Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Habib M'henni]

Dear Siko,

Thanks for all your great work. We will miss you!

Kind regards,
Habib

Le 12 février 2016 02:24:55 CET, Siko Bouterse  a 
écrit :
>Dear friends and colleagues,
>
>I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff
>capacity
>for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at
>the
>Wikimedia Foundation.
>
>Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply
>important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent
>those
>values in a volunteer capacity at this time. I am and will always
>remain a
>Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko),
>hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering.
>
>This movement has become my home in so many unexpected ways, and I’m
>truly
>honored to have learned from so many of you. It was an amazing
>experience
>to have partnered with smart, bold, and dedicated community folks to
>experiment with projects like Teahouse, IdeaLab, Inspire, Individual
>Engagement Grants, and Reimagining Grants. I’ve seen you create some
>really
>incredible content, ideas, tools, programs, processes, committees and
>organizations, all in the service of free knowledge.
>
>I expect my last day to be Thursday, February 25th. I have full
>confidence
>in Maggie Dennis's abilities to lead the Community Engagement
>Department,
>and I trust that my team will remain available to support the
>community’s
>needs for grants and other resources throughout this time of
>transition.
>
>Much love,
>Siko
>
>-- 
>Siko Bouterse
>Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
>*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
>the
>sum of all knowledge. *
>*Donate  or click the "edit" button
>today,
>and help us make it a reality!*
>___
>Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>

.
Habib M'henni
Membre fondateur de CLibre et Wikimedia TN User Group
http://about.me/habibmhenni
[K9.Andro ]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Tanvir Rahman]

Siko,

I am surprised to hear the news. I am pretty sure you will do an amazing
job wherever you end up in you next venture. But Wikimedia will miss your
good services. That is also the reason why you and your work will not be
forgotten.

I enjoyed working with you during our fellowship project. I can't agree
more how your continuous guidance and collaboration taught me to productive
and eventually led me and my project to a success. I also won't forget your
support during my hard times. I learned a lot from you.

I hope we will be in touch.

--
Tanvir Rahman
Wikitanvir

On 12 February 2016 at 02:24, Siko Bouterse  wrote:

> Dear friends and colleagues,
>
> I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff capacity
> for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at the
> Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply
> important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those
> values in a volunteer capacity at this time. I am and will always remain a
> Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko),
> hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering.
>
> This movement has become my home in so many unexpected ways, and I’m truly
> honored to have learned from so many of you. It was an amazing experience
> to have partnered with smart, bold, and dedicated community folks to
> experiment with projects like Teahouse, IdeaLab, Inspire, Individual
> Engagement Grants, and Reimagining Grants. I’ve seen you create some really
> incredible content, ideas, tools, programs, processes, committees and
> organizations, all in the service of free knowledge.
>
> I expect my last day to be Thursday, February 25th. I have full confidence
> in Maggie Dennis's abilities to lead the Community Engagement Department,
> and I trust that my team will remain available to support the community’s
> needs for grants and other resources throughout this time of transition.
>
> Much love,
> Siko
>
> --
> Siko Bouterse
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. *
> *Donate  or click the "edit" button today,
> and help us make it a reality!*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are
you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward.
Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?

Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like it
and that is ok.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:

> Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions
> that others have asked, I'll add a few:
>
> 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> mentioned in
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16?
>
> 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a relatively
> small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about
> it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> something so strategically important as a decision to explore the question
> of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about
> possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction,
> especially without consulting the community.
>
> 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address
> those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have those
> conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The recent
> round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is making
> the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this
> situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I
> feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of restoring
> the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill. I
> think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am interested
> to hear your thoughts.
>
> Pine
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"  napisał(a):
> > >
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > > ​Hi ​
> > > Dariusz,
> > >
> > > ​T​
> > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
> > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system
> for
> > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the Internet.
> >
> > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> open/public
> > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> >
> > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> > across projects.
> >
> > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the Board
> > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> >
> > .
> > >
> > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016
> > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which
> board
> > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > >
> >
> > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question by
> > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> >
> > Good night!
> >
> > Dj
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

Gerard,

I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.

