Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

I think we agree on the important points. There's a huge potential in
Wikidata, and it looks like it's in good hands. Commons could be so much
better than it is.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Nice that you prove my point. My point was that when proper attention would
> be given to Commons, it would stand proud. Important achievements have been
> made, because of Commons and its community we have GLAM (just as an
> example).
>
> When it was possible to find images in Commons, it would no longer be
> dysfunctional. It is a travesty that while we discuss search in the light
> of the recent huha, we have important functionality from Wikidata that
> increases the results substantially for any and all languages and the
> notion that finding material in Commons (aka search) is so bad that I do
> not even consider Commons for illustrations for my blog..
>
> Even on this Wikimedia-l demonstrate how limited their understanding is of
> what it is what we do and where we can easily even cheaply improve,
>
> If you want 100,000 more editors for Wikipedia (any language) there is such
> a glaring opportunity that people do not even see it before them. It would
> not cost much and it will improve their well being in a meaningful way.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 25 February 2016 at 07:37, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Yes, I guess Commons is kind of useful - as an adjunct to Wikipedia.
> > Leaving aside its usefulness to Wikipedia, though, would anyone else
> notice
> > if it disappeared tomorrow? If they did, Flickr and Google would fill any
> > gap overnight.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > You are wrong. The English Wikipedia is only brutally big. Wikidata is
> > > slowly but surely becoming one of the most important resources for data
> > on
> > > the Internet. Commons is the biggest dysfunctional repository of freely
> > > licensed material. Wikisource is where for many languages much of the
> > books
> > > end up (for want of new books and for the cost of publishing).
> > >
> > > Really. If projects like Wikidata and Commons received proper attention
> > to
> > > give them the credit they are due, they would improve exponentially
> while
> > > more attention to Wikipedia only improves things marginally.
> > >
> > > People who are one track ponies about Wikipedia are in fact clueless.
> > They
> > > forget about what we stand for; sharing the sum of all knowledge. That
> > sum
> > > of all knowledge is better represented in both Commons and Wikidata.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 25 February 2016 at 07:17, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only
> successful
> > > > Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a
> > success
> > > > one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world
> > loves,
> > > > it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia
> > > that
> > > > is spreading the knowledge. On those measures - public awareness and
> > > > affection, income-generation, and knowledge-dissemination, all the
> > other
> > > > entities are less than a drop in the ocean compared to Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > The people in these cottage industries that have grown up around this
> > > host
> > > > - chapters, WMF, sister-projects - too often lose sight of the fact
> > that
> > > > all of them have yet to prove they have had any significant
> measurable
> > > > impact on the distribution of knowledge.
> > > >
> > > > So, forgive me if I sometimes forget to include them in my thinking.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is
> > only
> > > > one
> > > > > way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on
> that
> > > > part
> > > > > of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else.
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an
> > educational
> > > > > > institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an
> > > > > absurdity.
> > > > > > The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the
> > > > > builders
> > > > > > of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
> > > > > > membership organisation, and then into something 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Nice that you prove my point. My point was that when proper attention would
be given to Commons, it would stand proud. Important achievements have been
made, because of Commons and its community we have GLAM (just as an
example).

When it was possible to find images in Commons, it would no longer be
dysfunctional. It is a travesty that while we discuss search in the light
of the recent huha, we have important functionality from Wikidata that
increases the results substantially for any and all languages and the
notion that finding material in Commons (aka search) is so bad that I do
not even consider Commons for illustrations for my blog..

Even on this Wikimedia-l demonstrate how limited their understanding is of
what it is what we do and where we can easily even cheaply improve,

If you want 100,000 more editors for Wikipedia (any language) there is such
a glaring opportunity that people do not even see it before them. It would
not cost much and it will improve their well being in a meaningful way.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 25 February 2016 at 07:37, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Yes, I guess Commons is kind of useful - as an adjunct to Wikipedia.
> Leaving aside its usefulness to Wikipedia, though, would anyone else notice
> if it disappeared tomorrow? If they did, Flickr and Google would fill any
> gap overnight.
>
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > You are wrong. The English Wikipedia is only brutally big. Wikidata is
> > slowly but surely becoming one of the most important resources for data
> on
> > the Internet. Commons is the biggest dysfunctional repository of freely
> > licensed material. Wikisource is where for many languages much of the
> books
> > end up (for want of new books and for the cost of publishing).
> >
> > Really. If projects like Wikidata and Commons received proper attention
> to
> > give them the credit they are due, they would improve exponentially while
> > more attention to Wikipedia only improves things marginally.
> >
> > People who are one track ponies about Wikipedia are in fact clueless.
> They
> > forget about what we stand for; sharing the sum of all knowledge. That
> sum
> > of all knowledge is better represented in both Commons and Wikidata.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 25 February 2016 at 07:17, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >
> > > True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only successful
> > > Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a
> success
> > > one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world
> loves,
> > > it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia
> > that
> > > is spreading the knowledge. On those measures - public awareness and
> > > affection, income-generation, and knowledge-dissemination, all the
> other
> > > entities are less than a drop in the ocean compared to Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > The people in these cottage industries that have grown up around this
> > host
> > > - chapters, WMF, sister-projects - too often lose sight of the fact
> that
> > > all of them have yet to prove they have had any significant measurable
> > > impact on the distribution of knowledge.
> > >
> > > So, forgive me if I sometimes forget to include them in my thinking.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is
> only
> > > one
> > > > way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on that
> > > part
> > > > of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an
> educational
> > > > > institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on
> > the
> > > > > road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an
> > > > absurdity.
> > > > > The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the
> > > > builders
> > > > > of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
> > > > > membership organisation, and then into something that represents
> the
> > > aims
> > > > > of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a
> > > > > membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can
> > swap
> > > > to
> > > > > new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service
> > > being
> > > > > provided by the WMF.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are wrong. The English Wikipedia is only brutally big. Wikidata is
slowly but surely becoming one of the most important resources for data on
the Internet. Commons is the biggest dysfunctional repository of freely
licensed material. Wikisource is where for many languages much of the books
end up (for want of new books and for the cost of publishing).

Really. If projects like Wikidata and Commons received proper attention to
give them the credit they are due, they would improve exponentially while
more attention to Wikipedia only improves things marginally.

People who are one track ponies about Wikipedia are in fact clueless. They
forget about what we stand for; sharing the sum of all knowledge. That sum
of all knowledge is better represented in both Commons and Wikidata.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 25 February 2016 at 07:17, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only successful
> Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a success
> one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world loves,
> it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia that
> is spreading the knowledge. On those measures - public awareness and
> affection, income-generation, and knowledge-dissemination, all the other
> entities are less than a drop in the ocean compared to Wikipedia.
>
> The people in these cottage industries that have grown up around this host
> - chapters, WMF, sister-projects - too often lose sight of the fact that
> all of them have yet to prove they have had any significant measurable
> impact on the distribution of knowledge.
>
> So, forgive me if I sometimes forget to include them in my thinking.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is only
> one
> > way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on that
> part
> > of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >
> > > WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational
> > > institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the
> > > road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an
> > absurdity.
> > > The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the
> > builders
> > > of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
> > >
> > > Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
> > > membership organisation, and then into something that represents the
> aims
> > > of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a
> > > membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
> > >
> > > 1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap
> > to
> > > new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service
> being
> > > provided by the WMF.
> > >
> > > 2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
> > > Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary
> tech
> > > contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take
> most
> > > of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully
> > we
> > > could publicly shame them into handing it over.
> > >
> > > George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best
> as
> > I
> > > can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege
> its
> > > view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual
> > editor.
> > > When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> > > that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has
> historically
> > > just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> > > encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon
> > valley
> > > entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really
> should
> > be
> > > the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care.
> > But
> > > this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role
> > > completely
> > > > separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become
> > > > dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could
> just
> > > sack
> > > > them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure
> > > > contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the people
> > who
> > > > actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set the
> > > course
> > > > for its development.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Cole
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only successful
Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a success
one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world loves,
it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia that
is spreading the knowledge. On those measures - public awareness and
affection, income-generation, and knowledge-dissemination, all the other
entities are less than a drop in the ocean compared to Wikipedia.

The people in these cottage industries that have grown up around this host
- chapters, WMF, sister-projects - too often lose sight of the fact that
all of them have yet to prove they have had any significant measurable
impact on the distribution of knowledge.

So, forgive me if I sometimes forget to include them in my thinking.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is only one
> way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on that part
> of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational
> > institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the
> > road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an
> absurdity.
> > The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the
> builders
> > of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
> >
> > Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
> > membership organisation, and then into something that represents the aims
> > of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a
> > membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
> >
> > 1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap
> to
> > new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service being
> > provided by the WMF.
> >
> > 2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
> > Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary tech
> > contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take most
> > of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully
> we
> > could publicly shame them into handing it over.
> >
> > George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as
> I
> > can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
> > view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual
> editor.
> > When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> > that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
> > just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> > encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon
> valley
> > entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should
> be
> > the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care.
> But
> > this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role
> > completely
> > > separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become
> > > dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could just
> > sack
> > > them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure
> > > contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the people
> who
> > > actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set the
> > course
> > > for its development.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own,
> > >> functional representative body that had the community's trust and
> > respect,
> > >> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us
> and
> > >> the WMF.
> > >>
> > >> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
> > >> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
> > >> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But
> > without
> > >> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take
> whatever
> > >> from the WMF - good and bad.
> > >>
> > >> Anthony Cole
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
> > >>> dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things
> that
> > >>> will
> > >>> > be true now 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Keegan Peterzell]

Yeah, so, my ultimate point remains: we're talking about hundreds of
Wikimedia projects and how they interact with paid editors, and not just
how a few handle it. LIke everything, it's complicated beyond local
instances ;)

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Dan Andreescu 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm very new to this concept of paid editing.  But from what I understood
>> paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid
>> by on their talk page or in edit summaries.  I understood this to be
>> roughly the idea of the Wikipedian in Residence title.  I didn't look this
>> up on purpose, because I wanted to point out this might be a common
>> existing understanding.  Am I mistaken?  What is the policy?
>>
>>
> ​Different wikis have different policies on paid editing, most have no
> policy. There ​is no global policy.
>
>
​I've been poked to clarify:

Terms of Use[0] prohibit undisclosed paid editing. Local projects may have
their own way of interpreting and enforcing this. Local projects can also
opt out of this particular prohibition in the Terms of Use.

0. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[GorillaWarfare]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> ​Different wikis have different policies on paid editing, most have no
> policy. There ​is no global policy.
> 
>

That's not exactly true. All Wikimedia projects are beholden to the Terms
of Use (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use) which was
recently amended to add:

*Paid contributions without disclosure*
> These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including
> misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of
> these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation
> with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to
> receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the
> following ways:
> - a statement on your user page,
> - a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
> - a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
> Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such
> as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid
> contributions or require more detailed disclosure.
> A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution
> disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy,
> you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section
> when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy
> will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant
> Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.
> For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid
> contributions.


Many wikis do not have policies that supersede this requirement, and so are
subject to it. That said, the ToU does not specify precisely what happens
when someone is found to be in violation of this rule, which I know we
struggle with on the English Wikipedia.

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
___
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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Dan Andreescu 
wrote:

> I'm very new to this concept of paid editing.  But from what I understood
> paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid
> by on their talk page or in edit summaries.  I understood this to be
> roughly the idea of the Wikipedian in Residence title.  I didn't look this
> up on purpose, because I wanted to point out this might be a common
> existing understanding.  Am I mistaken?  What is the policy?
>
>
​Different wikis have different policies on paid editing, most have no
policy. There ​is no global policy.

-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Sam Klein]

Craig Franklin  writes:

> any action that would injure the movement would also
> injure the Foundation by definition.  Denny is quite correct that trustees
> have a legal obligation to put the Foundation before anything else, however
> there's usually a fair bit of latitude in how that obligation
> is interpreted.
>

Yes.

DGG writes:
> Rather, the movement is to create a model of free human interaction and
> work, and the initial way of exemplifying this is in the various versions
> of the encyclopedia.

+100.  Edit this a bit and it will be a perfect quote.

> a model of free cooperative expression of the
> manifestations of human intellectual work and creativity... is
> fundamentally and radically in conflict with such formal organization...
< To the extent we need it, it is only to serve some limited purposes
> necessary in the economic and legal  world as it is.
<
> Unfortunately... human history shows that structures intended to have
> such limited supporting purposes do not easily remain in this limited role

I appreciate this long view.  It is true, similar to the arc that leads to
policy creep even where it is counterprouctive; and each requires steady
awareness to balance.
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[James Alexander]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic 
wrote:

> I disagree very much with Dariusz on this topic (as he knows).


I must say I also disagree with you ;).

That is not to say that a community council or membership structure of some
sort might not be good (I think there are some logistical challenges that
are so difficult that it may not be possible... I'd rather us try to deal
with things like global dispute resolution first before we try to think
about some governance council... but the idea is certainly intriguing)  but
I think the idea that  that body is 100% independent or that the board
itself should not/is not speaking for the movement too is missing some of
the point and being far too simplistic for the good of the org and the
movement. I know you don't really mean it this way but it can easily come
across as a bit of "don't look at me if this was bad for the movement I had
to ignore that".


> I think that
> a body that is able to speak for the movement as a whole would be extremely
> beneficial in order to relieve the current Board of Trustees of the
> Wikimedia Foundation from that role. It simply cannot - and indeed, legally
> must not - fulfill this role.



