Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

[Charles Andres WMCH]

For once, I think any +1 message will be useful to demonstrate how this 
decision was expected by a large number of people,  across several language 
community.

Thanks


Charles



> Le 27 janv. 2016 à 21:52, Patricio Lorente  a 
> écrit :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Throughout the discussion about the appointment of Arnnon Geshuri to the
> Board of Trustees, the Board has carefully listened to you and discussed
> internally. Earlier today, Arnnon decided to step down from the Board. To
> paraphrase his words, he doesn't want to be a distraction for the important
> discussions that the community and the Foundation need to face in the times
> to come. We want to thank Arnnon for his ongoing commitment and for helping
> us to move forward.
> 
> The Board Governance Committee is working to improve and update our
> selection processes before we fill the vacancy left by Arnnon’s departure.
> We are sorry for the distress and confusion this has caused to some in our
> community, and also to Arnnon.
> 
> Patricio and Alice
> 
> 
> 
> Patricio Lorente
> Chair, Board of Trustees
> 
> Alice Wiegand
> Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
> --
> ___
> 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] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Charles Andres]

In Milan we discuss about Chapters peer review as a tools that the WMF could 
use in parallel if FDC assessment.

But in light of the discussion about who should or not apply to the FDC, it 
seems that chapters peer review should be consider by chapter willing to apply 
to the FDC as a preliminary step.

I think that a friendly discussion between peers about the reasons to apply to 
the FDC would help everybody to save time and facilitate the choice of the 
appropriate grant process  :-)

Charles

Le 30 avr. 2013 à 11:22, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org a écrit :

 Hey Florence
 
 On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:12 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
 
 Le 4/30/13 12:04 AM, Nathan a écrit :
 
 
 It's not logical to assume that because the WMF has funds it should in
 some way equitably distribute those funds around the world.
 
 What happens to the idea according to which the funds belong to the 
 Wikimedia mouvement rather than to Wikimedia Foundation ?
 
 Please note that you are disagreeing with Nathan, not with others (like me 
 and as far as I know the entire board) who have supported the idea of the FDC 
 because it is a great way to ensure that the funds are distributed amongst 
 the movement in the interest of the movement. The funds are those of the 
 movement, and although we might disagree on how the funds are divided we 
 agree on that. I am happy to see that the FDC as a body (and the community 
 review process as a important addition) ensures much more transparent 
 processes.
 
 
 Supporting
 chapter operations, and funding offices and staff in dozens of
 countries, is not the chief object of the money raised from donors. We
 need to get away from the belief that chapters are unquestionably the
 best use of movement resources. There is a place for outreach,
 publicity, and targeted educational programs. But the WMF is best
 situated to supplement the efforts begun by volunteers, in the same
 way the WMF itself was created and has grown.
 
 I would object to the idea that WMF is best situated to supplement efforts 
 started by volunteers and that statement parts from the decision made some 
 months ago to deflate WMF role.
 But we may agree to disagree on this.
 
 I would agree with you here. I think that the WMF is in a good position to 
 help certain initiatives and that in several cases there are better 
 alternatives. This is why I am so excited about chapters helping chapters and 
 all affiliations being able to join the wikimedia conference in Milan this 
 year. It is that kind of exchange of experience which is perfect for all 
 involved, and lets remember that what works for some might not work for 
 others.
 
 
 Additionnaly... I must add that when WMF was precisely at the current stage 
 of most chapters (with no staff and no office), it was run in a rather 
 creative fashion that would make everyone cough today in comparison to the 
 requirements and obligations made mandatory to chapters. Uh. You may have a 
 slightly more ideal view of the past :)
 
 True, but just because things used to be bad is no reason that they should 
 be bad now if we can prevent it (I was there with you, and we are both 
 happy that we outgrew that phase with a minimal of damage and a LOT of luck 
 in finding the right ED)  the scale of the organisation now makes it 
 impossible to tolerate that kind of creativity when not absolutely 
 necessary.
 
 It would be a poor use
 of movement funds indeed if the WMF decided to pour money into infant
 chapters with minimal development and fuzzy strategic goals. That's a
 recipe for, at an absolute minimum, good-faith mismanagement and waste
 of scarce donor resources. Avoiding this path was a very wise decision
 by the trustees, and I only hope they remain resolute despite
 criticism and Sue's impending departure.
 