It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.

Michel

On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
> not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When are
> you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us forward.
> Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
>
> Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
> you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like it
> and that is ok.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good questions
> > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> >
> > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> > mentioned in
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> ?
> >
> > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> relatively
> > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity about
> > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> question
> > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking about
> > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that direction,
> > especially without consulting the community.
> >
> > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to address
> > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> those
> > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> recent
> > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> making
> > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of this
> > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally, I
> > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> restoring
> > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and goodwill.
> I
> > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> interested
> > to hear your thoughts.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"  napisał(a):
> > > >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > Dariusz,
> > > >
> > > > ​T​
> > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to Wikimedia
> > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a] system
> > for
> > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> Internet.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > open/public
> > > resources, but this is the far stretched total goal, and still not a
> > > general search engine of all content including commercial one.
> > >
> > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be just improving our searches
> > > across projects.
> > >
> > > I can't comment on the initial ideas or goals, as I was not on the
> Board
> > > before August 2015, but this is what I understand we build now.
> > >
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > The document says the "Search Engine by Wikipedia" budget for
> 2015–2016
> > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the ​board. Can you point us to which
> > board
> > > meeting approved it and what was discussed there?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I dont recall this specifically, and I'm going to elude this question
> by
> > > going to sleep (and hoping someone better informed may pick).
> > >
> > > Good night!
> > >
> > > Dj
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...

My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
money for our environment and not for an endowment.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:

> Gerard,
>
> I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
>
> It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
> hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
>
> Michel
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you are
> > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> are
> > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> forward.
> > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> >
> > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what have
> > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> it
> > and that is ok.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> questions
> > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > >
> > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it not
> > > mentioned in
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > ?
> > >
> > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > relatively
> > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> about
> > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community about
> > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > question
> > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> about
> > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> direction,
> > > especially without consulting the community.
> > >
> > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> address
> > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > those
> > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > recent
> > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> > making
> > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult to
> > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
> this
> > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is. Personally,
> I
> > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with the
> > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > restoring
> > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> goodwill.
> > I
> > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > interested
> > > to hear your thoughts.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"  napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > ​Hi ​
> > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > >
> > > > > ​T​
> > > > > he grant application doesn't restrict the search engine to
> Wikimedia
> > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia [is a]
> system
> > > for
> > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy public information on the
> > Internet.
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that the top range could potentially be all
> > > open/public
> > > > resources, but this is the far stretched total 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Shlomi Fish]

Dear Siko,

thanks for your work, and good luck on your future endeavours.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:24:55 -0800
Siko Bouterse  wrote:

> Dear friends and colleagues,
> 
> I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff capacity
> for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at the
> Wikimedia Foundation.

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Original Riddles - http://www.shlomifish.org/puzzles/

Why can’t we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having
a “War” on it? -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Robert Fernandez]

Actually, you are complaining.

I am against relentless negativity of the kind you see from many
self-styled and self-important Wikipedia critics.  I'd hardly put Pine in
that group.  The idea that Pine's measured and reasonable post could be
described as "baying for blood" is ridiculous.

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
> beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
> query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
>
> My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> >
> > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> and
> > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> are
> > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> > are
> > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > forward.
> > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> > >
> > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> have
> > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> > it
> > > and that is ok.
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > questions
> > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> not
> > > > mentioned in
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > relatively
> > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > about
> > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
> about
> > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > > question
> > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> > about
> > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > direction,
> > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > >
> > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> > address
> > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > > those
> > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > > recent
> > > > round of resignations is of respectable people from the WMF staff is
> > > making
> > > > the situation that much more concerning and that much more difficult
> to
> > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF leadership has lost control of
> > this
> > > > situation, and I'd like to hear what the recovery plan is.
> Personally,
> > I
> > > > feel that we need leadership that can build good relationships with
> the
> > > > staff and community, is transparent by default, and is capable of
> > > restoring
> > > > the credibility of the organization's planning, execution, and
> > goodwill.
> > > I
> > > > think that we may need new leadership to make that happen. I am
> > > interested
> > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Katie Chan]

:'(

On 12/02/2016 01:24, Siko Bouterse wrote:

Dear friends and colleagues,

I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff capacity
for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at the
Wikimedia Foundation.

Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply
important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those
values in a volunteer capacity at this time. I am and will always remain a
Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko),
hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering.

This movement has become my home in so many unexpected ways, and I’m truly
honored to have learned from so many of you. It was an amazing experience
to have partnered with smart, bold, and dedicated community folks to
experiment with projects like Teahouse, IdeaLab, Inspire, Individual
Engagement Grants, and Reimagining Grants. I’ve seen you create some really
incredible content, ideas, tools, programs, processes, committees and
organizations, all in the service of free knowledge.

I expect my last day to be Thursday, February 25th. I have full confidence
in Maggie Dennis's abilities to lead the Community Engagement Department,
and I trust that my team will remain available to support the community’s
needs for grants and other resources throughout this time of transition.

Much love,
Siko




--
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

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Engagement reorg - the official announcement

[Quim Gil]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> As some of you know, Community Engagement had a small realignment last
> quarter.





> Now that it’s further along, we thought it was a good time to
> formally share. :)
>

...


>Technical Collaboration (grouping Community Liaisons and Developer
>Relations), under Quim Gil, tasked with improving collaboration between
>software development teams, Wikimedia contributors, readers, and
> volunteer
>developers.


We welcome your feedback and participation in our projects and plans:

*  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration
* Quarterly goals:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration/Goals
* Annual Plan: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T124420
* Strategy: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Technical_Collaboration/Strategy

In the day to day your points of contact keep being Community Liaisons
(content creators) and Developer Relations (developers).

-- 
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Risker]

I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
staff doing lots of things.

I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely with
so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of its
leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.

With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I would
also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should
be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't believe
the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification,
though.

Risker/Anne

On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were not
> beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that official
> query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
>
> My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke  wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> >
> > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> >
> > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> and
> > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
> > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> >
> > Michel
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> are
> > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you? When
> > are
> > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > forward.
> > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to achieve?
> > >
> > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> have
> > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was to
> > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not like
> > it
> > > and that is ok.
> > > Thanks,
> > >GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > questions
> > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> not
> > > > mentioned in
> > > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > ?
> > > >
> > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > relatively
> > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > about
> > > > it, nor a reason for not having a conversation with the community
> about
> > > > something so strategically important as a decision to explore the
> > > question
> > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were an open channel beyond an
> > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to have a blue-sky exercise thinking
> > about
> > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a $250k step in that
> > direction,
> > > > especially without consulting the community.
> > > >
> > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad news in general about WMF
> > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am curious how you plan to
> > address
> > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that we be talking about our
> > > > movement plans for the next 10 years. However, it's difficult to have
> > > those
> > > > conversations when WMF is making so many self-inflicted wounds. The
> > > recent
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye

[Jane Darnell]

SO sorry to read this! My work with you on the IEG committee was one of the
most inspiring experiences I have had in my years as a Wikipedian. I guess
we will only learn after a few years what the effects were of some of the
decisions we made ton that committee, but I like to think that some of the
projects we funded have grown seeds of inspiration across the movement.
Thanks for your work above and beyond the call of duty while heading the
committee.