> To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
> be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>
> - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not
> to the movement. If there is a decision to be made where there is a
> conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the
> Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the Foundation.
> They are not only trained to so, they have actually pledged to do so.
>
> - the Board members have fiduciary responsibilities. No, we cannot just
> talk about what we are doing. As said, the loyalty of a Board member is
> towards the organization, not the movement.
>


Whether the board wants it or not it DOES end up serving a leadership role
in the Movement and arguably the top leadership role. Yes it has a
fiduciary responsibility to the org but part of that is it also has a "duty
of obedience". That duty of obedience includes, ensuring the board members
"have a responsibility to be faithful to the organization’s stated mission
and not to act or use its resources in incompatible ways or purposes" in
addition to ensuring the org follows applicable laws. [1] So if we don't
think that the Foundation has to do what's best for the movement as well
then perhaps we should be reevaluating the wording of that mission.

I would say  a non-profit has an obligation to wind itself down if its
mission (and remaining money) is better served elsewhere (as an extreme
example, but one I've certainly seen) or to transfer the copyrights out of
country if that was the right move etc. A duty to the organization does not
meant that you do not have a duty to the movement and so I think it is
wrong to try and side step that under the umbrella of fiduciary
responsibility which is much more then just money and personnel.

[Could say a lot more but probably not useful here and now :) I feel like I
either need to do that over drinks or have a bit more distance between the
current crisis & time to write it all down in a more coherent fashion ]

[1]
http://www.trusteemag.com/display/TRU-news-article.dhtml?dcrPath=/templatedata/HF_Common/NewsArticle/data/TRU/WebExclusives/2013/WebExclusive0613legalduties
(among many other sites)
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Risker, regarding "why are all of these proposals so focused on people
who click
the edit button": because people who click the edit button on Wikipedia are
the people who make this thing our readers love, the people responsible for
the rivers of gold flowing into the WMF's bank account.

It's going to be hard enough (but doable) designing an editor membership
structure that is safe from gaming by interest groups. If you can design a
way to include readers in the membership, that is proofed against gaming,
great, put it forward. I can't think of one.

The people who make this thing should be overseeing it, not the people who
keep the servers running.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:46 AM, George Herbert 
wrote:

> More focused but where I was trying to go.  Thank you.
>
> Perhaps two C level positions, Chief Editor Officer to liase and advocate
> there, and Chief Reader Officer to research and liase and advocate there,
> too.
>
> Q: How can we identify a Reader representative we could put on the Board?
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:34 PM, Risker  wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity, why are all of these proposals so focused on people who
> > click the edit button.  The overwhelming percentage of our users (half a
> > billion a month, if I recall correctly) never click that button.  The
> vast
> > majority of our donors never click that button. The massive majority of
> > active and very active editors don't participate in Board selection
> > activities. I won't say that the editing community is unimportant - in
> fact
> > I believe it is extremely important - but every proposal that is coming
> > forward seems exclusively focused on "empowering" a small percentage of
> the
> > editing group over all other stakeholders.  I'd like to see some
> > suggestions that are more balanced.
> >
> >
> > Risker
> >
> > On 24 February 2016 at 22:27, George Herbert 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best
> as
> >> I
> >>> can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege
> its
> >>> view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual
> >> editor.
> >>> When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> >>> that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has
> historically
> >>> just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> >>> encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon
> >> valley
> >>> entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really
> should
> >> be
> >>> the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care.
> >> But
> >>> this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
> >>
> >> There are several ways to look at this.  One includes the view that the
> >> Foundation and Board exist to protect and encourage the Movement, not
> just
> >> the loudest editor communities.  And that there are wider issues for the
> >> Movement, including things for users, things keeping users from editing,
> >> and things pushing people out of active editing that the Board and
> >> Foundation rightly should be paying a lot of attention to.
> >>
> >> There are both valid issues the editor community has objected to, and
> >> things the editor community (enwiki at least) is grossly dysfunctional
> >> about that the Board and Foundation must still focus on.  Both
> separation
> >> for perspective and feedback and relationship care are needed.
> >>
> >>
> >> George William Herbert
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> ___
> >> 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,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Dan Andreescu]

I'm very new to this concept of paid editing.  But from what I understood
paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid
by on their talk page or in edit summaries.  I understood this to be
roughly the idea of the Wikipedian in Residence title.  I didn't look this
up on purpose, because I wanted to point out this might be a common
existing understanding.  Am I mistaken?  What is the policy?

As I was thinking about this, if it's true, I figured the hardest part for
the community would be finding out which edit was sponsored and which was
not.  If the disclosure was just on the user's page, someone looking at
edit histories would have to click through a lot to find possible
affiliations.  I'd say we could easily create an "audit" mode to the edit
history that would decorate each revision based on any affiliation
templates from the user pages.

But, there I go inventing a feature for a problem I don't even know exists
: )  I'll just go look it up now.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Risker  wrote:

> On 24 February 2016 at 21:16, Risker  wrote:
>
> > Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with
> > anything that would surprise me. I was wrong,  And I'll say that if I was
> > going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators
> to
> > support smaller projects, and Wikisourcers, and people who may have the
> > interest and ability to edit but instead have to work 60 and 70 hour
> weeks
> > on susbsistence wages simply to feed their children.  I would have an
> > extremely difficult time justifying paying people in large, well-to-do
> > countries to edit Wikipedia. I also strongly suspect it would kill the
> > donation stream almost entirely once it became known that Wikipedia was
> no
> > longer written by volunteers, but instead was written by paid editors.
> >
>
>
> (Sorry for the inadvertent early send)
>
> Risker
>
>
>
>
> > 24 February 2016 at 21:09, SarahSV  wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
> >> > of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.
> >> >
> >> > If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
> >> > monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping
> >> > the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical
> >> > overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left
> >> > with $325/editor.
> >> >
> >> > ​As of January 2016, the English WP had 3,492 editors that the
> >> Foundation
> >> calls "very active," but that's only 100 edits a month. [1] The core
> >> workforce is considerably smaller, and they're the ones who keep the
> place
> >> running by tidying and writing/rewriting articles, creating and
> >> maintaining
> >> various processes and policies, creating templates, and so on.
> >>
> >> The Foundation could pay that number of workers, especially if it found
> >> imaginative ways to do it.
> >>
> >> For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from
> >> individuals and groups who want certain articles to be written or
> >> rewritten. Instead of paying a PR company, those people would pay the
> >> Foundation. The Foundation would maintain a list of excellent editors
> and
> >> would offer the contract to the most appropriate, taking a percentage of
> >> the fee for itself.
> >>
> >> The brief would specify that any article produced must adhere to the
> core
> >> content policies, so there would be no whitewashing, but there would be
> an
> >> effort to be fair. As things stand, unpaid editors have to clean up PR
> >> efforts anyway, so they might as well get paid to produce something
> decent
> >> from the start. It might only take a few ethical companies to sign up
> for
> >> the thing to take off.
> >>
> >> Sarah
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
> >> ___
> >> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[MZMcBride]

Denny Vrandecic wrote:
>- the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
>not to the movement. If there is a decision to be made where there is a
>conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the
>Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the Foundation.
>They are not only trained to so, they have actually pledged to do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is responsible for the
appointment of the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director; the
Executive Director carries out the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation
(which is included in the bylaws) on a day-to-day basis. My understanding
is that any decision by the Wikimedia Foundation staff is reviewable by
the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. In cases of disagreement
between the Wikimedia editing community and the Wikimedia Foundation
staff, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate
authority. The physical servers are owned and operated by the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., which is managed by this Board of Trustees.

The theory of checks and balances worked a lot better when I thought that
some of the Board of Trustees seats were elected, and not simply nominated.

Regarding the current situation within the Wikimedia Foundation, you and
your nine colleagues are most certainly responsible for ensuring that the
Wikimedia Foundation (the corporate entity) can function smoothly. If
large numbers of Wikimedia Foundation staff are unhappy with your group's
Executive Director appointment, that's very clearly your group's and the
Executive Director's problem to immediately resolve.

Given the Wikimedia Foundation's current role in keeping the Wikimedia
Web properties online, if the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is
failing to keep the Wikimedia Foundation running smoothly, it also becomes
others' problem to immediately resolve.

While I think some of this conversation is interesting and worth having,
the house is currently aflame and the Wikimedia movement (including
Wikimedia Foundation staff and the Wikimedia editing community) awaits
word from the Board of Trustees about whether we'll be putting that fire
out or letting it burn.

It also seems worth noting that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
can and does enact resolutions that apply to the Wikimedia editing
community. Most other Wikimedia movement entities, such as Wikimedia
Deutschland or WikiWomen's User Group, do not have this power. The one
exception I could think of was that the Wikimedia movement has enacted
some global policies at Meta-Wiki, but these have less force and effect
than a Board of Trustees resolution.

>- the Board members have fiduciary responsibilities. No, we cannot just
>talk about what we are doing. As said, the loyalty of a Board member is
>towards the organization, not the movement.

I think it would be helpful if the Wikimedia Foundation legal team could
lay out exactly what can and cannot be made public for legal reasons. I
have a feeling that a lot more is being kept private than needs to be.

>I currently do not see any body that in the Wikimedia movement that would
>have the moral authority to discuss e.g. whether Wikiversity should be
>set up as a project independent of the Wikimedia movement, whether
>Wikisource would deserve much more resources, whether Stewards have
>sufficient authority, whether the German Wikimedia chapter has to submit
>itself to the FDC proposal, whether a restart of the Croatian Wikipedia
>is warranted, etc.

The Wikimedia community, and in particular members of the Wikiversity
community, decide whether Wikiversity splits off as a separate project
independent of the Wikimedia movement. Or any other group of people can
take Wikiversity's content (or software!) and reuse it as they see fit.

Whether Wikisource deserves more resources is decided by people
volunteering on the project. It's also a matter for the Wikimedia
Foundation, in the same way that Wikipedia is. Why would you treat
siblings so dissimilarly?

Stewards have sufficient authority over the wikis. I don't think anyone
has an issue with the stewards, but if so, raise the issue on Meta-Wiki.

The current funding structure is such that the German Wikimedia chapter
has to submit to whatever rules the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. creates in
order to receive money from it. Them's the rules, given how money is
donated. Changing how donations are accepted and then redistributed is a
huge matter. Are you suggesting we re-open that discussion?

The Croatian Wikipedia would be (re)started if LangCom approves it. We
have processes for both starting and closing Wikipedias.

MZMcBride



___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Risker]

Out of curiosity, why are all of these proposals so focused on people who
click the edit button.  The overwhelming percentage of our users (half a
billion a month, if I recall correctly) never click that button.  The vast
majority of our donors never click that button. The massive majority of
active and very active editors don't participate in Board selection
activities. I won't say that the editing community is unimportant - in fact
I believe it is extremely important - but every proposal that is coming
forward seems exclusively focused on "empowering" a small percentage of the
editing group over all other stakeholders.  I'd like to see some
suggestions that are more balanced.


Risker

On 24 February 2016 at 22:27, George Herbert 
wrote:

>
>
> > On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >
> > George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as
> I
> > can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
> > view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual
> editor.
> > When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> > that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
> > just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> > encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon
> valley
> > entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should
> be
> > the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care.
> But
> > this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
>
> There are several ways to look at this.  One includes the view that the
> Foundation and Board exist to protect and encourage the Movement, not just
> the loudest editor communities.  And that there are wider issues for the
> Movement, including things for users, things keeping users from editing,
> and things pushing people out of active editing that the Board and
> Foundation rightly should be paying a lot of attention to.
>
> There are both valid issues the editor community has objected to, and
> things the editor community (enwiki at least) is grossly dysfunctional
> about that the Board and Foundation must still focus on.  Both separation
> for perspective and feedback and relationship care are needed.
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> 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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[George Herbert]

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> 
> George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as I
> can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
> view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual editor.
> When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
> just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon valley
> entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should be
> the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care. But
> this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.

There are several ways to look at this.  One includes the view that the 
Foundation and Board exist to protect and encourage the Movement, not just the 
loudest editor communities.  And that there are wider issues for the Movement, 
including things for users, things keeping users from editing, and things 
pushing people out of active editing that the Board and Foundation rightly 
should be paying a lot of attention to.

There are both valid issues the editor community has objected to, and things 
the editor community (enwiki at least) is grossly dysfunctional about that the 
Board and Foundation must still focus on.  Both separation for perspective and 
feedback and relationship care are needed.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Hi Keegan.

If the volunteers who make the encyclopaedia shifted their work, en masse,
to servers hosted elsewhere, I would hope the WMF would do the right thing
with the money they have accumulated - let's face it shall we - either
directly via Wikipedia banners or indirectly via the goodwill the
encyclopaedia-makers have generated. If the WMF decides to hold on to all
that moolah, shame on them.

But I assume it won't come to that: neither the parting of the ways nor, if
that does come to pass, the WMF keeping the money.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > Hopefully we
> > ​ ​
> > could publicly shame them into handing it over.
> >
>
> ​I believe that public shaming as a tool went out of vogue in most civil
> societies quite a bit ago.
>
> I think it should be out of vogue on this list as well.​
>
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> 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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Hopefully we
> ​ ​
> could publicly shame them into handing it over.
>

​I believe that public shaming as a tool went out of vogue in most civil
societies quite a bit ago.

I think it should be out of vogue on this list as well.​


-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[David Goodman]

the movement is always going to be broader and more diverse both in
backgrounds and interests than any possible board; the foundationis ls
going to have more diverse concerns than the roles of almost any of us in
the movement.

I do not se the fundamental goal of the movement is to create an
encyclopedia . Nor is it even to create  free intellectual resources.
Rather, the movement is to create a model of free human interaction and
work,  and the initial  way of exemplifying this is in the various versions
of the encyclopedia . (It's also to create the free Wikimedia software, but
the cooperative creation of free software existed long before our
movement-- the encyclopedia was innovative, at least in execution and
possibly even in concept--Wikimedia was not.