 I mostly hope that they stay consistant with their own past decisions (=we 
 were sold the fact that the money collected belong to the mouvement, not to 
 the entity collecting it. If so, decisions of allocations should not become 
 WMF ones).
 
 Agreed, which is why I think the FDC's advice is so important and I hope to 
 never have to question it (although the board does have to have a final say 
 in these matters as a matter of governance)
 
 
 In any cases... I know not if WM HK should have been funded or not. What I 
 know is that the mouvement need happy and rested and humanly treated 
 volunteers to stay healthy.
 
 True, but volunteers also have to ensure not to force themselves into 
 positions of make or break and thereby put themselves at risk.
 
 
 We keep talking about editors decrease. Maybe in the future, we'll talk 
 about irl volunteers (as in chapter members) decrease as well.
 
 I think we should, and I think that some of that discussion took place in 
 Milan. As we know there are different kind of volunteers who organise 
 affiliates (because the problem is not limited to chapters) and it takes 
 different ways to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Fundraising 2013] Wikimedia France stepping back from payment processing

[Charles Andres]

AFAIK , WMDE and WMCH are the last  ones. I do not remember an announce about 
WMUK for the next fundraising.

but I don't understand what's the link with the FDC. In general I would 
encourage to avoid to speak about paiement processing out of its specific 
context, that's mean fundraising process only.


Cheers


Charles

Le 30 avr. 2013 à 12:00, Fae fae...@gmail.com a écrit :

 On 29 April 2013 21:28, Christophe Henner
 christophe.hen...@wikimedia.fr wrote:
 ...
 In face of that situation, Wikimedia France board has asked WMF to
 stop being a payment processor in 2013
 
 Hi Christophe, thank you for giving this difficult decision some
 suitable context, and for doing so openly and promptly.
 
 Could someone advise me, is there an official table on meta showing
 the current list of Chapters with payment processing agreements in
 place for the 2013 fund raiser?
 
 Independently of any hat I happen to be wearing, I am planning on
 putting aside some volunteer time to examine the
 admin:fundraising:program ratio for our organizations over the next
 few months, so it makes sense to ensure this is achieved for the
 current payment processors, rather than just those organizations that
 are easy to find the figures for or come forward spontaneously. I
 would support other sensible top level performance indicators should
 they be identified and become available soon, FDC members may have
 a view on what might work well as the top 5 indicators. Hopefully at
 least the admin ratio can be publicly shared before October this year to
 help foster a pragmatic discussion on simple dashboards and governance.
 
 I'm hoping that the WMF can set a lead by publishing a calculation of
 admin ratio for themselves. ;-)
 
 PS staff salaries are not all automatically 'admin', I hope we can
 agree that some
 program activities are entirely justifiably supported by paid staff
 and contractors.
 
 Thanks,
 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
 Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Swiss Federal Archives team up with Wikimedia CH

[charles andres]

*Sorry for crossposting*
Bern, 12.04.2013 - The Swiss Federal Archives and Wikimedia CH are joining
forces to review source materials from the Federal Archives and publish
them online. To this end, the post of a “Wikipedian in Residence” is now
being advertised via Wikimedia. The first joint project will provide access
to a photographic collection on the First World War.

2013 sees the start of a new collaboration between the Swiss Federal
Archives and Wikimedia – two organisations committed to free access to
knowledge. With a view to publishing freely usable, “public domain” source
materials from the Federal Archives holdings online via Wikimedia – such as
Wikipedia, Wikisource and Wikiversity – a “Wikipedian in Residence” will be
working in the Federal Archives over the next few months.

Wikimedia has been gathering experience with the “Wikipedian in Residence”
concept internationally since 2010, at institutions such as the Museum of
Modern Art in New York, the British Library in London and the US National
Archives near Washington. The Federal Archives partnership is the first
collaboration with a GLAM (*Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums*)
institution in Switzerland.

The initial goal is to make more than 5,000 digitised photographs from a
collection on the First World War searchable and freely accessible via
Wikimedia by autumn 2013, providing researchers with a fascinating, well
catalogued and freely accessible body of materials just in time for the
centenary of the war’s outbreak in 1914.

