I kindly suggest to watch their efforts and make our users benefit from that. On 22 April 2015 at 16:58, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: To be clear by our banners I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections banners. ;) -greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners. Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;) That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be changed? Passing along the note and some people disliked the banners is unlikely to produce much actual change. Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of alternatives can be saved and passed along as well. -greg (User:Varnent) Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk tar.locesil...@gmail.com wrote: I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from several volunteers. On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's horribly ugly, I expected more. I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't know) but we had way better designs before. Best -- Amir ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l , mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe -- *Szymon Grabarczuk* Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research Development Group, Wikimedia Polska pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l , mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Szymon Grabarczuk* Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research Development Group, Wikimedia Polska pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable. But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the ideals behind the movement. They wouldn't be working at the Foundation if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about the mission. Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Eloquence~metawiki Geekpoints, +2 *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki https://twitter.com/Philippewiki ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Keegan Peterzell kpeterz...@wikimedia.org wrote: This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad. Nicely done. :-) Kudos to you, Kunal everyone else involved in finally bringing this one home. Eloquence~metawiki ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner
Aye, I asked a designer to give some nice options and presented them to the committee. While there are certainly some people who have not liked the banner I have generally heard good feedback overall from community members (significantly more good then bad) and have made adjustments to the banner to make it more accessible after some comments over the past 2 days. The banner is certainly a bit more colorful then most but that is, indeed, very much on purpose. The board specifically asked Philippe and I to create some banners that are a bit flashier so that we could draw attention to the call for candidates (and the desire for diversity) and, later, the election itself. There was a strong concern that the traditional banners were significantly harder to notice and pay attention too and that drawing your eye was important for this work. There is no doubt that *any* banner gets complaints and is at some level intrusive. However, I will say that it was important to me, personally, not too be 'too' flashy. This is an election banner, not a fundraising banner, and that's why I made it clear to our designer that it had to be smaller and 'relatively' simple comparatively (this is actually smaller then many/most banners that are shown for non-fundraising purposes just brighter) and I think we came to a safe balance. James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: I should note it was a WMF design consultant that did this and not a volunteer (well - that it was not a committee volunteer I can verify). My understanding was they were working from UX team's guidelines as they design other banners for WMF. The request that we received was to go with a banner design that was intentionally not the same as others. However, I will pass the notes along for the next designs. Also, I recognize it wasn't about the banner's existence or performance - I meant that I hear complaints about the design of nearly every banner that goes up. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a recent banner that I haven't heard a few folks offer opinions about improving the look of. My personal opinion is that it's an ongoing process, and the banners used often reflect a snapshot in strategies being tried at that exact moment. -greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk tar.locesil...@gmail.com wrote: Oh, it's not about the idea of banners or about their usual performance, it's about this particular ribbon. When I set anonnotice or sitenotice on a big wiki, I aim the statement to be aligned with UX... discoveries. Don't set extensive dark backgrounds (unless it's about to be accessibility-oriented), use one colour palette, don't use many icons, borders or any additional/unnecessary/redundant elements in general, be consistent. WMF has UX team (it even has a Visual Experience Designer), I kindly suggest to watch their efforts and make our users benefit from that. On 22 April 2015 at 16:58, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: To be clear by our banners I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections banners. ;) -greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners. Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;) That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be changed? Passing along the note and some people disliked the banners is unlikely to produce much actual change. Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of alternatives can be saved and passed along as well. -greg (User:Varnent) Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk tar.locesil...@gmail.com wrote: I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from several volunteers. On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's horribly ugly, I expected more. I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't know) but we had way better designs before. Best -- Amir ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l , mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe -- *Szymon Grabarczuk* Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner
I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from several volunteers. On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's horribly ugly, I expected more. I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't know) but we had way better designs before. Best -- Amir ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Szymon Grabarczuk* Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research Development Group, Wikimedia Polska pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner
Looks fine to me. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk tar.locesil...@gmail.com wrote: I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from several volunteers. On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's horribly ugly, I expected more. I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't know) but we had way better designs before. Best -- Amir ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Szymon Grabarczuk* Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research Development Group, Wikimedia Polska pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner
To be clear by our banners I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections banners. ;) -greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners. Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;) That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be changed? Passing along the note and some people disliked the banners is unlikely to produce much actual change. Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of alternatives can be saved and passed along as well. -greg (User:Varnent) Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk tar.locesil...@gmail.com wrote: I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from several volunteers. On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's horribly ugly, I expected more. I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't know) but we had way better designs before. Best -- Amir ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Szymon Grabarczuk* Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research Development Group, Wikimedia Polska pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
I don't see why employees (no diff whether it's about WMF or affiliates) who are not also volunteers should have the vote right. It's up to Wikimedia movement to chose it's lead. The non-volunteering employees are outsiders who are just hired to do some stuff for us since we tend to be lazy. If they want to influence community's way they must become part of the community. They have a choice of who's their boss - if they don't like boss in WMF they could go look for another job. --Base 22.04.2015, 18:10, Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.com: +1 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400 From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never. I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in elections*, would immediately result in an influx of chapter junkies who will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises a freer flow of money. The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest possible direction to go in. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
Greetings, Thank you for bringing up this important topic. I wanted to share some info on where things stand right now with this year's elections. 1. The committee did discuss the issue of affiliate staff having a vote. It appears that a number of affiliates (not all) allow their staff to participate in affiliate elections, including the process for selecting their affiliates vote in the WMF board vote. I recognize that the future of the affiliate elections for the board is a topic for discussion right now, but we were asked to operate under the current structure, and not a possible future one. With that in mind, we felt the best approach was to respect the two elections as being separate. The WMF staff is not a component in affiliate elections, and so it seemed appropriate to keep the elections where staff have input separate for now. 2. It would appear that a majority of staff already qualify to vote either as editors or developers - so to some extent - this is an issue impacting a small group of voters. Please do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying that makes the group less important, but I am more pointing out that affiliate staff actively engaged in WMF projects will not be stopped from voting simply because they are affiliate staff. 3. I do not, personally, see any of the eligible groups as exceptions - as that implies to me they are not considered fundamental parts of the community - which just isn't true for developers, staff, or former WMF leaders. Removing staff eligibility did not get support. Speaking just for myself, I absolutely believe that allowing WMF staff to have input on who their bosses will be is both fair and within the Wikimedia spirit. Which is why I would absolutely encourage affiliate staff to have say in affiliate boards, but that is not our decision to make. 4. There are, beyond just staff, others (again - a small group - but they exist) working with affiliates who are not eligible to vote. We discussed that if we open the window for affiliate staff, we should do the same for other affiliate leaders. We already allow for this for WMF connected folks by providing a vote to advisory board members, past board members, etc. However, identifying that group for affiliates is tricky as, for example, not all Wikimedia User Groups have identified leaders. Given the narrow window of time we had to address this issue, the complexities, and a sense that affiliate related qualifications are best left for the affiliate based elections at this point - we decided not to expand the eligibility this year. 5. All of this said, the committee only had a few days to officially consider and discuss this topic - along with many others. Even with all the input from this thread, that was a very fast window to address what turned into an increasingly complicated question. The 2013 elections committee put forward the idea of a standing elections committee to address these issues more in-depth. I am increasingly of the opinion that a standing committee is the best way to do so - as the 1-2 week setup elections schedule does not allow for too many complex conversations. I hope that helps give some insight into how things were decided for next year, and what my personal recommendation for best next steps would be (ask a standing committee to do a more in-depth assessment of the question). -greg (User:Varnent) Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is definitely worthy of discussion and I agree that either all employees of WMF affiliates should be permitted to vote or employee status should be removed as an element of eligibility. Hopefully the board and its electioneers will weigh in with their opinions. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement. Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely focused on the mission of the movement. I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk bas...@yandex.ru wrote: I don't see why employees (no diff whether it's about WMF or affiliates) who are not also volunteers should have the vote right. It's up to Wikimedia movement to chose it's lead. The non-volunteering employees are outsiders who are just hired to do some stuff for us since we tend to be lazy. If they want to influence community's way they must become part of the community. They have a choice of who's their boss - if they don't like boss in WMF they could go look for another job. --Base 22.04.2015, 18:10, Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.com: +1 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400 From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never. I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in elections*, would immediately result in an influx of chapter junkies who will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises a freer flow of money. The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest possible direction to go in. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never. I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in elections*, would immediately result in an influx of chapter junkies who will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises a freer flow of money. The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest possible direction to go in. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I think this is definitely worthy of discussion and I agree that either all employees of WMF affiliates should be permitted to vote or employee status should be removed as an element of eligibility. Hopefully the board and its electioneers will weigh in with their opinions. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner
I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners. Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;) That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be changed? Passing along the note and some people disliked the banners is unlikely to produce much actual change. Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of alternatives can be saved and passed along as well. -greg (User:Varnent) Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk tar.locesil...@gmail.com wrote: I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from several volunteers. On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's horribly ugly, I expected more. I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't know) but we had way better designs before. Best -- Amir ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Szymon Grabarczuk* Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research Development Group, Wikimedia Polska pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
+1 Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400 From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never. I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in elections*, would immediately result in an influx of chapter junkies who will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises a freer flow of money. The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest possible direction to go in. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner
Oh, it's not about the idea of banners or about their usual performance, it's about this particular ribbon. When I set anonnotice or sitenotice on a big wiki, I aim the statement to be aligned with UX... discoveries. Don't set extensive dark backgrounds (unless it's about to be accessibility-oriented), use one colour palette, don't use many icons, borders or any additional/unnecessary/redundant elements in general, be consistent. WMF has UX team (it even has a Visual Experience Designer), I kindly suggest to watch their efforts and make our users benefit from that. On 22 April 2015 at 16:58, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: To be clear by our banners I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections banners. ;) -greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners. Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;) That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be changed? Passing along the note and some people disliked the banners is unlikely to produce much actual change. Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of alternatives can be saved and passed along as well. -greg (User:Varnent) Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk tar.locesil...@gmail.com wrote: I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from several volunteers. On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's horribly ugly, I expected more. I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't know) but we had way better designs before. Best -- Amir ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l , mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Szymon Grabarczuk* Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research Development Group, Wikimedia Polska pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- *Szymon Grabarczuk* Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research Development Group, Wikimedia Polska pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004