If we really believe in a model of free cooperative expression of the
manifestations of human intellectual work and creativity, then this is
fundamentally and radically in conflict with such formal organization as
boards of directors or hierarchical organization patterns and
employer-employee relationships. To the extent we need it, it is only to
serve some limited purposes necessary in the economic and legal  world as
it is. Unfortunately, I think human history shows that structures intended
to have such limited supporting purposes do not easily remain in this
limited role--those who prefer to participate in them rather than
participate in the volunteer non-organized side of the movement inevitably
will find themselves trying  to dominate, even if their personal ideologies
are opposed to such domination.

There is no defense against this except the real strength of a volunteer
movement--the ability to walk away and take our volunteer resources with
them; the true merit of CC and similar is the ability to actually make this
possible within the legal structure.  That does not mean thatI advocate
actually doing it, but we must maintain and remember the potential.




On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:49 PM, George Herbert 
wrote:

>
> In an organization where the purpose and Bylaws explicitly (Article II)
> call for it to be supporting the movement, the Board should be balancing
> that aspect anyways.
>
> Yes, the Board cares for the Foundation, but the Foundation cares for the
> Movement, and if it stops doing that it's off chartered purpose and the
> Board needs to intervene.
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:47 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
> dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
> will
> >> be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
> >>
> >> - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
> not
> >> to the movement.
> >>
> >> ​Hi Denny,
> >
> > Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
> > They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit
> directors
> > an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
> >
> > ​
> >
> > ​"... ​
> > I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the
> organization,
> > speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
> > accountable.
> > ​" [1]
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> > [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
> > ​
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Sorry, the above post is initially addressing Sarah.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational
> institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the
> road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an absurdity.
> The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the builders
> of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.
>
> Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
> membership organisation, and then into something that represents the aims
> of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a
> membership organisation de novo, except for two things.
>
> 1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap to
> new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service being
> provided by the WMF.
>
> 2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
> Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary tech
> contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take most
> of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully we
> could publicly shame them into handing it over.
>
> George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as I
> can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
> view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual editor.
> When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
> that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
> just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
> encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon valley
> entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should be
> the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care. But
> this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.
>
>
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
>
>> Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role
>> completely separate from the community. As an organised community, if we
>> become dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could
>> just sack them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new
>> infrastructure contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we -
>> the people who actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could
>> set the course for its development.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own,
>>> functional representative body that had the community's trust and respect,
>>> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and
>>> the WMF.
>>>
>>> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
>>> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
>>> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
>>> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
>>> from the WMF - good and bad.
>>>
>>> Anthony Cole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
 dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
 wrote:

 > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
 will
 > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
 >
 > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation
 - not
 > to the movement.
 >
 > ​Hi Denny,

 Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
 They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit
 directors
 an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:

 ​

 ​"... ​
 I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the
 organization,
 speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the
 organization
 accountable.
 ​" [1]

 Sarah

 [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
 ​
 ___
 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational
institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the
road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an absurdity.
The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the builders
of an encyclopaedia, not the tech guy that maintains our laptops.

Your model - essentially taking over the WMF by turning it into a
membership organisation, and then into something that represents the aims
of encyclopaedia-makers - would have the same result as starting a
membership organisation de novo, except for two things.

1. I really like the idea of outsourcing our tech needs, so we can swap to
new servers and a new tech team when we get fed up with the service being
provided by the WMF.

2. Millions of dollars already sitting in the WMF's bank accounts.
Following the model proposed by Denny would leave a fairly ordinary tech
contractor with bulging coffers. It would be nice to be able to take most
of that with us, should we choose to change tech contractors. Hopefully we
could publicly shame them into handing it over.

George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as I
can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its
view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect. Visual editor.
When the community has pushed back at WMF behaviour that suits the WMF,
that the WMF thinks helps them in their mission, the WMF has historically
just gone ahead and ignored what the community sees as being in the
encyclopaedia's best interest. This bunch of tech geeks and silicon valley
entrepreneurs holds the whip hand in this relationship. It really should be
the other way round. Denny's model; Sarah's model. I don't really care. But
this tail-wagging-dog thing is just not right.



Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role completely
> separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become
> dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could just sack
> them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure
> contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the people who
> actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set the course
> for its development.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole 
> wrote:
>
>> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own,
>> functional representative body that had the community's trust and respect,
>> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and
>> the WMF.
>>
>> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
>> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
>> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
>> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
>> from the WMF - good and bad.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
>>> dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
>>> will
>>> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>>> >
>>> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation
>>> - not
>>> > to the movement.
>>> >
>>> > ​Hi Denny,
>>>
>>> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
>>> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit
>>> directors
>>> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
>>>
>>> ​
>>>
>>> ​"... ​
>>> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the
>>> organization,
>>> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
>>> accountable.
>>> ​" [1]
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
>>> ​
>>> ___
>>> 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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[George Herbert]

In an organization where the purpose and Bylaws explicitly (Article II) call 
for it to be supporting the movement, the Board should be balancing that aspect 
anyways.

Yes, the Board cares for the Foundation, but the Foundation cares for the 
Movement, and if it stops doing that it's off chartered purpose and the Board 
needs to intervene.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:47 PM, SarahSV  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic 
> wrote:
> 
>> To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
>> be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>> 
>> - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not
>> to the movement.
>> 
>> ​Hi Denny,
> 
> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors
> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
> 
> ​
> 
> ​"... ​
> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization,
> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
> accountable.
> ​" [1]
> 
> Sarah
> 
> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
> ​
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Risker]

On 24 February 2016 at 21:16, Risker  wrote:

> Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with
> anything that would surprise me. I was wrong,  And I'll say that if I was
> going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to
> support smaller projects, and Wikisourcers, and people who may have the
> interest and ability to edit but instead have to work 60 and 70 hour weeks
> on susbsistence wages simply to feed their children.  I would have an
> extremely difficult time justifying paying people in large, well-to-do
> countries to edit Wikipedia. I also strongly suspect it would kill the
> donation stream almost entirely once it became known that Wikipedia was no
> longer written by volunteers, but instead was written by paid editors.
>


(Sorry for the inadvertent early send)

Risker




> 24 February 2016 at 21:09, SarahSV  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
>> > of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.
>> >
>> > If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
>> > monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping
>> > the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical
>> > overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left
>> > with $325/editor.
>> >
>> > ​As of January 2016, the English WP had 3,492 editors that the
>> Foundation
>> calls "very active," but that's only 100 edits a month. [1] The core
>> workforce is considerably smaller, and they're the ones who keep the place
>> running by tidying and writing/rewriting articles, creating and
>> maintaining
>> various processes and policies, creating templates, and so on.
>>
>> The Foundation could pay that number of workers, especially if it found
>> imaginative ways to do it.
>>
>> For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from
>> individuals and groups who want certain articles to be written or
>> rewritten. Instead of paying a PR company, those people would pay the
>> Foundation. The Foundation would maintain a list of excellent editors and
>> would offer the contract to the most appropriate, taking a percentage of
>> the fee for itself.
>>
>> The brief would specify that any article produced must adhere to the core
>> content policies, so there would be no whitewashing, but there would be an
>> effort to be fair. As things stand, unpaid editors have to clean up PR
>> efforts anyway, so they might as well get paid to produce something decent
>> from the start. It might only take a few ethical companies to sign up for
>> the thing to take off.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
>> ___
>> 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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role completely
separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become
dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could just sack
them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure
contractor to "keep the servers running." Organised, we - the people who
actually created this thing and actively maintain it - could set the course
for its development.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own,
> functional representative body that had the community's trust and respect,
> that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and
> the WMF.
>
> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
> from the WMF - good and bad.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic <
>> dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that
>> will
>> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>> >
>> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
>> not
>> > to the movement.
>> >
>> > ​Hi Denny,
>>
>> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
>> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors
>> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
>>
>> ​
>>
>> ​"... ​
>> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization,
>> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
>> accountable.
>> ​" [1]
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
>> ​
>> ___
>> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Risker]

Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with
anything that would surprise me. I was wrong,  And I'll say that if I was
going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to
support smaller projects, and Wikisourcers, and people who may have the
interest and ability to edit but instead have to work 60 and 70 hour weeks
on susbsistence wages simply to feed their children.  I

On 24 February 2016 at 21:09, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
> > of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.
> >
> > If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
> > monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping
> > the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical
> > overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left
> > with $325/editor.
> >
> > ​As of January 2016, the English WP had 3,492 editors that the Foundation
> calls "very active," but that's only 100 edits a month. [1] The core
> workforce is considerably smaller, and they're the ones who keep the place
> running by tidying and writing/rewriting articles, creating and maintaining
> various processes and policies, creating templates, and so on.
>
> The Foundation could pay that number of workers, especially if it found
> imaginative ways to do it.
>
> For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from
> individuals and groups who want certain articles to be written or
> rewritten. Instead of paying a PR company, those people would pay the
> Foundation. The Foundation would maintain a list of excellent editors and
> would offer the contract to the most appropriate, taking a percentage of
> the fee for itself.
>
> The brief would specify that any article produced must adhere to the core
> content policies, so there would be no whitewashing, but there would be an
> effort to be fair. As things stand, unpaid editors have to clean up PR
> efforts anyway, so they might as well get paid to produce something decent
> from the start. It might only take a few ethical companies to sign up for
> the thing to take off.
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
> [1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
> ___
> 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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Craig Franklin]

One could argue that any action that would injure the movement would also
injure the Foundation by definition.  Denny is quite correct that trustees
have a legal obligation to put the Foundation before anything else, however
there's usually a fair bit of latitude in how that obligation is
interpreted.

Cheers,
Craig

On 25 February 2016 at 11:47, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic  >
> wrote:
>
> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
> >
> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
> not
> > to the movement.
> >
> > ​Hi Denny,
>
> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors
> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
>
> ​
>
> ​"... ​
> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization,
> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
> accountable.
> ​" [1]
>
> Sarah
>
> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
> ​
> ___
> 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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional
> representative body that had the community's trust and respect, that would,
> to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and the WMF.
>
> Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
> atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
> serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
> that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
> from the WMF - good and bad.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
> ​Anthony, I do agree that the community should organize. ​

​I would prefer to see the Foundation become a membership organization with
different bylaws so that we are actually electing​ the trustees. A separate
body would be good, although the Board could ignore that body too if it
wanted. But yes, any kind of organizing is better than the present
situation.

Sarah
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Anthony Cole]

Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional
representative body that had the community's trust and respect, that would,
to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and the WMF.

Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are
atomised, the latter is our only option. Organised, forking becomes a
serious possibility. Of course, I hope it never comes to that. But without
that possibility, we are in the position of just having to take whatever
from the WMF - good and bad.

Anthony Cole


On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:47 AM, SarahSV  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic  >
> wrote:
>
> > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
> > be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
> >
> > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation -
> not
> > to the movement.
> >
> > ​Hi Denny,
>
> Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
> They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors
> an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:
>
> ​
>
> ​"... ​
> I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization,
> speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
> accountable.
> ​" [1]
>
> Sarah
>
> [1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
> ​
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

>
> And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
> of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.
>
> If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
> monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping
> the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical
> overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left
> with $325/editor.
>
> ​As of January 2016, the English WP had 3,492 editors that the Foundation
calls "very active," but that's only 100 edits a month. [1] The core
workforce is considerably smaller, and they're the ones who keep the place
running by tidying and writing/rewriting articles, creating and maintaining
various processes and policies, creating templates, and so on.

The Foundation could pay that number of workers, especially if it found
imaginative ways to do it.

For example, it could set up a department that accepts contracts from
individuals and groups who want certain articles to be written or
rewritten. Instead of paying a PR company, those people would pay the
Foundation. The Foundation would maintain a list of excellent editors and
would offer the contract to the most appropriate, taking a percentage of
the fee for itself.

The brief would specify that any article produced must adhere to the core
content policies, so there would be no whitewashing, but there would be an
effort to be fair. As things stand, unpaid editors have to clean up PR
efforts anyway, so they might as well get paid to produce something decent
from the start. It might only take a few ethical companies to sign up for
the thing to take off.

Sarah



[1] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[SarahSV]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic 
wrote:

> To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
> be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>
> - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not
> to the movement.
>
> ​Hi Denny,

Blue Avocado, the non-profit magazine, offers a somewhat different view.
They have published a board-member "contract" to give non-profit directors
an idea of what's expected of them. It includes:

​

​"... ​
I will interpret our constituencies' needs and values to the organization,
speak out for their interests, and on their behalf, hold the organization
accountable.
​" [1]

Sarah

[1] http://www.blueavocado.org/content/board-member-contract
​
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Denny Vrandecic]

I disagree very much with Dariusz on this topic (as he knows). I think that
a body that is able to speak for the movement as a whole would be extremely
beneficial in order to relieve the current Board of Trustees of the
Wikimedia Foundation from that role. It simply cannot - and indeed, legally
must not - fulfill this role.

To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
be true now matter how much you reorganize it:

- the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not
to the movement. If there is a decision to be made where there is a
conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the
Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the Foundation.
They are not only trained to so, they have actually pledged to do so.

- the Board members have fiduciary responsibilities. No, we cannot just
talk about what we are doing. As said, the loyalty of a Board member is
towards the organization, not the movement.

- the Board members that are elected by the communities or through chapters
represent the voice of the communities or the chapters. That's not the
case. All Board members are equal, and have the same duties and rights. Our
loyalty is towards the organization, not towards the constituency that
voted for us.