From my corner of the Wikiverse, good luck in your future endeavors

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Siko Bouterse 
wrote:

> Dear friends and colleagues,
>
> I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff capacity
> for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at the
> Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply
> important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those
> values in a volunteer capacity at this time. I am and will always remain a
> Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko),
> hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering.
>
> This movement has become my home in so many unexpected ways, and I’m truly
> honored to have learned from so many of you. It was an amazing experience
> to have partnered with smart, bold, and dedicated community folks to
> experiment with projects like Teahouse, IdeaLab, Inspire, Individual
> Engagement Grants, and Reimagining Grants. I’ve seen you create some really
> incredible content, ideas, tools, programs, processes, committees and
> organizations, all in the service of free knowledge.
>
> I expect my last day to be Thursday, February 25th. I have full confidence
> in Maggie Dennis's abilities to lead the Community Engagement Department,
> and I trust that my team will remain available to support the community’s
> needs for grants and other resources throughout this time of transition.
>
> Much love,
> Siko
>
> --
> Siko Bouterse
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. *
> *Donate  or click the "edit" button today,
> and help us make it a reality!*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Engagement office hour

[Karen Brown]

Hi all,

Just a reminder that the Community Engagement office hour will be taking
place today in approximately two hours (1900 UTC, 1100 US Pacific time) in
#wikimedia-office.

-Karen
On Feb 10, 2016 1:22 PM, "Karen Brown"  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Community Engagement department will be hosting an IRC office hour
> this Friday, the 12th of February, at 1900 UTC. The topic of this office
> hour will be the department's recent reorganization and personnel changes,
> including discussion of what characteristics we should be seeking out in a
> new department head. As usual, the office hour will be taking place in the
> #wikimedia-office channel on the Freenode IRC network.
>
> For more information on office hours, as well as a listing of upcoming
> office hours and links to convert from UTC time to your local time, please
> see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours).
>
> Best,
> Karen
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Liam Wyatt]

This Grant document for a “Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia” is
*specifically and overtly stating* that its purpose is to start work
on an search engine as a rival for Google/Yahoo. That is the end goal
of the project. Near near the bottom of page 10 it summarises the
whole project as:

"knowledge Engine by Wikipedia will be the internet's first
transparent search engine, and the first one originated by the
Wikimedia Foundation". It will, "democratize the discovery of media,
news and information – it will make the Internet's most relevant
information more accessible and openly curated, and it will create an
open data engine that's completely free of commercial interests.
Today, commercial search engines dominate search engine use of the
internet...". A separate summary on page 2 states, "The project will
pave the way for non-commercial information to be found and utilised
by internet users".

At the bottom of page 13, the primary risk identified is "interference
by Google, Yahoo or another big commercial search engine could
suddenly devote resources to a similar project". As SarahSV pointed
out above, If the "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia" is only about
improving the inter-connectedness of the Wikimedia sister projects by
improving how internal systems work - which no one is disputing is a
very useful goal - then google/yahoo releasing a new search engine
product would not be counted as the project's "biggest challenge".

- "Non commercial" -

The document itself refers to "non commercial" several times, and
seems to be using the term loosely. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me
that any reasonable person who is not deeply-immersed in
copyright-debates about the definition of "free" would understand the
words "non-commercial" in the context of *this document* to mean that
the search engine is *operated* non-commercially. Now, I do
acknowledge that a grant-request is by definition a “sales pitch” and
you have to write your request using the terminology and focus areas
of the grant-giver. However, it is my understanding that Lila
specifically wanted to build this - a competitor to Google - and that
this is most clearly expressed in the summary on page 10. It describes
the 6 principles through which the “Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia”
will "upend the commercial structure [of search engines]". These are
Public Curation, Transparency, Open Data, Privacy, No Advertising and
'Internalisation'. Nothing in this document talks about ways to limit
the *content* of the search engine to only "non-commercial" stuff (and
I if it did, then we would be talking about this:
https://search.creativecommons.org/ ).