On Nov 11, 2004, at 03:27:00 UTC , Erik Moeller erik_moel...@gmx.de wrote [1]: Hi, there's been some movement forward on the Single User Login (SUL) issue. I ask the Board to review this mail carefully as this has significant long- term implications and we need Board input to go ahead. I also ask other developers to correct me if I misrepresent anything. There are currently three competing strategies. Before I describe these strategies, let me point out that one important consideration for any system is scalability. That is, single login will be used on all existing and future Wikimedia projects, and potentially even on non-Wikimedia sites which we allow to participate in our system. The three strategies are: 1) GLOBAL NAMESPACE, IMMEDIATE CONFLICT RESOLUTION We try to move towards a single global user namespace for all Wikimedia wikis. If a name is already taken in the global namespace, you have to find one which isn't. For the migration, any names which clearly belong to the same user are combined into one. If passwords and email addresses are different, the user can manually link together any accounts which belong to him by providing the passwords. For cases of true name conflicts between the existing wikis, there is a resolution phase, where factors like seniority, use on multiple wikis vs. a single one, etc., are weighed in - the loser has to choose a new account name. After the manual resolution phase, any remaining accounts are converted to the new system automatically by making them unique, e.g. by adding a number to the username. The transition is now complete. The old system no longer exists. --- 1) is very complex, and we may not find someone willing to deal with the name conflict resolution issue and take the blame from annoyed users at the same time. Naming conflicts will always be an issue in this scheme, as e.g. all common first names will be taken, and any small wiki hooking up with our SUL system would feel this impact. People can mutate these usernames relatively easily to make them unique - Erik333 - and the system can offer such mutations, but it's still a bit annoying. This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad. 1. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-November/061327.html 2. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-April/077576.html -- Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Product Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
Personally, I'm less concerned about staff votes than I am about having only a relatively small number of community members vote. If there is a substantial turnout of community votes then the enfranchisement of staff is a non-issue. I think there would be more cause for concern if is only 1800 total votes and of those 400 are from WMF and affiliate staff. I would hope that community participation would be much higher so that the vote total is at least 8,000, or around 10 percent of the active editor population. I say this as someone who was too occupied with other matters to vote last year, but does plan to vote this year and is encouraging new candidates to run. Pine On Apr 22, 2015 9:11 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable. But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the ideals behind the movement. They wouldn't be working at the Foundation if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about the mission. Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
Two quick notes: 1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote. 2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one of the ways they vary from other affiliate models. They are recognized by the AffCom, but are not required to legally incorporate as Chapters and ThOrgs are. If folks are interested though, there is an active RFC on the topic of the requirements for that recognition: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/RFCs/Wikimedia_user_groups_approval_process_and_agreements_-_Spring_2015 3. At this exact moment in time, Wikimedia User Groups do not have a vote in the affiliate elections. -greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Aleksey Bilogur aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com wrote: Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level. This is a discussion that should occur at the board level. A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable. But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the ideals behind the movement. They wouldn't be working at the Foundation if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about the mission. Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
Re: Gregory. I did not mean incorporation in the legal sense, rather, I meant it in the community sense, sorry for not being clear :). To clarify, I am not opposed to lowering the barriers to entry, I am opposed to doing both that and this, too. I see two threads of thought here, automatically granting WMF staff voting privileges (which I weakly oppose, largely per Asaf) and automatically granting chapter and organization staff voting privileges (which I am opposed to most strongly). On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement. So do I. :) Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely focused on the mission of the movement. Eh, no, that's not a valid argument. Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort. People manage to contribute to the projects if they want to. It's a matter of prioritization, as always in life. So we mustn't accept maybe they're just too busy as an excuse for why staffers purportedly can't edit. Many staffers do. Some don't. In both cases, it's by choice and preference. I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. Meeting the suffrage bar as a community member is not difficult. Those (few) staffers who aren't already eligible to vote as either developers or content contributors, further filtered by the criterion cares sufficiently to read about candidates and figure out voting -- which I guesstimate to be under 20, and probably under 10 -- could have, and therefore should have, simply edited a bit, on any of the projects, to get suffrage. I don't think there's any disenfranchisement if they don't get an automatic vote. A. -- 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level. This is a discussion that should occur at the board level. A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable. But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the ideals behind the movement. They wouldn't be working at the Foundation if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about the mission. Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