These things are not like this because the Wikimedia Foundation has decided
in a diabolic plan for world domination to write the rules in such a way.
These things are so because US laws - either federal or state laws, I am
not a lawyer and so I might be babbling nonsense here anyway, but this is
my understanding - requires a Board of Trustees to have these legal
obligations. This is nothing invented by the WMF in its early days, but
rather the standard framework for US non-profits.

Now, sure, you may say that this doesn't really matter, the Foundation and
the Movement should always be aligned. And where this is usually the case,
in those few cases where it is not it will lead to a massive burn.

Once you are on the Board, you do not represent the Communities, the
Chapters, your favourite Wikimedia project, you are not the representative
and defender of Wikispecies or the avatar of Wiktionary - no, you are a
Trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation, and your legal obligations and duties
are defined by the Bylaws and the applicable state and federal laws.

So, whoever argues that the Board of Trustees is to be the representative
of the communities has still to explain to me how to avoid this conundrum.
Simply increasing the number of community elected seats won't change
anything in a sustaining way.

This is why I very much sympathize with the introduction of a new body that
indeed represents the communities, and whose loyalty is undivided to the
Movement as a whole. I currently do not see any body that in the Wikimedia
movement that would have the moral authority to discuss e.g. whether
Wikiversity should be set up as a project independent of the Wikimedia
movement, whether Wikisource would deserve much more resources, whether
Stewards have sufficient authority, whether the German Wikimedia chapter
has to submit itself to the FDC proposal, whether a restart of the Croatian
Wikipedia is warranted, etc. I am quite sure that none of these questions
are appropriate for the Board of Trustees, but I would love to hear the
opinion of others on this.





On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Denny Vrandecic 
wrote:

> Thank you for the diverse input. A few points to Razmy's proposal.
>
> I have trouble with suggestions that state "we can ensure diversity by
> creating regional seats". First, why these regions? What does each region
> seat represent? Potential readers? Actual readers? Human population at
> large? Why not number of active editors? Without deciding that we do not
> know whether the regions you suggest make any sense.
>
> Second, why regions at all? How do regions ensure that we have a diversity
> in age? Sex? Gender? Wealth? Religion? Cultural background? Educational
> background? Diversity has not only the aspect of being from a specific
> region, there is so much more to that.
>
> Also, the increase in number of Trustees makes the Board more expensive
> and more ineffective. I would be rather unhappy with such an increase. It
> is hard enough to get anything done at the current size. I would appreciate
> any proposal that reduces the number of Trustees, not increases it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Ramzy Muliawan  > wrote:
>
>> >
>> > This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated
>> > Board, nor is a developing world-dominated.
>> >
>>
>> "Nor is a developed world-dominated."
>>
>> Sorry, my bad.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Denny Vrandecic]

Thank you for the diverse input. A few points to Razmy's proposal.

I have trouble with suggestions that state "we can ensure diversity by
creating regional seats". First, why these regions? What does each region
seat represent? Potential readers? Actual readers? Human population at
large? Why not number of active editors? Without deciding that we do not
know whether the regions you suggest make any sense.

Second, why regions at all? How do regions ensure that we have a diversity
in age? Sex? Gender? Wealth? Religion? Cultural background? Educational
background? Diversity has not only the aspect of being from a specific
region, there is so much more to that.

Also, the increase in number of Trustees makes the Board more expensive and
more ineffective. I would be rather unhappy with such an increase. It is
hard enough to get anything done at the current size. I would appreciate
any proposal that reduces the number of Trustees, not increases it.



On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Ramzy Muliawan 
wrote:

> >
> > This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated
> > Board, nor is a developing world-dominated.
> >
>
> "Nor is a developed world-dominated."
>
> Sorry, my bad.
> ___
> 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] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:20 PM, pajz  wrote:
> Well, we all know about the problems of giving monetary compensation to
> editors. Just thinking aloud here, but I guess if you want to reward
> editors in some way, but don't want to pay them directly, there's some
> middle ground: Don't pay them, but let them donate their share of the cake.
>
> At the beginning of the year, the WMF would set a budget, add some buffer,
> and all that is received on top of that goes to a charity pool which
> "belongs" to the editors. However, they can't claim any of the money for
> themselves, but instead can choose how much they'd like to give to charity
> A, charity B, etc. So, for instance, I'm a fan of the work of UNICEF and a
> lesser-known charity called Evidence Action. So "my" compensation for my
> Wikipedia work would be an amount X that I prorate between these two
> organizations. Other editors would also take part in this scheme.

And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.

If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
monthly active editors (71K), then take 60% off the top for keeping
the lights on, infrastructure, etc. -- this is a fairly typical
overhead percentage for grants at universities -- we're still left
with $325/editor.

Personally, I'd vote my funds for edit-a-thons in a box :)

Phoebe, causing trouble

p.s. this is a thought experiment. I think the logistics would be
unwieldy. But not so unwieldy that the the highly-praised community
tech punchlist couldn't be implemented in many other areas too.

___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Guillaume, the idea may come from anywhere, shouldn't we post the process
on meta? Or is this WMF specific, e.g. "I want my favorite cereal in the
cafeteria" proposal? :)
___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Oliver, that's a fair point, but my idea can be expanded to non-products.
The only difference here is that everyone becomes group #2 - having to
convince others via social means.  If the idea is not very visual, it has
to be painted with words, so maybe our amazing community liaisons or other
writers might be able to help with their writing prowess.

My main point is that we should have a well understood "idea path" - from
inception to getting feedback, and well known resources to rely on.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Yuri Astrakhan
>  wrote:
> > Oliver, thanks!
> >
> >> In other words, the litmus test for me is: what happens when the
> socially
> > and politically weakest person in the organisation has an idea?
> >
> > If we speak of a "product" idea, we have two groups of people - those who
> > can implement the idea, and those who would need to convince others to do
> > it.  They use fundamentally different, scarcely overlapping skill-sets.
> An
> > engineer might go via the "hackathon + demo" route, implementing
> something
> > simple and showing it to gain traction. A non-engineer would start with
> the
> > social aspect first - talking to others if the idea is worth pursuing,
> how
> > hard is it to do, and eventually - convincing others to allocate their
> > time/resources to do it. Sometimes an engineer may go the social route
> > instead, but it would be very hard for a non-engineer to engage in
> > development. Lastly, the "designer" group has an amazing skill-set to
> > visually present their full vision rather than the demo, thus often
> having
> > easier time of conveying their thoughts.
> >
> > In a sense, the barrier of entry for the person in the "weakest position"
> > would not be as high for the "doer" as for the "inspirer". So I think the
> > real challenge is how do we capture and evaluate those ideas from the
> > second group? Also, no matter how hard we try, it would be either very
> > hard, or very expensive (and not just financially) to force the
> > implementers to do an idea they do not believe in. So in a sense, doers
> > need to be persuaded first and foremost.
> >
> > As with any explanation, a picture == 1000 words, so we could promote
> "idea
> > visualizers" - designers who are easily approachable and could help to
> draw
> > up a few sketches of the idea.
>
>
> My email opened with "I think reducing things to engineering terms are
> sort of indicative of the problem here". I'm not talking about code.
> I'm not talking about designs. I'm not talking about software
> products. And thinking about it in terms of engineering projects,
> which is what we do as an organisation a lot, will not be helpful. If
> it did, then after several years of insisting that we are primarily a
> tech shop, we would hopefully not still be having conversations about
> structure and direction!
>
> What I am talking about is ideas generally. They might be about
> software products. They might be about social products, a la the
> teahouse. They might be about how to tweak our process by which we
> interact with the community. They might be that our hiring process is
> kinda weird and here's this one cool way we could look at improving
> it. They might be that the break room snacks _suck_ (again,
> hypothetical: they're fine. Sorry, Facilities).
>
> In any case, the litmus test is just that; a litmus test. Our
> structure should be designed cognizant to these problems, and then
> pass the test, but not be designed *specifically* to pass the test.
> And the designer idea seems pretty hyper-optimised just for the test.
>
> > ___
> > 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] Are we too rigid?

[Guillaume Paumier]

Le mercredi 24 février 2016 14:52:45, j'ai écrit :
> Hey Yuri,
> 
> [Responding offlist because I'm linking to officewiki]

Obviously, I failed to change the To: line. My apologies to everyone who can't 
access those documents. 

-- 
Guillaume Paumier

___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Oliver Keyes]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Yuri Astrakhan
 wrote:
> Oliver, thanks!
>
>> In other words, the litmus test for me is: what happens when the socially
> and politically weakest person in the organisation has an idea?
>
> If we speak of a "product" idea, we have two groups of people - those who
> can implement the idea, and those who would need to convince others to do
> it.  They use fundamentally different, scarcely overlapping skill-sets. An
> engineer might go via the "hackathon + demo" route, implementing something
> simple and showing it to gain traction. A non-engineer would start with the
> social aspect first - talking to others if the idea is worth pursuing, how
> hard is it to do, and eventually - convincing others to allocate their
> time/resources to do it. Sometimes an engineer may go the social route
> instead, but it would be very hard for a non-engineer to engage in
> development. Lastly, the "designer" group has an amazing skill-set to
> visually present their full vision rather than the demo, thus often having
> easier time of conveying their thoughts.
>
> In a sense, the barrier of entry for the person in the "weakest position"
> would not be as high for the "doer" as for the "inspirer". So I think the
> real challenge is how do we capture and evaluate those ideas from the
> second group? Also, no matter how hard we try, it would be either very
> hard, or very expensive (and not just financially) to force the
> implementers to do an idea they do not believe in. So in a sense, doers
> need to be persuaded first and foremost.
>
> As with any explanation, a picture == 1000 words, so we could promote "idea
> visualizers" - designers who are easily approachable and could help to draw
> up a few sketches of the idea.


My email opened with "I think reducing things to engineering terms are
sort of indicative of the problem here". I'm not talking about code.
I'm not talking about designs. I'm not talking about software
products. And thinking about it in terms of engineering projects,
which is what we do as an organisation a lot, will not be helpful. If
it did, then after several years of insisting that we are primarily a
tech shop, we would hopefully not still be having conversations about
structure and direction!

What I am talking about is ideas generally. They might be about
software products. They might be about social products, a la the
teahouse. They might be about how to tweak our process by which we
interact with the community. They might be that our hiring process is
kinda weird and here's this one cool way we could look at improving
it. They might be that the break room snacks _suck_ (again,
hypothetical: they're fine. Sorry, Facilities).

In any case, the litmus test is just that; a litmus test. Our
structure should be designed cognizant to these problems, and then
pass the test, but not be designed *specifically* to pass the test.
And the designer idea seems pretty hyper-optimised just for the test.

> ___
> 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] Are we too rigid?

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hey Yuri,

[Responding offlist because I'm linking to officewiki]

Le jeudi 25 février 2016, 01:38:31 Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
> 
> In a sense, the barrier of entry for the person in the "weakest position"
> would not be as high for the "doer" as for the "inspirer". So I think the
> real challenge is how do we capture and evaluate those ideas from the
> second group?

One possible mechanism is the Business case: 
https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Business_case

And also from https://office.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rebuilding#Agency : 
"If we want to start a new project or make a big change, we can make a case 
for it and argue its merits to the group."

-- 
Guillaume Paumier

___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Oliver, thanks!

> In other words, the litmus test for me is: what happens when the socially
and politically weakest person in the organisation has an idea?

If we speak of a "product" idea, we have two groups of people - those who
can implement the idea, and those who would need to convince others to do
it.  They use fundamentally different, scarcely overlapping skill-sets. An
engineer might go via the "hackathon + demo" route, implementing something
simple and showing it to gain traction. A non-engineer would start with the
social aspect first - talking to others if the idea is worth pursuing, how
hard is it to do, and eventually - convincing others to allocate their
time/resources to do it. Sometimes an engineer may go the social route
instead, but it would be very hard for a non-engineer to engage in
development. Lastly, the "designer" group has an amazing skill-set to
visually present their full vision rather than the demo, thus often having
easier time of conveying their thoughts.

In a sense, the barrier of entry for the person in the "weakest position"
would not be as high for the "doer" as for the "inspirer". So I think the
real challenge is how do we capture and evaluate those ideas from the
second group? Also, no matter how hard we try, it would be either very
hard, or very expensive (and not just financially) to force the
implementers to do an idea they do not believe in. So in a sense, doers
need to be persuaded first and foremost.

As with any explanation, a picture == 1000 words, so we could promote "idea
visualizers" - designers who are easily approachable and could help to draw
up a few sketches of the idea.
___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Dan Andreescu]

Now, I agree with Oliver's points but I disagree they apply to the entire
organization, and I have proof.  I also objectively think there's much more
reason for optimism than pessimism.  I'm open to being proven wrong or told
that I have an Authority Voice and I just don't understand, I really am, I
think if someone like me who's thought about this extensively doesn't get
it we have a real problem and my optimism should check its privilege.

*how we treat people, **what empathy we have, and* *how we value empathy*.
Disclosure: I was treated very poorly in my past work life.  I was forced
to work an average of 70 hours per week for 32 months, without overtime for
most of it, and was denied any vacation during that time (a superior
punched me in the chest at one particular low point).  In a different
situation I had to organize a strike to obtain overtime payment for my 30+
hours and my friend's 50+ hours of *continuous* work with *no sleep*.  My
point is, when I got this opportunity to work at WMF, I was extremely clear
that I was looking for a place where I was treated decently.  My first few
months here were rocky, I got unknowingly tangled up in some political
struggles.  But over time, I'm really proud of what my team has
accomplished and the fun, empathetic, distributed, and fair way we run
things.  We take turns presenting at quarterly reviews, try to achieve
consensus, consider each others' welfare, it's really great.  So I'm trying
to say that we're proof it's possible to have this kind of environment at
WMF.  I admit I've never thought about this beyond the now comfortable
walls of my team, but I am really deeply sad now that I have poked my head
outside.  The fact that so many people I feel really close to are
leaving... it just feels like a big opportunity lost.  We could have made
this place amazing to work at, together.  Instead we seem to be conquered
individually by enemies that some of us have defeated.

how we pay attention to *organisational hiring*.  We're bad at this.  We
get lucky sometimes, and sometimes we get lucky to hire *amazing* people
like Nuria who really know what they're doing and help us hire well.  So we
need to get better, and we do that by paying really close attention to
those who obviously know better.

