[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart
> Please show me, in amongst all the official documents released in relation to > the strategy, where it recommends that WMF employees should have > representation on the WMF Board of Trustees. I feel it would be best if I stepped away for some days at least, to let the North American Foundation employees who have been organizing for the union rights that their European counterparts enjoy. -Will On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:58 PM Risker wrote: > > Ah, I think it becomes clearer now. This is your preferred version, not > anything official, based on your interpretations. > > Please show me, in amongst all the official documents released in relation to > the strategy, where it recommends that WMF employees should have > representation on the WMF Board of Trustees. Not as a suggestion from > someone, but something that has officially been agreed upon. I am sure I > don't need to remind you that the WMF is an American foundation and that it > is not required to meet the expectations of legislators in other countries. I > think the broad WIkimedia community would be up in arms at the thought that a > small group of about 500 people would have such proportionately high > representation compared to the broader community (through either > affiliate-selected or participant-selected seats). > > And, having read your "revised" versionno, just no. Projects don't > belong there. > > Risker/Anne > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 22:24, Bill Takatoshi wrote: >> >> Hi Anne, >> >> Thank you for both of your excellent questions. >> >> 1) In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be represented >> in seat(s) on corporate boards of directors. Employee satisfaction is >> off the scale compared to North America, as are advantages such as >> healthcare untethered from employers, maternity and paternity leave, >> substantially longer life expectancy, and reduced income inequality. >> >> 2) The projects were abstracted out of the org chart. Individually, >> they exist in the "Editor" and "Operations" nodes. All of the >> Wikimedia projects have editors, who use the services provided by the >> Engineering Operations team. >> >> I hope there is some way to get comment on the proposed org chart on >> the list of proposed Board candidate questions without disclosing my >> userid. >> >> -Will >> >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:58 PM Risker wrote: >> > >> > Two questions, Bill. >> > >> > 1) Labour representation? Huh? >> > 2) Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I meanall of this is >> > hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre >> > of every aspect of the community. >> > >> > Risker/Anne >> > >> > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look >> >> like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new >> >> email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from >> >> there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems >> >> sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since >> >> improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have >> >> since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't >> >> allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous >> >> submission(s). >> >> >> >> This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look >> >> like in one year's time: >> >> >> >> https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png >> >> >> >> Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I >> >> am especially interested in your critique of this prediction. >> >> >> >> Thank you! >> >> >> >> -Will >> >> ___ >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> >> Public archives at >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/ >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > >> > ___ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > Public archives at >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/P4A57AOWXRWM7YMFWCOSAD2C2ZE6ZO4W/ >> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> ___ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >>
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart
Ah, I think it becomes clearer now. This is your preferred version, not anything official, based on your interpretations. Please show me, in amongst all the official documents released in relation to the strategy, where it recommends that WMF employees should have representation on the WMF Board of Trustees. Not as a suggestion from someone, but something that has officially been agreed upon. I am sure I don't need to remind you that the WMF is an American foundation and that it is not required to meet the expectations of legislators in other countries. I think the broad WIkimedia community would be up in arms at the thought that a small group of about 500 people would have such proportionately high representation compared to the broader community (through either affiliate-selected or participant-selected seats). And, having read your "revised" versionno, just no. Projects don't belong there. Risker/Anne On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 22:24, Bill Takatoshi wrote: > Hi Anne, > > Thank you for both of your excellent questions. > > 1) In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be represented > in seat(s) on corporate boards of directors. Employee satisfaction is > off the scale compared to North America, as are advantages such as > healthcare untethered from employers, maternity and paternity leave, > substantially longer life expectancy, and reduced income inequality. > > 2) The projects were abstracted out of the org chart. Individually, > they exist in the "Editor" and "Operations" nodes. All of the > Wikimedia projects have editors, who use the services provided by the > Engineering Operations team. > > I hope there is some way to get comment on the proposed org chart on > the list of proposed Board candidate questions without disclosing my > userid. > > -Will > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:58 PM Risker wrote: > > > > Two questions, Bill. > > > > 1) Labour representation? Huh? > > 2) Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I meanall of this is > hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre > of every aspect of the community. > > > > Risker/Anne > > > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi > wrote: > >> > >> Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look > >> like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new > >> email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from > >> there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems > >> sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since > >> improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have > >> since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't > >> allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous > >> submission(s). > >> > >> This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look > >> like in one year's time: > >> > >> https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png > >> > >> Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I > >> am especially interested in your critique of this prediction. > >> > >> Thank you! > >> > >> -Will > >> ___ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, > guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/ > >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/P4A57AOWXRWM7YMFWCOSAD2C2ZE6ZO4W/ > > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZU6FR7JSMNBJ4RZUHUBHAJ4XBJNTREV/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/7DVPFBQI56OS7XZNO7X3WJOGPOHQSDGL/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart
Here is the predicted org chart with Risker's suggestions: https://i.ibb.co/fpXyx3r/WMF-orgchart-2.png -Will On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:24 PM Bill Takatoshi wrote: > > Hi Anne, > > Thank you for both of your excellent questions. > > 1) In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be represented > in seat(s) on corporate boards of directors. Employee satisfaction is > off the scale compared to North America, as are advantages such as > healthcare untethered from employers, maternity and paternity leave, > substantially longer life expectancy, and reduced income inequality. > > 2) The projects were abstracted out of the org chart. Individually, > they exist in the "Editor" and "Operations" nodes. All of the > Wikimedia projects have editors, who use the services provided by the > Engineering Operations team. > > I hope there is some way to get comment on the proposed org chart on > the list of proposed Board candidate questions without disclosing my > userid. > > -Will > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:58 PM Risker wrote: > > > > Two questions, Bill. > > > > 1) Labour representation? Huh? > > 2) Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I meanall of this is > > hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre > > of every aspect of the community. > > > > Risker/Anne > > > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi wrote: > >> > >> Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look > >> like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new > >> email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from > >> there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems > >> sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since > >> improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have > >> since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't > >> allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous > >> submission(s). > >> > >> This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look > >> like in one year's time: > >> > >> https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png > >> > >> Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I > >> am especially interested in your critique of this prediction. > >> > >> Thank you! > >> > >> -Will > >> ___ > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > >> Public archives at > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/ > >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > ___ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > Public archives at > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/P4A57AOWXRWM7YMFWCOSAD2C2ZE6ZO4W/ > > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/HXMSHZOSYJ7NIRUCYYINDAMZIWUQNMTY/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart
Hi Anne, Thank you for both of your excellent questions. 1) In Germany, rank-and-file employees are required to be represented in seat(s) on corporate boards of directors. Employee satisfaction is off the scale compared to North America, as are advantages such as healthcare untethered from employers, maternity and paternity leave, substantially longer life expectancy, and reduced income inequality. 2) The projects were abstracted out of the org chart. Individually, they exist in the "Editor" and "Operations" nodes. All of the Wikimedia projects have editors, who use the services provided by the Engineering Operations team. I hope there is some way to get comment on the proposed org chart on the list of proposed Board candidate questions without disclosing my userid. -Will On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 6:58 PM Risker wrote: > > Two questions, Bill. > > 1) Labour representation? Huh? > 2) Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I meanall of this is hubris > if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre of every > aspect of the community. > > Risker/Anne > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi wrote: >> >> Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look >> like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new >> email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from >> there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems >> sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since >> improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have >> since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't >> allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous >> submission(s). >> >> This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look >> like in one year's time: >> >> https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png >> >> Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I >> am especially interested in your critique of this prediction. >> >> Thank you! >> >> -Will >> ___ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/P4A57AOWXRWM7YMFWCOSAD2C2ZE6ZO4W/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4ZU6FR7JSMNBJ4RZUHUBHAJ4XBJNTREV/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart
Two questions, Bill. 1) Labour representation? Huh? 2) Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I meanall of this is hubris if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre of every aspect of the community. Risker/Anne On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatoshi wrote: > Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look > like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new > email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from > there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems > sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since > improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have > since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't > allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous > submission(s). > > This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look > like in one year's time: > > https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png > > Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I > am especially interested in your critique of this prediction. > > Thank you! > > -Will > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/P4A57AOWXRWM7YMFWCOSAD2C2ZE6ZO4W/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Foundation org chart
Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of trolling and disruption, and have since improved the prediction and become more confident about it. I have since learned that HTML email with embedded email attachments aren't allowed either, so, Moderators, please reject my earlier anonymous submission(s). This is what I predict the Wikimedia organizational chart will look like in one year's time: https://i.ibb.co/HPzpqLt/WMF-orgchart.png Please critique it! If you are running for the Board of Directors, I am especially interested in your critique of this prediction. Thank you! -Will ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DURUHZ3WN7QBQSXWLUVU7ZRLDWHV42X2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Since candidates are supposed to begin answering on July 7th, I would like to nudge the conversation towards a poll of candidates and interested community members, on an actionable proposal to use the longer list of questions: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/Poll:_selecting_community_questions Maybe the Election Committee can help with this process? Kind regards, [[mw:User:Adamw]] On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:48 AM Lorenzo wrote: > As a candidate, I am of course not the one who decides what questions > get asked, but I will share my opinion on some of your points: > > On dom, 2021-07-04 at 12:50 +0100, Nosebagbear wrote: > > First and foremost, is that of the questions that received > > significant Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the > > Community felt so strongly those questions should be answered by any > > candidate should be grounds for presumptive inclusion. > > > > The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those > > presented. As a role that needs significant time, and in a process > > that lasts weeks, it seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is > > the most that can be answered in an election for the most "senior" > > community-selected positions in the movement. This is especially in > > comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA candidates who answer well over 20, > > on average. > > >From what I see, there are four questions that have received more than > two endorsements. One (about rebranding) has been included in the list, > one is basically a follow up to another question (commitment on not > taking paid positions), while the other two are: > * How should the Foundation treat foundation-run projects that incur a >high amount of on-wiki opposition? > * Should there be a waiting period between the time a Board member >leaves the Board, and they take on an employee, consultant, or other >paid role with the Foundation? > > I imagine that these are the questions you are referring to. They seem > to me meaningful questions, that could fit in the official list. > > Personally I have no objections to longer list of questions. I actually > expected it to be longer in the first place (say, 20 questions). > At the same time, I understand that the Election Committee wants to > have the same set of questions for everyone, and to keep the time > commitment under control. I wouldn't want my willingness to answer to > go against their efforts. > > Lorenzo > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H3R432R72SOR4ONUPFJWV6TVAA3POBX5/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WVCBA3XWJM4RJTBGEWRHQSME4L67RAO5/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
As a candidate, I am of course not the one who decides what questions get asked, but I will share my opinion on some of your points: On dom, 2021-07-04 at 12:50 +0100, Nosebagbear wrote: > First and foremost, is that of the questions that received > significant Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the > Community felt so strongly those questions should be answered by any > candidate should be grounds for presumptive inclusion. > > The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those > presented. As a role that needs significant time, and in a process > that lasts weeks, it seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is > the most that can be answered in an election for the most "senior" > community-selected positions in the movement. This is especially in > comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA candidates who answer well over 20, > on average. >From what I see, there are four questions that have received more than two endorsements. One (about rebranding) has been included in the list, one is basically a follow up to another question (commitment on not taking paid positions), while the other two are: * How should the Foundation treat foundation-run projects that incur a high amount of on-wiki opposition? * Should there be a waiting period between the time a Board member leaves the Board, and they take on an employee, consultant, or other paid role with the Foundation? I imagine that these are the questions you are referring to. They seem to me meaningful questions, that could fit in the official list. Personally I have no objections to longer list of questions. I actually expected it to be longer in the first place (say, 20 questions). At the same time, I understand that the Election Committee wants to have the same set of questions for everyone, and to keep the time commitment under control. I wouldn't want my willingness to answer to go against their efforts. Lorenzo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/H3R432R72SOR4ONUPFJWV6TVAA3POBX5/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Hoi, Fae a few points..First board members are volunteers like you and all the things that are asked of a candidate represents a significant amount of time. In addition there are timelines and the notion of a process to improve questions is not really feasible. Also I said it before, many of the questions asked have nothing to do with the remit of a board member. Effectively, issues are put before the board and the board typically asks the WMF org for a proposal. As to autonomy of communities, they exist within boundaries. In the past projects have been put on notice, have been deleted and senior people from a project have been banned (most recently at the Croatian Wikipedia). Given that I am a member