- Lack of Strategy -

Now, maybe an open-source search engine would be a good thing for the
WMF to create! But that would be a major strategic decision. It would
be, in effect, a new sister project to sit alongside (above?)
Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata etc. However, this concept appears
*nowhere* in the current strategy consultation documents on Meta. As I
wrote on my blog last week: "Of 18 different approaches identified in
the...consultation process only one of them seems directly related to
[search]: 'Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified
and machine-assisted content'. It is also literally the last of the 18
topics listed".
http://wittylama.com/2016/01/30/strategy-controversy-part-2/

It seems to me extremely damaging for the relationship with the Knight
Foundation if Lila has approached them for funding a search engine,
without first having a strategic plan. Either the Board knew about
this and didn't see a problem, or they were incorrectly informed about
the grant's purpose. Either is very bad. And let me be very clear -
this is not a case of the Grants team going off by themselves. This is
an executive decision by either the Board to Lila, or Lila by herself.
The latter seems more likely given her own statement on her talkpage:

“I saw the Wikimedia movement as the most motivated and sincere group
of beings, united in their mission to build a rocket to explore
Universal Free Knowledge. The words “search” and “discovery” and
“knowledge” swam around in my mind with some rocket to navigate it.
However, “rocket” didn’t seem to work, but in my mind, the rocket was
really just an engine, or a portal, a TARDIS, that transports people
on their journey through Universal Free Knowledge.”
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)#Knowledge_Engine_grant

As pointed out by Risker back in May 2015, the Search team had already
been created and seemed *disproportionately* large
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16/draft#Review_from_current_FDC_member
It seems clear to me that this was done in anticipation of the
“Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia” project, as it is described in this
grant document. I also understand that this very high initial target
has since been reduced, a lot. From a fully-fledged competitor to
Google, to a search engine of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Engagement reorg - the official announcement

[Edward Galvez]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:05 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> I've been stewing for awhile to sort out my thoughts about the search for a
> new department lead for CE. Since I might be busy on Friday, and the choice
> of the new department is likely a topic of broad public interest, I'll
> share some thoughts here:
>

Hi Pine,

Thanks for your comments and for searching your thoughts. It would be great
if we could also hear the stories about your work and how this position
might influence your organization's or your personal daily work in the
movement. We need to hear how the list you bring up is affecting your work
in Cascadia.

A few other questions that might help (For everyone):

 Where are your group(s) now in their work and what does it need from
the WMF in a Community Engagement director?

 What are your organizations/project's highest priorities right now and
how does that relate to a new director for the department?

 What values do you expect a Community Engagement Director to have as
it relates to your _own_ work?

I am hoping these questions are helpful to everyone.

Also for everyone - reach out directly with other people, both within the
organization and with others to listen to what they need as well, or
perhaps invite them into the broader conversation. I need to do this as
well.

Thanks,
Edward
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

[David Goodman]

Rather, we should spend more, possibly several times as much. We need much
wider participation, both for Wikimania and for regional conferences, and
the only practical way to achieve that is to pay full expenses for all
regular participants who want to attend.  It should not be an elite event.
The WMF is running a considerable surplus, and we should spend 5 or 10 %
 of it on interpersonal live access to  each other.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:02 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
>  wrote:
> > If we want to talk about the cost of Wikimania it will be great if the
> WMF
> > and the local team will share the costs.
> >
> > Until now Wikimania London didn't published anything:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014/Budget
> >
> > And also Mexico:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2015/Budget
> >
> > Maybe I missed something, but it's strange that such discussion takes
> place
> > without a real budget breakdown. To summarize 2 huge event to "1$ million
> > USD" does not make sense.
>
> I agree.  Without public data, how can there be an informed public
> consultation.
>
> I've asked for similar data at:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#Analysis_on_repeat_funded_attendees
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Risker]

Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant of
$YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to
accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being informed
that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation
for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if they
don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?

I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't know
how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)

Risker/Anne

On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Anne, regarding:
>
> "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> sought is higher than that amount."
>
> I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
> bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> *advised
> *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> prepared.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
> > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> > staff doing lots of things.
> >
> > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
> with
> > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
> its
> > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
> >
> > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> would
> > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
> > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> should
> > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
> > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> believe
> > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> notification,
> > though.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be
> a
> > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
> > not
> > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
> like
> > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > official
> > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
> > >
> > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I
> do
> > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
> stop
> > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
> not
> > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
> and
> > > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gerard,
> > > >
> > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > > >
> > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the
> sand
> > > and
> > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
> > look!
> > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > > >
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it
> you
> > > are
> > > > > not talking in your 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Anthony Cole]

Anne, regarding:

"Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
sought is higher than that amount."