*how we promote*.  I'm against promotions personally, I don't want or need
the recognition, power, or change in work type.  But some people do, and I
don't for the *life* of me understand why this is such a taboo touchy scary
topic full of drama and elevated emotion.  My 2c: if you want a promotion -
make a case for it.  Say, I've been here for this and this time, I feel
like I add this and this value, if I was promoted, I feel like this would
align better with my opinion of myself and the value I provide while also
benefiting the organization in such and such way.  You'll get public
support if the argument makes sense, and you'll get private hopefully
sensitive messages if not.  And, if you get something else, like
intimidation, pain, reprimand, etc. then I *personally* have your back.
And I'll call on the many friends I have that share my feelings on this.
There's a way to be appropriate, transparent, and fair here.  And a way to
drown out biased voices through the wisdom of our especially wise crowd.
Use that, don't fight your battles in silence and complain about the
results of problems that the rest of us don't even have a chance to help
with.

Full disclosure, Oliver, I spoke up on your behalf several times, and I
thought you received fairer treatment as a result, but I now consider
myself an idiot because we should have had this conversation in the open.
It's sad to lose you, but I'm very happy for you and your next adventures,
and thankful for this last gift you give us, the opportunity to have this
conversation.





On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Andrew Bogott 
wrote:

> Thanks for this email, Oliver, it's fantastic!  Since I'm one of the
> people who says 'flat' and 'flatter' a lot, I feel compelled to respond,
> though I run the risk of painting an already-perfect lily.
>
> One of the first essays we read in the Flat Org group was 'The Tyranny of
> Structurelessness'[1] which makes a similar point to Oliver's, and I think
> it's one that everyone is wise to remember. The question that I seek an
> answer to is not "How can we smash hierarchy?"  It is, rather,  "How can an
> institution be less reliant on the competence and benevolence of a small
> number of people, and less vulnerable to malice or incompetence on the part
> of a small number of people?"  In my experience, traditional top-down
> management systems are highly vulnerable because they're great at
> magnifying whims and mistakes.
>
> I'm pretty sure that it's possible to have structure without having a
> rigid power-based hierarchy.  To some extent, that's what democracy is, or
> at least what it seeks to be.  It's definitely what Wikipedia seeks to be.
> I hope that 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

[Michał Buczyński]

Dnia 24 lutego 2016 18:47 Milos Rancic  napisał(a):

> Good to know that I am not the only not abducted one.
> 
> Maybe Lydia is not abducted because she is not subscribed on this list?
> 
> We should make the plan now how to search for others. Any idea?
> 
> Milos

I am not sure but it does sound like a thing for the Search and Discovery
Team! 

Best Regards and Stay Happy,
michał.

___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation report, July-September 2015

[Gregory Varnum]

Hi Nathan,

These reports are indeed still being released. However, I do want to note that 
Communications is taking the lead this time, and Tilman has provided a lot of 
helpful guidance to support that transition.

Generally, we are aiming to release them about a month after the quarterly 
review meetings (which are available on Meta-Wiki: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
 
).
 The Quarterly Report itself is basically a collection of the Key Performance 
Indicators (KPIs) from those meetings, and some additional statistical data 
(generally available on many metrics dashboards).

I am currently taking lead on compiling the report, and we plan to have the 
report on-wiki very soon. We are continuing to consider feedback from the 
community and staff on ways to improve both the process, quarterly reviews, and 
quarterly reports. I apologize for not sending out an update sooner, but will 
be sure to keep this list more informed of the process moving forward.

-greg

-- 
Gregory Varnum
Communications Strategist (Contractor)
Wikimedia Foundation 
gvar...@wikimedia.org 



> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:59 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> 
> Tilman, are these quarterly reports no longer being released?
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> please find the Wikimedia Foundation's report for the first quarter of
>> this fiscal year at
>> 
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q1_(July-September).pdf
>> .
>> 
>> Quoting below the foreword by Terry:
>> 
>> We are pleased to bring you the Wikimedia Foundation’s Quarterly
>> Report for Q1 of the 2015/16 fiscal year, a comprehensive summary of
>> how we did on the objectives defined earlier in our quarterly goal
>> setting process. We are continuing to optimize the report’s format and
>> the organization’s quarterly review process based on the feedback that
>> we have received.
>> 
>> This issue includes some new pieces of information and a few format
>> changes. Teams have been starting to highlight one key performance
>> indicator (KPI) each - with ongoing efforts to identify the best
>> possible metrics - and to estimate how much time fell into each of the
>> three categories from the 2015 Call to Action (strengthen, focus and
>> experiment). We have reorganized the content to present all the
>> information that is related to a particular objective in one place
>> (description of the goal, measures of success, how we did on achieving
>> the objective, and what we learned from working on it), and changed
>> these slides to a cleaner, more effective layout.
>> 
>> As before, we are including an overview slide summarizing successes
>> and misses across all teams. In a mature 90-day goal setting process,
>> the “sweet spot” is for about 75% of goals to be a success.
>> Organizations that are meeting 100% of their goals are not typically
>> setting aggressive goals.
>> 
>> Terry Gilbey, Chief Operating Officer
>> 
>> --
>> A wiki version should become available on Meta-wiki tomorrow, and we
>> will also announce the report in a blog post.
>> 
>> --
>> Tilman Bayer
>> Senior Analyst
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>> 
>> ___
>> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
>> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
>> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> ___
>> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
>> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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] Anybody alive?

[വിശ്വപ്രഭ]

Think of those lame sheep like me, who just lurk and watch without making
adding a noise of themselves at all. It makes us too feel eerie when the
list suddenly goes mute...
-Viswam



On 25 February 2016 at 02:53, David Gerard  wrote:

> I've just been standing back at a safe distance and watching the
> current disaster with an "ooh, ouch" expression on my face. Still,
> editing Wikipedia is less triggering than editing RationalWiki.
>
> I was only actually shocked at Oliver's resignation.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Anybody alive?

[David Gerard]

I've just been standing back at a safe distance and watching the
current disaster with an "ooh, ouch" expression on my face. Still,
editing Wikipedia is less triggering than editing RationalWiki.

I was only actually shocked at Oliver's resignation.


- d.

___
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] Anybody alive?

[Austin Hair]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> OK. There are seven of us (six in this thread and Kevin in the other one).
>
> We need just the rest ~1000 to find.
>
> I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we
> could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin?
> TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)?

I can promise that nobody's abduction flag has been set. (But I admit
that I had to double-check.)

Austin

___
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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[David Gerard]

On 22 February 2016 at 03:49, Risker  wrote:

> I can think of Echo/Notifications which, despite some rather minor
> grumblings and need for a few tweaks at the beginning, has been fully
> embraced by the community.  It's not entirely perfect for all use cases,
> but it is so much better than anything we had before.  It's become so
> natural to ping someone with {{u|username here}} that I can barely remember
> a time when it wasn't the norm.



And users of other MediaWikis now expect it. (Coming soon to
RationalWiki! Probably.)


- d.

___
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation report, July-September 2015

[Nathan]

Tilman, are these quarterly reports no longer being released?

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> please find the Wikimedia Foundation's report for the first quarter of
> this fiscal year at
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q1_(July-September).pdf
> .
>
> Quoting below the foreword by Terry:
>
> We are pleased to bring you the Wikimedia Foundation’s Quarterly
> Report for Q1 of the 2015/16 fiscal year, a comprehensive summary of
> how we did on the objectives defined earlier in our quarterly goal
> setting process. We are continuing to optimize the report’s format and
> the organization’s quarterly review process based on the feedback that
> we have received.
>
> This issue includes some new pieces of information and a few format
> changes. Teams have been starting to highlight one key performance
> indicator (KPI) each - with ongoing efforts to identify the best
> possible metrics - and to estimate how much time fell into each of the
> three categories from the 2015 Call to Action (strengthen, focus and
> experiment). We have reorganized the content to present all the
> information that is related to a particular objective in one place
> (description of the goal, measures of success, how we did on achieving
> the objective, and what we learned from working on it), and changed
> these slides to a cleaner, more effective layout.
>
> As before, we are including an overview slide summarizing successes
> and misses across all teams. In a mature 90-day goal setting process,
> the “sweet spot” is for about 75% of goals to be a success.
> Organizations that are meeting 100% of their goals are not typically
> setting aggressive goals.
>
> Terry Gilbey, Chief Operating Officer
>
> --
> A wiki version should become available on Meta-wiki tomorrow, and we
> will also announce the report in a blog post.
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-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] Post mortems (second attempt)

[Pete Forsyth]

Anthony,

I see in this discussion we're conflating two things which, in my view are
entirely different (though they have common themes). I should have made
this distinction clearer from the outset:
1. A general debrief of the factors that led to the current crisis. This is
what I think you are discussing; and I agree, it's very important, and it
would ideally be conducted with somebody other than WMF in the driver's
seat.
2. A general practice of debriefing significant projects. I consider
organizational learning to be the primary benefit of this (so that mistakes
are repeated less often, and practices improve); so whether it attracts any
non-staff's attention is not of central importance in my view. But it *is*
very important that it include reflection from high in the org chart (which
was the case with the Belfer Center debrief, but not with the Media Viewer
debrief).

#2 is the one I had in mind for this particular thread, but #1 is very
important too.

Thank you for the kind words about my participation in #1. I do think,
generally, people with a good understanding of Wikimedia's history and
values, but without recent organizational ties, should be included. Whether
or not I'm right for the task, I'll leave aside for the moment.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Pete, I love this review committee idea. My concern is about who drives it.
> Provided it's driven by intelligent, skeptical volunteers (along the lines
> of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I
> wouldn't bother reading their reports.
>
> If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start.
>
> On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Anthony,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this. It's a very interesting, highly detailed
> > exposition of the history of Flow, and its predecessor, LiquidThreads.
> (And
> > some interesting points I hadn't been aware of, such as Hassar's efforts
> > dating back to 2004 to improve talk pages.) At least on a quick read, it
> > aligns well with what I know.
> >
> > I want to reiterate, though, the significance of the organization itself
> > publishing, and engaging with/incorporating feedback on, reports like
> this.
> > Scott Martin's piece appears to have value to whoever happens to read it;
> > but a post-mortem by the organization will tend to attract the input of
> all
> > significant stakeholder groups, and will command the attention of those
> > doing the work in the future.
> >
> > What I think is most valuable is the *learning process*, not merely the
> > *collection of factual/historical information*. The latter is valuable,
> of
> > course; but the learning is the key to an organization getting better at
> > what it does over time.
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Cole  > > wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong link. It's here.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/08/the-dream-that-died-erik-moller-and-the-wmfs-decade-long-struggle-for-the-perfect-discussion-system/
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Anthony Cole  > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > This time last year, Scott Martin wrote up a history on
> Wikipediocracy
> > > > that seems to cover most of the milestones.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth  > 
> > > >  ');>>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Brandon and Sarah:
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm going to resist the urge to delve into the specifics of Flow
> here,
> > > as
> > > >> I'd really like to stay on the topic of whether post-mortems on
> > divisive
> > > >> issues are valuable, and how they should be approached.
> > > >>
> > > >> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and
> what
> > > >> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and
> > > Flow,
> > > >> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do
> > you
> > > >> disagree? What kinds of approaches do you think might help the
> > > >> organization
> > > >> and the community learn the best lessons from past efforts, avoid
> > > >> repeating
> > > >> mistakes, and find ever more effective ways to engage with each
> other?
> > > >>
> > > >> -Pete
> > > >> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:42 PM, SarahSV  > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> > petefors...@gmail.com >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down,
> > but
> > > >> > > embraced?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What would 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

[alexhinojo]

· · · – – – · · ·

Mobile sent

El 24 febr 2016, a les 20:52, Thyge  va escriure:
> I think the rest is on FB.
> 
> Thyge
> 
> 2016-02-24 20:10 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon :
> 
>> I got distracted by a passing sheep.
>> 
>> Seddon
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Richard Symonds <
>> richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet using my wife's laptop.
>>> 
>>> Richard Symonds
>>> Wikimedia UK
>>> 0207 065 0992
>>> 
>>> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
>>> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
>>> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
>> 4LT.
>>> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
>>> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
>>> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>>> 
>>> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
>>> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
>>> 
>>> On 24 February 2016 at 18:20, Thehelpfulone >> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
> On 24 February 2016 at 18:18, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> 
> I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we
> could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin?
> TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)?
 
 *waves*, it's actually closer to ~1500, so a few more to find.
 
 --
 Thehelpfulone
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
 ___
 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,
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Seddon
>> 
>> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
>> *Wikimedia Foundation*
>> ___
>> 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] Are we too rigid?