I was speaking in support of keeping the current policy which allows WMF staff to vote even if they do not meet the eligibility guidelines with a volunteer account. The issue of allowing staff in affiliated organizations who are not volunteers vote is more complex because they could have minimal involvement with the larger movement, and in some cases already have the ability to select WMF BoT. But, I would be inclined to encourage more voices to be heard by inviting everyone who is part of the wikimedia movement to vote in the WMF BoT elections. This could happen by the affiliate organizations encouraging all staff to become volunteers by giving them time to edit in a volunteer capacity several hours a month, or by allowing affiliated organizations to identify a list of staff who are not on site volunteers but who are part of the wikimedia movement. Additionally, a strong effort to get more volunteer community members running for positions as well as voting. Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Aleksey Bilogur aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com wrote: Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level. This is a discussion that should occur at the board level. A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable. But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the ideals behind the movement. They wouldn't be working at the Foundation if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about the mission. Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
That was three notes - not two - sorry. ;P On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote: Two quick notes: 1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote. 2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one of the ways they vary from other affiliate models. They are recognized by the AffCom, but are not required to legally incorporate as Chapters and ThOrgs are. If folks are interested though, there is an active RFC on the topic of the requirements for that recognition: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/RFCs/Wikimedia_user_groups_approval_process_and_agreements_-_Spring_2015 3. At this exact moment in time, Wikimedia User Groups do not have a vote in the affiliate elections. -greg On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Aleksey Bilogur aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com wrote: Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level. This is a discussion that should occur at the board level. A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable. But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the ideals behind the movement. They wouldn't be working at the Foundation if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about the mission. Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement. So do I. :) Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely focused on the mission of the movement. Eh, no, that's not a valid argument. Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort. People manage to contribute to the projects if they want to. It's a matter of prioritization, as always in life. So we mustn't accept maybe they're just too busy as an excuse for why staffers purportedly can't edit. Many staffers do. Some don't. In both cases, it's by choice and preference. I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. Meeting the suffrage bar as a community member is not difficult. Those (few) staffers who aren't already eligible to vote as either developers or content contributors, further filtered by the criterion cares sufficiently to read about candidates and figure out voting -- which I guesstimate to be under 20, and probably under 10 -- could have, and therefore should have, simply edited a bit, on any of the projects, to get suffrage. I don't think there's any disenfranchisement if they don't get an automatic vote. A. -- 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors are members of the community. So if we decide that employees of community organizations, like the WMF, are part of the Wikimedia community... then they should have the right to vote on community seats of the Board of Trustees. Whether any individual member of the community has a second opportunity to influence the composition of the board is irrelevant to determining whether they should have suffrage as a member of the global community. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are many people eligible to vote in the election that also have chapter affiliations which give them a voice in the chapter-appointed seats. Since we don't disenfranchise them for their double vote power, we should not disenfranchise other people that meet our working definition of who counts as a member of the community. Either staff employed on behalf of the movement count everywhere, or they don't count at all; there is no reason I can see that employees of the WMF are more entitled to vote than, say, employees of WMDE. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004
Nice work, Kunal and Keegan. :-) Dan On 21 April 2015 at 23:34, Keegan Peterzell kpeterz...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Nov 11, 2004, at 03:27:00 UTC , Erik Moeller erik_moel...@gmx.de wrote [1]: Hi, there's been some movement forward on the Single User Login (SUL) issue. I ask the Board to review this mail carefully as this has significant long- term implications and we need Board input to go ahead. I also ask other developers to correct me if I misrepresent anything. There are currently three competing strategies. Before I describe these strategies, let me point out that one important consideration for any system is scalability. That is, single login will be used on all existing and future Wikimedia projects, and potentially even on non-Wikimedia sites which we allow to participate in our system. The three strategies are: 1) GLOBAL NAMESPACE, IMMEDIATE CONFLICT RESOLUTION We try to move towards a single global user namespace for all Wikimedia wikis. If a name is already taken in the global namespace, you have to find one which isn't. For the migration, any names which clearly belong to the same user are combined into one. If passwords and email addresses are different, the user can manually link together any accounts which belong to him by providing the passwords. For cases of true name conflicts between the existing wikis, there is a resolution phase, where factors like seniority, use on multiple wikis vs. a single one, etc., are weighed in - the loser has to choose a new account name. After the manual resolution phase, any remaining accounts are converted to the new system automatically by making them unique, e.g. by adding a number to the username. The transition is now complete. The old system no longer exists. --- 1) is very complex, and we may not find someone willing to deal with the name conflict resolution issue and take the blame from annoyed users at the same time. Naming conflicts will always be an issue in this scheme, as e.g. all common first names will be taken, and any small wiki hooking up with our SUL system would feel this impact. People can mutate these usernames relatively easily to make them unique - Erik333 - and the system can offer such mutations, but it's still a bit annoying. This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad. 1. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-November/061327.html 2. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-April/077576.html -- Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Product Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Dan Garry Product Manager, Search and Discovery Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement. So do I. :) Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely focused on the mission of the movement. Eh, no, that's not a valid argument. Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort. People manage to contribute to the projects if they want to. It's a matter of prioritization, as always in life. So we mustn't accept maybe they're just too busy as an excuse for why staffers purportedly can't edit. Many staffers do. Some don't. In both cases, it's by choice and preference. I respect the decision of WMF staff to go home and take care of their personal business, or be involved in other outside activities, and then come back to work refreshed and ready to work on issues related to WMF and wikimedia movement. I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF. Meeting the suffrage bar as a community member is not difficult. Those (few) staffers who aren't already eligible to vote as either developers or content contributors, further filtered by the criterion cares sufficiently to read about candidates and figure out voting -- which I guesstimate to be under 20, and probably under 10 -- could have, and therefore should have, simply edited a bit, on any of the projects, to get suffrage. I don't think there's any disenfranchisement if they don't get an automatic vote. A. At a time in our movement when we are reaching out to partner organization (GLAM, universities, etc) to engage them in activities that are outside of making on wiki edits, I think we need to expand our ideas about who is a member of our movement with the standing to select the BoT. A good start to recognizing a broadening of the movement roles is to include WMF staff and affiliate staff who do not make onsite edits. Additionally, I'm not keen on having people go through the motion of making just enough edits to get the right to vote as a volunteer when their true value to the wikimedia movement is through their staff work. Sydney -- 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for. Yeah, no COI there *at all*. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors are members of the community. So if we decide that employees of community organizations, like the WMF, are part of the Wikimedia community... then they should have the right to vote on community seats of the Board of Trustees. Whether any individual member of the community has a second opportunity to influence the composition of the board is irrelevant to determining whether they should have suffrage as a member of the global community. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are many people eligible to vote in the election that also have chapter affiliations which give them a voice in the chapter-appointed seats. Since we don't disenfranchise them for their double vote power, we should not disenfranchise other people that meet our working definition of who counts as a member of the community. Either staff employed on behalf of the movement count everywhere, or they don't count at all; there is no reason I can see that employees of the WMF are more entitled to vote than, say, employees of WMDE. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Aleksey Bilogur aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com wrote: Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for. Yeah, no COI there *at all*. Er, no more than any staff member of the WMF. And for both organizations, any of them who edit can already vote. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
On 22 April 2015 at 19:26, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: ... At a time in our movement when we are reaching out to partner organization (GLAM, universities, etc) to engage them in activities that are outside of making on wiki edits, I think we need to expand our ideas about who is a member of our movement with the standing to select the BoT. A good start to recognizing a broadening of the movement roles is to include WMF staff and affiliate staff who do not make onsite edits. Additionally, I'm not keen on having people go through the motion of making just enough edits to get the right to vote as a volunteer when their true value to the wikimedia movement is through their staff work. Sydney I find hard to understand the point of view of WMF employees who after a year in employment, have yet to find an hour to make a minimal number of edits on Wikipedia, just to see what it is like. I would compare it to working as a web page designer for a supermarket chain, and never trying to buy some food from one of the stores using your staff discount. Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004
Hi, The case I found says: - Registered: XX feb 2011 (4 years ago), which is actually the date when the CentralAuth claims that the account was attached on. But: - First edit: XX may 2006 This dates do not match when an account was created locally and when an account was created globally. Also, the field says registered but shows something else. I believe Asaf could be right, and would agree on a one-time job to backdate the SUL accounts to the actual first edit of each now-unified account happened, of course, when things settle down. Thanks. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Keegan Peterzell kpeterz...