I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be *advised
*of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
prepared.

Anthony Cole


On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
> to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> staff doing lots of things.
>
> I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely with
> so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of its
> leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
>
> With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I would
> also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
> of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they should
> be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
> where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't believe
> the current policies require advance approval or even advance notification,
> though.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be a
> > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
> not
> > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people like
> > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> official
> > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
> >
> > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I do
> > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to stop
> > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for not
> > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko and
> > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > >
> > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > >
> > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand
> > and
> > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
> look!
> > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > >
> > > Michel
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it you
> > are
> > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
> When
> > > are
> > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > > forward.
> > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
> achieve?
> > > >
> > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> > have
> > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her role, she was
> to
> > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing that. You may not
> like
> > > it
> > > > and that is ok.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to engage here. Besides the good
> > > questions
> > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an important project, why is it
> > not
> > > > > mentioned in
> > > > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of the WMF budget, $250k is a
> > > > relatively
> > > > > small number. As others have said, this is not a reason for opacity
> > > about
> > > > > it, nor a reason for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Engagement office hour

[Anthony Cole]

When one's available, would someone please post a link to the transcript?

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Karen Brown  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> The Community Engagement department will be hosting an IRC office hour this
> Friday, the 12th of February, at 1900 UTC. The topic of this office hour
> will be the department's recent reorganization and personnel changes,
> including discussion of what characteristics we should be seeking out in a
> new department head. As usual, the office hour will be taking place in the
> #wikimedia-office channel on the Freenode IRC network.
>
> For more information on office hours, as well as a listing of upcoming
> office hours and links to convert from UTC time to your local time, please
> see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours).
>
> Best,
> Karen
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

[Gnangarra]

some rules and guidelines are a throw back to earlier years and should be
adjusted for rather than given significance over current practices.

where once a donation of 100,00 was considered potentially as content
influencing now its appreciated for what it is, the reality is that its not
the donations but rather the grants both given directly to a project or
those being sort by the WMF for a project that are the concerns. The BoT
should review these at some point the volunteer community should also be
consulted before acceptance

donation: is something given freely
Grant: is something given for a purpose

On 13 February 2016 at 10:23, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Anne, regarding:
>
> "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> sought is higher than that amount."
>
> I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That seems a
> bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> *advised
> *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> prepared.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would like
> > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future and
> > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a large
> > staff doing lots of things.
> >
> > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work closely
> with
> > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30% of
> its
> > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any organization.
> >
> > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> would
> > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of the
> > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve acceptance
> > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> should
> > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant applications
> > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> believe
> > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> notification,
> > though.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get us
> > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to be
> a
> > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that were
> > not
> > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that people
> like
> > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool and
> > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > official
> > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in the
> > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve this...
> > >
> > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward. What I
> do
> > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an ability to
> stop
> > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault Pine for
> not
> > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna and Siko
> and
> > > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gerard,
> > > >
> > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
> > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
> > > >
> > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the
> sand
> > > and
> > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh
> > look!
> > > > something positive over there!" is not going to solve anything.
> > > >
> > > > Michel
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self inflicting wounds" I take it
> you
> > > are
> > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When is it enough for you?
> > When
> > > > are
> > > > > you going to talk about positive things, things that will move us
> > > > forward.
> > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that you hope to
> > achieve?
> > > > >
> > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of negativity and what
> > > have
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Engagement office hour

[James Alexander]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> When one's available, would someone please post a link to the transcript?
>
> Anthony Cole


Sure, Karen posted it on meta shortly after:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2016-02-12


James Alexander
Manager
Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,