[Anna Stillwell]

+1 to Jake.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Jake Orlowitz  wrote:

> Oliver wrote:
>
> "The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat
> structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like
> this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or titles have as
> much of an impact on dynamics as we think they do. What *does* have an
> impact is how we recognise the value of emotional labour, how we
> recognise our implicit biases and advantages, and how honest we are
> with each other: not just in terms of what we *say* but in terms of
> how we *listen*. In other words, the litmus test for me is: what
> happens when the socially and politically weakest person in the
> organisation has an idea?"
>
> ---
>
> My thoughts:
>
> It was always clear that Oliver was a genius, both analytically and
> sardonically superior to most of us.  We always had a leg up on him
> though, because he said some wacky and reckless things as a young lad
> as part of his relentless diatribes.
>
> It has been an enormous privilege to watch him turn into a genius of
> culture and people as well.  To see someone so smart apply the same
> rigor and ferocious focus to thinking about an entire systems (rather
> than only where they fit in it) and all of its links (especially those
> weakest or most vulnerable), is just phenomenal.
>
> It also makes me sad, because we've lost him.  His only kindness was
> leaving just as he was clearly going to surpass us all in both
> intelligence and humanity.
>
> Bye Oliver.  Keep your head way up.
>
> -Jake Orlowitz (Ocaasi)
> ___
> 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,
> 




-- 
Anna Stillwell
Major Gifts Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org *
___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Andrew Bogott]

Thanks for this email, Oliver, it's fantastic!  Since I'm one of the 
people who says 'flat' and 'flatter' a lot, I feel compelled to respond, 
though I run the risk of painting an already-perfect lily.


One of the first essays we read in the Flat Org group was 'The Tyranny 
of Structurelessness'[1] which makes a similar point to Oliver's, and I 
think it's one that everyone is wise to remember. The question that I 
seek an answer to is not "How can we smash hierarchy?"  It is, rather,  
"How can an institution be less reliant on the competence and 
benevolence of a small number of people, and less vulnerable to malice 
or incompetence on the part of a small number of people?"  In my 
experience, traditional top-down management systems are highly 
vulnerable because they're great at magnifying whims and mistakes.


I'm pretty sure that it's possible to have structure without having a 
rigid power-based hierarchy.  To some extent, that's what democracy is, 
or at least what it seeks to be.  It's definitely what Wikipedia seeks 
to be.  I hope that someday the WMF joins Wikipedia and the other 
projects in their weird adventure of 
anarchist/collectivist/self-organizing weirdness.  Not because I want 
the Foundation to be governed more like Wikipedia, but because I want 
Wikipedia _and_ the Foundation to be governed better, and I think there 
are lessons we can learn together.


-Andrew
(Top-posting to prevent scroll-wheel-related RSI)


[1]  http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm



On 2/24/16 12:34 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:

I would like to clarify a fairly major premise of this conversation:
namely, the comment I made that Yuri quoted in the very first message.

When I say that the hierarchical organisation of the Foundation is
something that is preventing us from doing better, I was not thinking
of how we develop software. Indeed, I suspect that peoples' tendency
to bring things constantly back to "does it improve the measurable
speed at which we right code" is symptomatic of the problematic
dynamics here. What I was thinking about was how we pay attention to
organisational hiring, to how we promote, to how we treat people, what
empathy we have and how we value empathy.

I have consistently found the Foundation to lag in all of these
regards. It is not good at making sure that the recognition of
employees is fair and treated equitably (be that who gets called out
in presentations, who gets given opportunities, or who gets raises).
It is not good at making sure that how we hire is fair. It is not good
at making sure that concerns of employees are given weight. All too
often the people marginalised by our approaches are the people
marginalised outside the Foundation, as well; women, people in
"non-technical" roles, people in roles that we code as "support work"
(and guess what tends to correlate with a role being coded as support
work?) All too often the work marginalised by our approaches is the
work that Doesn't Product Code (again: guess who tends to do the heavy
lifting on things like organisational health and process and
structure?)

As an organisation I have found the Foundation overly rigid and
resistant to the most conservative change around these problems;
particularly I think of efforts to improve unintentional bias in our
job descriptions. Basically, unless you as an employee go out and do
the damn work yourself, for free, with 0 recognition of the emotional
and temporal cost of that work, it doesn't get done. The organisation
as a whole is not interested.

Switching to a flat organisational structure does not, in any way,
solve for this problem. In fact, in some way it makes it worse,
because it makes us *think* that we have solved for the systemic and
hierarchical power dynamics that make it difficult for low-level or
marginalised people to get things done, or people doing marginalised
work to get things done, when we have only shifted them.

To pick on someone, I pick Trevor (sorry Trevor. For reference this is
an entirely hypothetical example and Trevor is lovely): Trevor's voice
is given a lot more weight in the organisation than mine. Trevor has a
lot more influence than I do. Trevor has a lot more influence than
most WMFers do!

Crucially: this *isn't because he's management*. This was the case
even *before* he was management. Because:

1. He's been here a really really long time and so knows everyone.
2. He's an Engineer, and we give engineers more weight and cachet than
we do, say, administrative staff or people in "support" roles, even
though those people are both as-smart and have an equal interest in
the organisation's success;
3. His background matches what we strongly correlate with Authority Voices.

If we switch to a flat organisational structure where nobody has a
title, or..whatever, all of these things will still be true. We will
switch pronounce systemic biases or uneven power dynamics Done, and we
will have achieved something that's actually worse than not doing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] One Last Ride

[Gordon Joly]

On 24/02/16 01:32, James Forrester wrote:
> 
> It's been a while
>  since
> we first met in person. I even followed you across the world to work in San
> Francisco! Don't think you can get away from our friendship that easily! 

I remember it well, in particular the early start time, with a chance
for both breakfast and lunch!

Gordo


___
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] Anybody alive?

[Thyge]

I think the rest is on FB.

Thyge

2016-02-24 20:10 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon :

> I got distracted by a passing sheep.
>
> Seddon
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Richard Symonds <
> richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet using my wife's laptop.
> >
> > Richard Symonds
> > Wikimedia UK
> > 0207 065 0992
> >
> > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
> 4LT.
> > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> >
> > *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> > over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> >
> > On 24 February 2016 at 18:20, Thehelpfulone  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 24 February 2016 at 18:18, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we
> > > > could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin?
> > > > TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)?
> > > >
> > >
> > > *waves*, it's actually closer to ~1500, so a few more to find.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thehelpfulone
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
> *Wikimedia Foundation*
> ___
> 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] Are we too rigid?

[phoebe ayers]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:


. What I was thinking about was how we pay attention to
> organisational hiring, to how we promote, to how we treat people, what
> empathy we have and how we value empathy.
>
> I have consistently found the Foundation to lag in all of these
> regards. It is not good at making sure that the recognition of
> employees is fair and treated equitably (be that who gets called out
> in presentations, who gets given opportunities, or who gets raises).
> It is not good at making sure that how we hire is fair. It is not good
> at making sure that concerns of employees are given weight. All too
> often the people marginalised by our approaches are the people
> marginalised outside the Foundation, as well; women, people in
> "non-technical" roles, people in roles that we code as "support work"
> (and guess what tends to correlate with a role being coded as support
> work?) All too often the work marginalised by our approaches is the
> work that Doesn't Product Code (again: guess who tends to do the heavy
> lifting on things like organisational health and process and
> structure?)

This is an important thing to say and an important lens to look at the
organization through; thank you for saying it, and thank you for being
specific.

How can an organization turn itself around?
Many of you know I changed jobs last year, to be at MIT Libraries.
There's a lot of good things about this, but one good thing is that
the head of the library is remarkable, and thinks a lot about how to
make equity and diversity an actionable part of our daily work.

One of the first things she did was to add a section to our
performance review forms (which also include sections for goals, etc)
to include a section called:
"Demonstration of organizational values of diversity and inclusivity–
Note participation in formal and informal activities and demonstrated
behaviors that enhance these values (past year, ongoing and planned)."

She also added a similar category to our staff awards process. She
invited two line staff on a semi-annual rotation to join the
leadership group (our equivalent of the C-levels). Then she did the
same thing for a big formal strategy process. Then we sponsored an
outside organization that supports underrepresented librarians. Now,
because she's set a tone, rhetoric in meetings and among all levels of
staff is similar.

None of this is perfect or earthshaking, and I suspect there are a lot
of ideas yet to come. But what she's taught me, in the few months that
I've been here, is that an organization can address systemic and
societal problems through concrete actions without a lot of drama.

 In other words, the litmus test for me is: what
> happens when the socially and politically weakest person in the
> organisation has an idea?

A question that we sometimes talk about for the community, too (and is
sometimes framed as what ways can a person develop a positive
reputation sufficient enough to make a change); not unrelated to the
question of how we treat smaller projects too.

best,
Phoebe

___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Nathan]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Jake Orlowitz  wrote:

> Oliver wrote:
>
> "The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat
> structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like
> this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or titles have as
> much of an impact on dynamics as we think they do. What *does* have an
> impact is how we recognise the value of emotional labour, how we
> recognise our implicit biases and advantages, and how honest we are
> with each other: not just in terms of what we *say* but in terms of
> how we *listen*. In other words, the litmus test for me is: what
> happens when the socially and politically weakest person in the
> organisation has an idea?"
>
> ---
>
> My thoughts:
>
> It was always clear that Oliver was a genius, both analytically and
> sardonically superior to most of us.  We always had a leg up on him
> though, because he said some wacky and reckless things as a young lad
> as part of his relentless diatribes.
>
> It has been an enormous privilege to watch him turn into a genius of
> culture and people as well.  To see someone so smart apply the same
> rigor and ferocious focus to thinking about an entire systems (rather
> than only where they fit in it) and all of its links (especially those
> weakest or most vulnerable), is just phenomenal.
>
> It also makes me sad, because we've lost him.  His only kindness was
> leaving just as he was clearly going to surpass us all in both
> intelligence and humanity.
>
> Bye Oliver.  Keep your head way up.
>
> -Jake Orlowitz (Ocaasi)
> ___


How will he keep his head up now that you have made it so large and heavy?
;-)

But I agree - though we haven't interacted much, and only years ago, I have
always observed him to have an incisive and insightful mind. It sounds like
the projects will continue to benefit from his presence, so I'm happy to
hear that. Who knows what else the future holds? Maybe in ten years he will
successfully interview for the role of WMF ED.
___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Jake Orlowitz]

Oliver wrote:

"The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat
structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like
this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or titles have as
much of an impact on dynamics as we think they do. What *does* have an
impact is how we recognise the value of emotional labour, how we
recognise our implicit biases and advantages, and how honest we are
with each other: not just in terms of what we *say* but in terms of
how we *listen*. In other words, the litmus test for me is: what
happens when the socially and politically weakest person in the
organisation has an idea?"

---

My thoughts:

It was always clear that Oliver was a genius, both analytically and
sardonically superior to most of us.  We always had a leg up on him
though, because he said some wacky and reckless things as a young lad
as part of his relentless diatribes.

It has been an enormous privilege to watch him turn into a genius of
culture and people as well.  To see someone so smart apply the same
rigor and ferocious focus to thinking about an entire systems (rather
than only where they fit in it) and all of its links (especially those
weakest or most vulnerable), is just phenomenal.

It also makes me sad, because we've lost him.  His only kindness was
leaving just as he was clearly going to surpass us all in both
intelligence and humanity.

Bye Oliver.  Keep your head way up.

-Jake Orlowitz (Ocaasi)
___
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] Are we too rigid?

[Brion Vibber]

I just want to call out Oliver's post here as extremely valuable, and this
bears repeating:

A "flat" org structure is not a panacea when you don't have a level playing
field, and the playing field's never as level as we like to think it is.

Google up some discussions on the subject of 'meritocracy' and you'll find
talk about all kinds of inequalities in the power dynamics in
free/open-source software and similar online cultures, as well as many
engineering/"high-tech" organizations in general. I won't go into more here
now, but I think it's something we need to seriously think more about,
especially since we're at the intersection of many different cultures.

-- brion



On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> I would like to clarify a fairly major premise of this conversation:
> namely, the comment I made that Yuri quoted in the very first message.
>
> When I say that the hierarchical organisation of the Foundation is
> something that is preventing us from doing better, I was not thinking
> of how we develop software. Indeed, I suspect that peoples' tendency
> to bring things constantly back to "does it improve the measurable
> speed at which we right code" is symptomatic of the problematic
> dynamics here. What I was thinking about was how we pay attention to
> organisational hiring, to how we promote, to how we treat people, what
> empathy we have and how we value empathy.
>
> I have consistently found the Foundation to lag in all of these
> regards. It is not good at making sure that the recognition of
> employees is fair and treated equitably (be that who gets called out
> in presentations, who gets given opportunities, or who gets raises).
> It is not good at making sure that how we hire is fair. It is not good
> at making sure that concerns of employees are given weight. All too
> often the people marginalised by our approaches are the people
> marginalised outside the Foundation, as well; women, people in
> "non-technical" roles, people in roles that we code as "support work"
> (and guess what tends to correlate with a role being coded as support
> work?) All too often the work marginalised by our approaches is the
> work that Doesn't Product Code (again: guess who tends to do the heavy
> lifting on things like organisational health and process and
> structure?)
>
> As an organisation I have found the Foundation overly rigid and
> resistant to the most conservative change around these problems;
> particularly I think of efforts to improve unintentional bias in our
> job descriptions. Basically, unless you as an employee go out and do
> the damn work yourself, for free, with 0 recognition of the emotional
> and temporal cost of that work, it doesn't get done. The organisation
> as a whole is not interested.
>
> Switching to a flat organisational structure does not, in any way,
> solve for this problem. In fact, in some way it makes it worse,
> because it makes us *think* that we have solved for the systemic and
> hierarchical power dynamics that make it difficult for low-level or
> marginalised people to get things done, or people doing marginalised
> work to get things done, when we have only shifted them.
>
> To pick on someone, I pick Trevor (sorry Trevor. For reference this is
> an entirely hypothetical example and Trevor is lovely): Trevor's voice
> is given a lot more weight in the organisation than mine. Trevor has a
> lot more influence than I do. Trevor has a lot more influence than
> most WMFers do!
>
> Crucially: this *isn't because he's management*. This was the case
> even *before* he was management. Because:
>
> 1. He's been here a really really long time and so knows everyone.
> 2. He's an Engineer, and we give engineers more weight and cachet than
> we do, say, administrative staff or people in "support" roles, even
> though those people are both as-smart and have an equal interest in
> the organisation's success;
> 3. His background matches what we strongly correlate with Authority Voices.
>
> If we switch to a flat organisational structure where nobody has a
> title, or..whatever, all of these things will still be true. We will
> switch pronounce systemic biases or uneven power dynamics Done, and we
> will have achieved something that's actually worse than not doing
> anything at all. Because now, we still *have* all those problems, we
> just think we're done and don't have to put any work in and can't talk
> about it, and nobody has the responsibility for continuing to fix
> things.
>
> The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat
> structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like
> this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or titles have as
> much of an impact on dynamics as we think they do. What *does* have an
> impact is how we recognise the value of emotional labour, how we
> recognise our implicit biases and advantages, and how honest we are
> with each other: not just in terms of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

[Joseph Seddon]

I got distracted by a passing sheep.