@wikimedia.org wrote: What you're likely seeing that's causing confusion is the difference between when an account was created locally and when an account was created globally. For example, on 16/17 March 1.4 million local accounts were attached to global accounts, so it looks like they were only created a month ago on CentralAuth (because they were only created a month ago on CentralAuth) when the account could be as old as the wiki itself in local registration. Right. But now that the SULpocalypse is come[1], and we're all one big happy user namespace, the value of date created on CentralAuth is significantly lower than what people really want to see in that field, which is date started editing, anywhere. It was much more impractical until now, but perhaps now (read: when the dust settles and any dangling issues are dealt with, and you're back from vacation), it would actually make sense to run a one-time job to backdate the SUL accounts to the actual first edit of each now-unified account?[2] Cheers, the One True [[User:Ijon]] :) [1] kudos on that, and on the elegantly epic thread resurrection. :) [2] Best response possible would be an already-existing Phabricator ticket, of course. -- 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Eduardo Testart (56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement. So do I. :) Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely focused on the mission of the movement. Eh, no, that's not a valid argument. Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort. People manage to contribute to the projects if they want to. It's a matter of prioritization, as always in life. So we mustn't accept maybe they're just too busy as an excuse for why staffers purportedly can't edit. Many staffers do. Some don't. In both cases, it's by choice and preference. I respect the decision of WMF staff to go home and take care of their personal business, or be involved in other outside activities, and then come back to work refreshed and ready to work on issues related to WMF and wikimedia movement. So do I. :) (Indeed, I have had occasion to remind, uh, a colleague, that editing Wikipedia or its sister projects is a bit of an unusual hobby, and that it's Perfectly Fine to not choose to volunteer to do that on your personal time.) But it that's their choice, they probably don't need to vote for the WMF Board of Trustees. Indeed, they probably won't be very informed voters if they could. (to be clear, I have been responding specifically to the staff may not have time to edit argument, which I found unconvincing. I agree WMF staff (who do get a vote, in the status quo), should not be privileged over affiliate staff (who don't), i.e. that status quo is broken.) A. -- 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Eduardo Testart etest...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I do not know if this is the right thread to post this (otherwise ignore and please post me in the right direction). I believe that there is a bug in the Central Auth, since I've seen at least two users where the information that appears about when they started editing does not match the information saved in the wiki (as off first edit). Could this be a bug due to the recent change? Hi there, What you're likely seeing that's causing confusion is the difference between when an account was created locally and when an account was created globally. For example, on 16/17 March 1.4 million local accounts were attached to global accounts, so it looks like they were only created a month ago on CentralAuth (because they were only created a month ago on CentralAuth) when the account could be as old as the wiki itself in local registration. Hope that helps explain it. -- Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Product Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Keegan Peterzell kpeterz...@wikimedia.org wrote: What you're likely seeing that's causing confusion is the difference between when an account was created locally and when an account was created globally. For example, on 16/17 March 1.4 million local accounts were attached to global accounts, so it looks like they were only created a month ago on CentralAuth (because they were only created a month ago on CentralAuth) when the account could be as old as the wiki itself in local registration. Right. But now that the SULpocalypse is come[1], and we're all one big happy user namespace, the value of date created on CentralAuth is significantly lower than what people really want to see in that field, which is date started editing, anywhere. It was much more impractical until now, but perhaps now (read: when the dust settles and any dangling issues are dealt with, and you're back from vacation), it would actually make sense to run a one-time job to backdate the SUL accounts to the actual first edit of each now-unified account?[2] Cheers, the One True [[User:Ijon]] :) [1] kudos on that, and on the elegantly epic thread resurrection. :) [2] Best response possible would be an already-existing Phabricator ticket, of course. -- 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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004
Hi, I do not know if this is the right thread to post this (otherwise ignore and please post me in the right direction). I believe that there is a bug in the Central Auth, since I've seen at least two users where the information that appears about when they started editing does not match the information saved in the wiki (as off first edit). Could this be a bug due to the recent change? Best! El abr. 22, 2015 1:49 PM, Anna Stillwell astillw...@wikimedia.org escribió: Really nicely done. Given how you spoke of this earlier I thought for sure this would not be as seamless as it appears to have gone. Congrats again. /a On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Eloquence~metawiki Geekpoints, +2 *Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki https://twitter.com/Philippewiki ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Anna Stillwell Senior Learning and Org Dev Lead Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Keegan Peterzell kpeterz...@wikimedia.org wrote: This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad. 1. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-November/061327.html 2. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-April/077576.html Congratulations, and hats off to you, Kunal, and the rest of the team for pulling this off. The layers of legacy code and complex social conundrums you have had to negotiate in order to see this project through were terrifyingly large, and it's pretty incredible that you have been able to see it through with minimal disruption to users. Kudos and thank you. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