of the language committee, there are plans to do away with Incubator and have projects provisionally created. When the content of the project shows that it does not represent the language or other significant problems it will be removed. This ensures a much easier integration from the start for a starting project. NB a language will first have to be considered "eligible". After this, it will have the prospect of activation given the policies of the Language committee. As to funding of what you call external .. calling the paid-for API external is disingenuous. We already provide this service, it is part of our commitment to share in the sum of all knowledge. With this service we provide a better service to commercial entities that ask for a service level and are willing to pay for the additional service. This service improves quality all around. As to payments to external parties. I am all for it when it provides a real service to our movement. I would for instance make Wikicite a shared project with the Internet Archive because it would deduplicate services and the combination will improve services to us and to them. You call the process opaque. It is. It is because it is attempting to bring more engagement from all over the world, the way it is done is new and there is a difference between the operational reality and the expectations during the planning phase. This is not a community process even though the objective is very much to engage a wider public. Thanks, GerardM On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 08:18, Fæ wrote: > I'm surprised at how odd the "selected questions" read,[1] which will > probably result in off-topic or wooly answers by the candidates unless > they have "abstracts" somewhere to unpack the coded language. > > "What is your opinion on the claim of autonomy by Wikipedia > communities and the attempts of the Wikimedia Foundation to regulate > control over community?" > - No idea what issues this is attempting to cover, exactly which > claims about autonomy, is WMDE going to spin off to become a public > library, is the WMF going to get rid of project sysops and replace > them with contractors? The question could have been a lot more > specific. > > "How should the Wikimedia Foundation engage with emerging > WikiCommunities in the near future (next 2 to 3 years)?" > - What emerging communities, what is a WikiCommunity? Many (external) > communities exist that don't have specific Affiliate representation, > is this what it is implying. I don't know. > > "What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation using funds for > purposes not related to Wikimedia projects?" > - The WMF uses funds for all sorts of things unrelated to the specific > projects, for example, the Commercial paid-for API is an external > commercial service, it is not intended as a service to the projects > and the projects never asked for it. It's weird to have an 'official' > question that implies other stuff does not exist. > > Agree that the opaque process followed for choosing these questions, > then having no community process for improving them, is a missed > opportunity. > > Links > 1. > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A > > Thanks, > Fae > -- > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6IMVPDSCBUP4KQGIVQAO54WI32UPVE5J/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/U55RRSSDLG3SK7F6VG6JN62EGEQWIO6C/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Hoi, some reflections: You have to appreciate that fulfilling the role of a board member of the Wikimedia Foundations is very time consuming. The candidates that may be chosen from are all volunteers, they have a day job. The argument for having only eleven questions as given to us candidates was: there is a limit to the number of questions because otherwise it will require too much of your time. When I read the unfiltered questions, there are questions, actually demands, on the time of board members question 52 is a good example. Members of the board have fiduciary duties in their role. It is reasonable to expect that more time will be required than what is advertised as the time commitment. When people expect that individual questions are answered in a specified timeframe, it becomes unrealistic given the number of communities and the number of members in those communities. There are also questions in there that are operational and will as a consequence not be considered by the board. Eg question 47, 50. Other questions are framed in a way that gives them a distinct American slant. Question 55 for instance is important but then consider this: we have a font for dyslexic people and never considered updating them with support for cyrillic scripts. The request for funding for fonts for SignWriting, the only font for sign languages was denied. My point is that yes, this might be considered but the way it works is that the board discusses proposals, maybe asks for proposals from the WMF org. The question is not effective because it points to laws but does not show how this is to be made practical. The questions reflect what members of the community are interested in. In my opinion, it should work the other way around as well. My objective as a member of the board will be to share more of the knowledge that is available to us. I want Commons to be searchable in any language, I want the public to easily find available books from Wikisource in the languages people know how to read. I want us to share information in lists that can be used on any projects that has an interest in them (eg all the heads of state, all the national ministers of all the countries of the world). What do you think? To give it teeth, I want our traffic to reflect the diversity of people and the language they know. When people suggest that the communities have the primacy in their projects. I respectively remind them of the projects that were closed, projects where significant people in the community were removed. We have policies, we have a strategy that binds us all. As a board member, we are expected to subscribe to both. Thanks, GerardM On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 at 17:55, Nosebagbear wrote: > Hello, > > I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the > questions selected by the Elections Committee < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A> > from the broader Community-created list < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate#Community_Questions_for_Candidates> > has not been well-chosen, on several grounds. > > First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant > Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so > strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be > grounds for presumptive inclusion. > > The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As > a role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it > seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be > answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions > in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA > candidates who answer well over 20, on average. > > A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions > on the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult ones > left off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it > is also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from > individually seeking answers from candidates. > > Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am > unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the > original Q talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given > for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list. > > There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I > look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a > section. > > Cheers, > > Nosebagbear > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at >
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Really, there shouldn't be any "selection". All of the community questions should be put over, and the candidates then may choose to answer any or all of them. If a candidate does not answer a question, people can then take from that what they will. This is a community selection process. There is no valid reason for any question a member of the community has to be excluded. Todd On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:55 AM Nosebagbear wrote: > Hello, > > I write to highlight concerns shared by a number of editors about how the > questions selected by the Elections Committee < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A> > from the broader Community-created list < > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate#Community_Questions_for_Candidates> > has not been well-chosen, on several grounds. > > First and foremost, is that of the questions that received significant > Community endorsement, only one was selected. That the Community felt so > strongly those questions should be answered by any candidate should be > grounds for presumptive inclusion. > > The question list is also short - not even a fifth of those presented. As > a role that needs significant time, and in a process that lasts weeks, it > seems dubious to indicate that 11 questions is the most that can be > answered in an election for the most "senior" community-selected positions > in the movement. This is especially in comparison to, say, en-wiki RfA > candidates who answer well over 20, on average. > > A number of editors have also raised concerns that some of the questions > on the list are "soft" or "gimme" questions vs much more difficult ones > left off. As engagement with individual editors is a must for Trustees, it > is also unclear why the page is claiming grounds to prohibit editors from > individually seeking answers from candidates. > > Finally, there has been a distinct communications failure, though I am > unsure how much is purely ElectCom, WMF, etc. Questions were asked on the > original Q talk page, and not answered. Then there was no reasoning given > for specific questions excluded or included in the refined list. > > There are a number of facets in this post - thank you for reading, and I > look forward to answers handling all of these concerns, not merely a > section. > > Cheers, > > Nosebagbear > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OQUL2MSPXBDUNHH7JI4IZFUHIBJ5ZNZS/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4FBIML4KJV24NQRXVRY7MA7Z7JFWXXKS/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
Hi, On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 8:18 AM Fæ wrote: > > "What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation using funds for > purposes not related to Wikimedia projects?" > - The WMF uses funds for all sorts of things unrelated to the specific > projects, for example, the Commercial paid-for API is an external > commercial service, it is not intended as a service to the projects > and the projects never asked for it. It's weird to have an 'official' > question that implies other stuff does not exist. > Just pitching in here since I originally wrote that question. In retrospect, it could have been more clear. The question was not about structural costs, or any cost that cannot be attributed to a single project. I'm referring to things like awarding grants to organizations that are unrelated to Wikimedia projects for purposes that are also unrelated to Wikimedia projects. During the Wikimedia Strategy 2030 process there were quite some discussions about doing this in the future. Also the Knowledge Equity Fund could fall into this category, although it's still early to say if it actually will. Best, MarioGom ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/PN7GRXNSH7JR6LZK2SDTNDO2NL2UUQD2/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
[Wikimedia-l] Re: Concerns about BoT Election Q
I'm surprised at how odd the "selected questions" read,[1] which will probably result in off-topic or wooly answers by the candidates unless they have "abstracts" somewhere to unpack the coded language. "What is your opinion on the claim of autonomy by Wikipedia communities and the attempts of the Wikimedia Foundation to regulate control over community?" - No idea what issues this is attempting to cover, exactly which claims about autonomy, is WMDE going to spin off to become a public library, is the WMF going to get rid of project sysops and replace them with contractors? The question could have been a lot more specific. "How should the Wikimedia Foundation engage with emerging WikiCommunities in the near future (next 2 to 3 years)?" - What emerging communities, what is a WikiCommunity? Many (external) communities exist that don't have specific Affiliate representation, is this what it is implying. I don't know. "What do you think about the Wikimedia Foundation using funds for purposes not related to Wikimedia projects?" - The WMF uses funds for all sorts of things unrelated to the specific projects, for example, the Commercial paid-for API is an external commercial service, it is not intended as a service to the projects and the projects never asked for it. It's weird to have an 'official' question that implies other stuff does not exist. Agree that the opaque process followed for choosing these questions, then having no community process for improving them, is a missed opportunity. Links 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ%26A Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6IMVPDSCBUP4KQGIVQAO54WI32UPVE5J/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