Seddon

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Richard Symonds <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet using my wife's laptop.
>
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
>
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
>
> On 24 February 2016 at 18:20, Thehelpfulone 
> wrote:
>
> > On 24 February 2016 at 18:18, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> >
> > > I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we
> > > could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin?
> > > TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)?
> > >
> >
> > *waves*, it's actually closer to ~1500, so a few more to find.
> >
> > --
> > Thehelpfulone
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
Seddon

*Advancement Associate (Community Engagement)*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
___
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] Anybody alive?

[George Herbert]

I am nöt at WMF HQ but häve line öf sight to töp of building ånd nö UFÖ there 
nöw nösiree.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 10:55 AM, George Herbert  wrote:
> 
> 
> There åre nö pröblems in Sän Fränciscö.
> 
> We äre åll fine.
> 
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Richard Symonds 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet using my wife's laptop.
>> 
>> Richard Symonds
>> Wikimedia UK
>> 0207 065 0992
>> 
>> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
>> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
>> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
>> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
>> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
>> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
>> 
>> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
>> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
>> 
>> On 24 February 2016 at 18:20, Thehelpfulone 
>> wrote:
>> 
 On 24 February 2016 at 18:18, Milos Rancic  wrote:
 
 I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we
 could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin?
 TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)?
>>> 
>>> *waves*, it's actually closer to ~1500, so a few more to find.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Thehelpfulone
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
>>> ___
>>> 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] Anybody alive?

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:

> o/
>

​I'm actually still here in both a personal and a professional capacity.

Do I count as two? Yes I do.​


-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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] Anybody alive?

[Keegan Peterzell]

o/

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] Anybody alive?

[George Herbert]

There åre nö pröblems in Sän Fränciscö.

We äre åll fine.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Richard Symonds 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet using my wife's laptop.
> 
> Richard Symonds
> Wikimedia UK
> 0207 065 0992
> 
> Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
> Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
> Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
> United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
> movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
> operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
> 
> *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
> over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
> 
> On 24 February 2016 at 18:20, Thehelpfulone 
> wrote:
> 
>>> On 24 February 2016 at 18:18, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we
>>> could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin?
>>> TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)?
>> 
>> *waves*, it's actually closer to ~1500, so a few more to find.
>> 
>> --
>> Thehelpfulone
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
>> ___
>> 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] Anybody alive?

[Richard Symonds]

I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet using my wife's laptop.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 24 February 2016 at 18:20, Thehelpfulone 
wrote:

> On 24 February 2016 at 18:18, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we
> > could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin?
> > TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)?
> >
>
> *waves*, it's actually closer to ~1500, so a few more to find.
>
> --
> Thehelpfulone
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> ___
> 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] Are we too rigid?

[Oliver Keyes]

I would like to clarify a fairly major premise of this conversation:
namely, the comment I made that Yuri quoted in the very first message.

When I say that the hierarchical organisation of the Foundation is
something that is preventing us from doing better, I was not thinking
of how we develop software. Indeed, I suspect that peoples' tendency
to bring things constantly back to "does it improve the measurable
speed at which we right code" is symptomatic of the problematic
dynamics here. What I was thinking about was how we pay attention to
organisational hiring, to how we promote, to how we treat people, what
empathy we have and how we value empathy.

I have consistently found the Foundation to lag in all of these
regards. It is not good at making sure that the recognition of
employees is fair and treated equitably (be that who gets called out
in presentations, who gets given opportunities, or who gets raises).
It is not good at making sure that how we hire is fair. It is not good
at making sure that concerns of employees are given weight. All too
often the people marginalised by our approaches are the people
marginalised outside the Foundation, as well; women, people in
"non-technical" roles, people in roles that we code as "support work"
(and guess what tends to correlate with a role being coded as support
work?) All too often the work marginalised by our approaches is the
work that Doesn't Product Code (again: guess who tends to do the heavy
lifting on things like organisational health and process and
structure?)

As an organisation I have found the Foundation overly rigid and
resistant to the most conservative change around these problems;
particularly I think of efforts to improve unintentional bias in our
job descriptions. Basically, unless you as an employee go out and do
the damn work yourself, for free, with 0 recognition of the emotional
and temporal cost of that work, it doesn't get done. The organisation
as a whole is not interested.

Switching to a flat organisational structure does not, in any way,
solve for this problem. In fact, in some way it makes it worse,
because it makes us *think* that we have solved for the systemic and
hierarchical power dynamics that make it difficult for low-level or
marginalised people to get things done, or people doing marginalised
work to get things done, when we have only shifted them.

To pick on someone, I pick Trevor (sorry Trevor. For reference this is
an entirely hypothetical example and Trevor is lovely): Trevor's voice
is given a lot more weight in the organisation than mine. Trevor has a
lot more influence than I do. Trevor has a lot more influence than
most WMFers do!

Crucially: this *isn't because he's management*. This was the case
even *before* he was management. Because:

1. He's been here a really really long time and so knows everyone.
2. He's an Engineer, and we give engineers more weight and cachet than
we do, say, administrative staff or people in "support" roles, even
though those people are both as-smart and have an equal interest in
the organisation's success;
3. His background matches what we strongly correlate with Authority Voices.

If we switch to a flat organisational structure where nobody has a
title, or..whatever, all of these things will still be true. We will
switch pronounce systemic biases or uneven power dynamics Done, and we
will have achieved something that's actually worse than not doing
anything at all. Because now, we still *have* all those problems, we
just think we're done and don't have to put any work in and can't talk
about it, and nobody has the responsibility for continuing to fix
things.

The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat
structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like
this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or titles have as
much of an impact on dynamics as we think they do. What *does* have an
impact is how we recognise the value of emotional labour, how we
recognise our implicit biases and advantages, and how honest we are
with each other: not just in terms of what we *say* but in terms of
how we *listen*. In other words, the litmus test for me is: what
happens when the socially and politically weakest person in the
organisation has an idea?

Anyway; I don't particularly want to go into a long drawn-out
conversation, just correct the initial, fundamental misunderstanding.
Hopefully I've provided a bit of food for thought along with that.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Pau Giner  wrote:
>>
>> If I remember correctly, I think that's how the Content Translation project
>> started -- it was someone's personal project, which got more people and
>> attention because it's a great idea and showed real success.
>
>
> That is not accurate. I think Content Translation is a good example of
> bottom-up and design-driven project, though.
>
> The Language team identified that users frequently were asking for better
> support for 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

[Thehelpfulone]

On 24 February 2016 at 18:18, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we
> could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin?
> TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)?
>

*waves*, it's actually closer to ~1500, so a few more to find.

-- 
Thehelpfulone
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
___
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] Anybody alive?

[Milos Rancic]

OK. There are seven of us (six in this thread and Kevin in the other one).

We need just the rest ~1000 to find.

I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we
could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin?
TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)?


On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Joseph Fox  wrote:
> Y'know, maybe it's a good thing when this list is quiet. Saves my inbox
> some.
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 at 18:11 Lydia Pintscher 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:44 PM Yaroslav M. Blanter 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2016-02-24 18:39, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> > > 8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last
>> > > Wikimedian not abducted by aliens?
>> >
>> > No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last
>> > message on the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago.
>> >
>> > (May be she is abducted by the aliens though, I do not know).
>> >
>>
>> Haha
>> No, I did grow up watching a lot of the X-Files and have spent a few hours
>> over the past weeks watching the new episodes but so far I have not been
>> abducted by aliens. I think! Hmmm.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lydia
>> --
>> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
>> Product Manager for Wikidata
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
>> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
>> 10963 Berlin
>> www.wikimedia.de
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
>>
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
>> der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
>> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>> ___
>> 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, 
> 



-- 
Milos

___
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] Anybody alive?

[Joseph Fox]

Y'know, maybe it's a good thing when this list is quiet. Saves my inbox
some.

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 at 18:11 Lydia Pintscher 
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:44 PM Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> wrote:
>
> > On 2016-02-24 18:39, Milos Rancic wrote:
> > > 8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last
> > > Wikimedian not abducted by aliens?
> >
> > No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last
> > message on the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago.
> >
> > (May be she is abducted by the aliens though, I do not know).
> >
>
> Haha
> No, I did grow up watching a lot of the X-Files and have spent a few hours
> over the past weeks watching the new episodes but so far I have not been
> abducted by aliens. I think! Hmmm.
>
>
> Cheers
> Lydia
> --
> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
> Product Manager for Wikidata
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
> 10963 Berlin
> www.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
>
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> ___
> 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] Anybody alive?

[Denny Vrandecic]

That's exactly what an abducted and then either brainwashed or replaced
Lydia would say. This is just getting increasingly suspicious by the minute.



On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Lydia Pintscher <
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:44 PM Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> wrote:
>
> > On 2016-02-24 18:39, Milos Rancic wrote:
> > > 8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last
> > > Wikimedian not abducted by aliens?
> >
> > No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last
> > message on the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago.
> >
> > (May be she is abducted by the aliens though, I do not know).
> >
>
> Haha
> No, I did grow up watching a lot of the X-Files and have spent a few hours
> over the past weeks watching the new episodes but so far I have not been
> abducted by aliens. I think! Hmmm.
>
>
> Cheers
> Lydia
> --
> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
> Product Manager for Wikidata
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
> 10963 Berlin
> www.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
>
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> ___
> 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] Anybody alive?

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:44 PM Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 2016-02-24 18:39, Milos Rancic wrote:
> > 8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last
> > Wikimedian not abducted by aliens?
>
> No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last
> message on the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago.
>
> (May be she is abducted by the aliens though, I do not know).
>

Haha
No, I did grow up watching a lot of the X-Files and have spent a few hours
over the past weeks watching the new episodes but so far I have not been
abducted by aliens. I think! Hmmm.


Cheers
Lydia
-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
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] Anybody alive?

[Leila Zia]

I'm still free and alive. :)
On Feb 24, 2016 9:40 AM, "Milos Rancic"  wrote:

> 8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last
> Wikimedian not abducted by aliens?
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> 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] Context around the KE

[Kevin Smith]

For what it's worth, In early October 2015, the Discovery department was
very clearly told by Wes (who I believe was not yet a c-level) that the
mysterious term "Knowledge Engine" was being deprecated, and that the
Discovery team was not working on any huge product-like initiative. The
team was to remain focused on the work they were already doing: improving
and enhancing search within and across wikimedia projects, Wikidata Query
Service, maps, portal improvements, etc.

It sounds like there were ongoing communication disconnects between
board<->execs and/or execs<->managers. The good news is that regardless of
what was happening at higher levels, the team was never pulled into any
work on moon shots.

For context, I was the agile coach for the search team in April 2015, and
then became the agile coach for the Discovery department when it was
created as part of the re-org shortly after that.



Kevin Smith
Agile Coach, Wikimedia Foundation


On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:04 AM, James Heilman  wrote:

> The project formally know as the Knowledge Engine was frequently referred
> to as a "moon shot" in November 2015 by a number of my fellow board
> members. This terminology I believe accurately highlighted the size,
> expense, and risk that this proposal was.
>
> How we have described the KE to our movement has been significantly
> different. All efforts appear to be to minimize what was proposed. And
> efforts to explain it at all have only occurred after greater community
> understanding became inevitable.
>
> I find it disappointing to see the ED and some board members try to deny
> and downplay the plans that previously existed. While the ED has recently
> apologized for the lack of transparency, this was brought to her attention
> many times before, and thus I am not convinced her apology will result in a
> change in her approach.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> 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] Anybody alive?

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-02-24 18:47, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter  
wrote:
No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last 
message on

the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago.

(May be she is abducted by the aliens though, I do not know).


Good to know that I am not the only not abducted one.

Maybe Lydia is not abducted because she is not subscribed on this list?

We should make the plan now how to search for others. Any idea?


I think she is subscribed, but may be aliens only let her post to the 
other ones.


For the plan, I guess we need to start with a map of regions where every 
single Wikimedian was abducted, and those where some Wikimedians 
survive. This one


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-World6.svg

would be a good start.

(Now I am going to be abducted myself, but I am sure they would let me 
go after half an hour).


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] Anybody alive?

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
> No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last message on
> the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago.
>
> (May be she is abducted by the aliens though, I do not know).

Good to know that I am not the only not abducted one.

Maybe Lydia is not abducted because she is not subscribed on this list?

We should make the plan now how to search for others. Any idea?

-- 
Milos

___
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] Anybody alive?

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-02-24 18:39, Milos Rancic wrote:

8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last
Wikimedian not abducted by aliens?


No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last 
message on the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago.


(May be she is abducted by the aliens though, I do not know).

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] Anybody alive?

[Milos Rancic]

8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last
Wikimedian not abducted by aliens?

-- 
Milos

___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Ramzy Muliawan]

>
> This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated
> Board, nor is a developing world-dominated.
>

"Nor is a developed world-dominated."

Sorry, my bad.
___
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] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Ramzy Muliawan]

Salam

Thank you for your feedback, Josh.

This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated Board,
nor is a developing world-dominated. A lack of diversity in current Board
composition is of course a discomforting reality while we have a immensely
growing and unimaginably potential community in the Global South.

But the key issue here is the total lack of proper representation for the
Global South community, or any possibility thereof.

The issue is not about developing vs developed, white or brown, but it is
about having a more proportional Board that would allow it to listen to a
more diverse range of opinion when deciding important issues. A
proportional Board I imagine here doesn't necessarily North-dominated,
neither South-dominated. Developing countries will not take this regional
seat for granted. They would still have same voting powers with their
at-large and affiliates counterparts. The goal we collectively want to
reach here is a balanced and adequately representative Board that can voice
concerns of the global community, so a fairer and more diverse important
consensus could be reached.

Under this plan, anybody can bid and win the at-large Board seat. If you're
afraid that the electorate will eventually elect five at-large Trustees
from Northern Hemisphere, then I can presume that there's something wrong
with the non-Northern candidates. The utmost purpose of this at-large
category is to ensure that the community will still have right to elect
trustees in an unified voice, as well as to prevent any possibility of
"Balkanization" of the Board membership. I believe in the wisdom of the
crowd, and I am sure that the crowd will elect someone with clear records
and trustworthy credentials, not just because he's an European or Asian.

Best,

Ramzy


*Ramzy Muliawan*
Chief Editor, Majalah AKSI MAN 2 Model Pekanbaru

Editor, min.wikipedia  |
id.wikipedia  |
meta.wikimedia 
Pekanbaru, Indonesia

On 24 February 2016 at 13:40, Josh Lim  wrote:

> While my first impression of this proposed plan is fairly positive, I do
> have one major concern.
>
> > Wiadomość napisana przez Ramzy Muliawan  w
> dniu 24.02.2016, o godz. 11:47:
> >
> > - Six regional seats, popularly elected by the regional communities. The
> > proposed "regional communities" would be North America, South and Central
> > America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and
> > Asia Pacific and Oceania.
> > - Five at-large seats, or what we call today as community seats. Like the
> > regional one, it will be popularly elected --- but by the whole
> community.
>
> My concern with the "at-large" seats is that if we’ve looked at the
> history of community Board elections, the electorate is overwhelmingly from
> the developed world.  The candidates are also overwhelmingly from the
> developed world.  We’ve already seen this in the current election, where
> despite the presence of six fine developing world candidates, myself
> included, the electorate settled on three white men (no offense to Dariusz,
> Denny and James).
>
> Under this proposed plan, Europe and North America will get one seat
> each.  Let’s hypothesize that all the elected "at-large" seats went to
> developed world candidates.  And then the affiliate seats have also
> traditionally gone to developed countries as well.  Then we have Jimmy’s
> seat.  Under this plan, we run the risk of having eleven of the fifteen
> seats dominated by developed countries.  So does this mean that the
> remaining four seats should simply be tokens for developing countries, but
> to which we have no leverage because we can easily be outvoted by the other
> members of the Board?
>
> Last year, I had spoken out against quotas for developing countries, since
> it effectively puts our representation at the mercy of the Board.  I am
> still figuring out what would be the best way to approach this issue,
> especially since voting for community Board seats is by language, not by
> country, but I’m looking at a mixture of temporary quotas (and I stress
> "temporary"), developing stronger mechanisms for getting developing country
> Wikipedians involved in movement governance (through affiliates, stronger
> consultation mechanisms when discussing movement-wide issues, etc.), and
> weighted voting in favor of certain geographies if this is technologically
> possible.
>
> Josh
>
> JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
> Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
> Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
> Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
>
> jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com  | +63 (977)
> 831-7582
> Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
> http://about.me/josh.lim 
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

[Andrea Zanni]

I don't really want to generate yet-another-thread,
but it seems to me that many people in this conversation don't really
understand the need of chapter-elected seats, which to me feels like "I
don't understand the need for chapters".

I have mixed feeling about this. Of course, I've been in a chapter board
member for 5 years, so I do think they are useful. Chapters, in my POV,
help Wikipedia be understood and engaged by the outside world:
institutions, GLAMs, schools, universities, normal people. They try to
bring institution in Wikipedia, as useful, free content. They talk a lot
with people, make presentations and try to explain Wikipedia. This is
something that the editing community doesn't do very often.

Also, I think is that with chapters/affiliates there is at least the
beginning of a global conversation: chapters discuss a lot with each other,
and chapter elected seats are the result of a diplomatic conversation.
Their appointed are usually more diverse than "community-selected"... Many,
for example, don't come from English Wikipedia as their mother wiki.

Maybe I'm mistaken but it seems to me that when we talk about community, we
implicitly assume that is the English Wikipedia community. This then means
there is a huge disproportion between native English speakers (US, UK,
Australia, for etc.) and the rest of the world.
As much as I understand that many editors don't feel that chapters are
relevant, at least I feel that chapters and affiliates do try to talk to
each other and build an international community and common discourse.
It is a layer on top, if you will, but it has advantages.

M2c.

Aubrey

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Adrian Raddatz  wrote:

> I like the idea of reserved seats for the global south. I would prefer to
> still have some appointed members for expertise, but that number should be
> diminished to give the community seats a majority.
>
> Somewhat controversial: I'd prefer to scrap the affiliate - selected seats.
> Chapters vary so much in organization and effectiveness that having seats
> for them isn't ideal to me.
>
> And, of course, let's remove Jimbo's seat. He contributes little to the
> board or movement these days except for the occasional response on his talk
> page, accepting awards on our behalf, and making ridiculous public comments
> which are listened to due to his status. I actually have nothing against
> the guy personally, but I see no need for this relic of a seat to continue.
> Salam,
>
> I sincerely appreciated any effort to craft a reform for the Board of
> Trustees membership. Thank you, Dariusz and Todd. Also, apologize for
> (possibly) flawed English, since it isn't my first language :)
>
> As a volunteer from the so-called Global South community, I'm much more
> concerned about the diversity issue in the Board. The issue here is that
> geographical and linguistic groups that are significant in the current
> state of our community should be proportionally represented. We must ensure
> that their voice will be heard on deciding important issues that might also
> affect them, in one way or another. Our current Board consist of no Asian
> or African, a very disturbing reality especially if we consider the immense
> potential and rapidly growing community in these two region.
>
> Allow me to propose the Board composition I felt the most suitable to
> accommodate this issue. This Board will be comprised of fifteen members,
> all with same voting power:
>
> - One Founder's Seat, reserved for Jimbo. While I believe that some might
> found this as a strangely contrast position for any reform needed by the
> Board, I think that we still need him in the Board as the voice of
> moderation and what makes us completely unique to other Internet
> institution.
> - Six regional seats, popularly elected by the regional communities. The
> proposed "regional communities" would be North America, South and Central
> America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and
> Asia Pacific and Oceania.
> - Five at-large seats, or what we call today as community seats. Like the
> regional one, it will be popularly elected --- but by the whole community.
> - Three affiliate seats, elected by the affiliate and thematic
> organizations.
>
> Yes, there might be some flaw in this proposal. The biggest concern will be
> how to define and categorize a project into a specific "regional
> community". Maybe we could categorize the editors based on where do they
> edit (English Wikipedia editors will be voting for European seat) or where
> do they reside (which also possibly will raise question about privacy etc).
>
> Some might also question about why there is no more appointed seats. While
> I do agree with those who are saying that we need professional experts to
> sit in the Board, I believe that their power and influence should be
> nowhere more than the community to avoid another Arnnon-like controversy.
> So I would like to see them as 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

[Pau Giner]

>
> If I remember correctly, I think that's how the Content Translation project
> started -- it was someone's personal project, which got more people and
> attention because it's a great idea and showed real success.


That is not accurate. I think Content Translation is a good example of
bottom-up and design-driven project, though.

The Language team identified that users frequently were asking for better
support for translating Wikipedia articles, and decided to learn from
existing translators (and their heavily manual efforts) without a
predefined idea of how the solution would look like. After many iterations
of design, prototyping and research the team started building the tool
iteratively and driven by user behaviour (based on metrics and more user
research). I wrote a more detailed piece about this some time ago if anyone
is interested in more details:
http://pauginer.com/post/116536135010/the-design-of-content-translation

So while this project didn't came from top-down roadmap, it was also not a
solo "cowboy-style" personal project.
I definitely think it followed a good pattern for more projects to consider.

Pau


On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Andrew Lih  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Yuri Astrakhan 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > And that got me thinking. WMF, an organization that was built with the
> open
> > and community-driven principles - why have we became the classic example
> of
> > a corporate multi-level hierarchy? Should we mimic a living organism
> rather
> > than a human-built pyramid?
> >
> > This may sound naive and wishful, but could we have a more flat and
> > flexible team structure, where instead of having large teams with
> > sub-teams, we would have small self-forming teams "by interest".  For
> > example, someone decides to dedicate their 20% to building support for
> > storing 3D models in wiki.
>
>
> So glad to see this being discussed in the open with smart folks like
> Brion, Dario, et al.
>
> 3D support would be most welcome – we’re in a holding pattern with
> Smithsonian 3D GLAM projects in DC because of that shortcoming in Commons.
> It was never known whether anyone was paying attention or going to put 3D
> on the radar screen. (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T3790)
>
> At my keynote talk at Wikiconference USA, I said one of the things WMF
> “must do” is multimedia and interactivity. Your work on the interactive
> graph is a great step. Brion, myself and others have been working on
> collaborative video. Brion’s ogv.js work is a great example of skunkworks
> type projects having a huge impact.
>
> And if 3D is given a priority, the three areas would be a great collective
> step towards Wikipedia continuing its revolutionary work. Best of all, they
> would be technologies developed in service of content and community needs,
> and not simply created for tech’s sake.
>
> An organism reacts to the change of its environment by redistributing
> > resources to the more problematic areas. Would small, flexible, and more
> > focused teams achieve that better?
> >
>
> Yes, and in a recent meeting you mentioned Bell Labs as a model. As someone
> who worked there, it’s a very good ideal to shoot for.
>
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Discovery/2016-02-16_Discussing_Knowledge_Engine_with_Lila
>
> Thanks for opening up this discussion.
> -Andrew
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Pau Giner
Senior User Experience Designer
Wikimedia Foundation
___
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] German Federal Press Conferences as a model for WMF communication?

[Estermann Beat]

Dear Fellow-Wikipedians/Wikimedians,

Could the German Federal Press Conferences serve as a model to improve 
communications between WMF officials/bodies and the community (and the public 
at large)?

Unlike in other countries, where governments face the press at their own will, 
choosing topics and interlocutors as they please, in Germany the 
press-conference takes place three times a week, according to a regular 
schedule, and is hosted and moderated by an independent association. 
Participants on the government side are usually a spoke-person of the 
Chancellery (Bundeskanzleramt, roughly equivalent with a Prime Minister's 
Office) and of all the ministries. On the other side, the press-conference is 
open to journalists based in Berlin who regularly cover German federal 
politics. Since last year (?) the entire press-conferences are video-taped and 
made available on Youtube by a team of journalists for everyone to watch [1].

I wonder whether this might be a viable approach to improve communications by 
the WMF BoT and management with regard to various stakeholder groups.

The ingredients would be:


-  Regular information and Q sessions with the participation of 
official spoke-persons of the WMF BoT and WMF Management (i.e. professional 
communicators) on the one hand and a number of more or less regular 
participants acting as multipliers with regard to the community as well as 
journalists regularly covering WM-related issues on the other hand.

-  Interval: to be decided. Every two weeks might be reasonable. It 
seems important that these information and Q sessions take place on a regular 
basis at the same interval, no matter how many burning issues are around at any 
given time. As the information and Q sessions have a clear time limit, this 
obliges everyone to focus on the most burning issues at any given time.

-  The information and Q sessions are hosted and moderated by an 
independent entity according to a pre-established set of rules.

-  The spoke-persons have to respond to every question asked, choosing 
between three options: answer the question directly if they can; explain why 
they aren't able or willing to answer the question; send the answer later by 
email to the participants if specific information needs to be gathered first.

-  If the answer is deemed insufficient or too imprecise by the person 
who asked the question, they are allowed to dig deeper by asking a further 
question.

-  The Q sessions are recorded, so that everyone interested is able 
to keep up with the main issues raised within the movement and the official 
stance taken by the BoT and/or WMF management as well as the critical questions 
raised by those closely following the issues.
Personally, I believe that this might smoothen out communications with the 
community and have some potential to scale - even with regard to 
non-English-speaking communities thanks to multipliers. Drama might not be 
avoided, but at least it would be given a clear frame and be somewhat detached 
from individuals by focusing more on roles. Furthermore, transparency and 
accountability would be increased, serious problems may be spotted earlier, and 
misunderstandings would more easily surface.

Any thoughts about pros and cons?

Beat


[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/Nfes2005/videos

_
Beat Estermann
Coordinator OpenGLAM CH Working Group
http://openglam.ch
Berne University of Applied Sciences
E-Government Institute
Brückenstrasse 73
CH-3005 Bern
beat.esterm...@openglam.ch

Phone +41 31 848 34 38


Second Swiss Open Cultural Data Hackathon - 1/2 July 2016 - Save the 
date!

___
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,