As a guest of the Federal Archives, the Wikipedian in Residence will
promote entries in the online encyclopaedia that relate to the Federal
Archives and their holdings, and publish material under open-content
licences. Links between the Federal Archives and the Wikipedia community
will also be expanded.

The Federal Archives and Wikimedia CH will report on the collaboration and
its results at regular intervals.

The advertisement for the post of “Wikipedian in
Residence”http://members.wikimedia.ch/images/c/c7/Job-Advertisement-WiR.pdf


Français:
http://www.bar.admin.ch/aktuell/00431/01503/index.html?lang=frmsg-id=48486

Deutsch:
http://www.bar.admin.ch/aktuell/00431/01503/index.html?lang=demsg-id=48486

Italiano:
http://www.bar.admin.ch/aktuell/00431/01503/index.html?lang=itmsg-id=48486

---

Charles ANDRES, Chairman
Wikimedia CH  http://www.wikimedia.ch/-  Association for the advancement
of free knowledge

Skype: charles.andres.wmch
IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal to use the internal wiki more

[Charles Andres]

Thanks Mike,

I'm very much in favor of a redesign, with a reset of internal subscribers.

What about a session during wikimedia conf in Milan about improving tools for 
communication within the movement partners?

Charles

Le 3 avr. 2013 à 12:34, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk a écrit :

 Hi all,
 
 There's currently a proposal on the internal mailing list to close it, as 
 well as the internal wiki. Although I don't disagree with closing the 
 internal-l mailing list (it's definitely served its time), I would like us to 
 collectively reconsider using the internal wiki.
 
 There is information within the Wikimedia movement that can't be shared 
 publicly. Some of that information has been shared on the internal wiki, but 
 much has been kept confidential within the various Wikimedia organisations 
 that now exist. I think there's a lot of benefit to sharing more of that 
 information in a confidential fashion on an internal wiki, and that we should 
 start doing that much more than we're currently doing.
 
 Some examples of what I mean here are:
 # Agreements, particularly those with global impact, and/or where they affect 
 more than one Wikimedia organisation. Part of the recent 
 Monmouthpedia/Gibraltarpedia situation was caused by a lack of transparency 
 about who had signed what agreements, and when they had been signed - if 
 these had all been shared on an internal wiki then some of this could have 
 been avoided. There's also a lot of experience now with existing agreements 
 that could be reused when new agreements are being written, e.g. for 
 Wikimedians in Residences. Sadly, not all of these can be made publicly 
 available (or at least, they haven't been to date).
 # Press releases. When there's an upcoming significant press release from a 
 Wikimedia organisation, then it should be good practice to share it with the 
 other movement partners prior to its release, so that they are aware of it, 
 can provide feedback, and can plan around it. Some of this already happens on 
 wmfcc-l, but not consistently - much more could be done here.
 # Domain names. There is a list of these on internal already, which is 
 actually being maintained by some people. Tackling squatted domain names and 
 keeping track of who owns what is a global problem that should be done 
 collaboratively, but in confidence, rather than just by individual 
 organisations.
 # Contact information for the various organisations. Some of this can be done 
 publicly, but not all, and it would be good to have a central place for this 
 information anyway.
 # Notices of sensitive activities. E.g. if there's an upcoming risk of law 
 suits, infrastructure difficulties within organisations, etc. then it would 
 be good to be able to share these and ask for help without publishing them to 
 the world at the same time. That doesn't need a mailing list - it can be done 
 on a wiki.
 # … and I'm sure there's more examples that can go here, this isn't trying to 
 be a complete list!
 
 So, rather than close the internal wiki, I'd like to propose a radical 
 redesign and repurposing of it. Is there the interest and willingness in the 
 WMF and the chapters to share such information with each other?
 
 Thanks,
 Mike
 (Note: this is a personal viewpoint, not necessarily that of WMUK.)
 
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising testing

[Charles Andres]

I would like to remind that the fundraising has been done in 8 countries and 
not 5 , you forget France, Germany and Switzerland.

Thanks

Charles

Le 20 févr. 2013 à 15:50, Megan Hernandez mhernan...@wikimedia.org a écrit :

 Hi everyone,
 
 We've been testing banners at a low level for about two weeks now.  We've
 been showing just one banner impression to 5% of anonymous users (excluding
 the 5 countries where banners ran in December: US, UK, Canada, Australia,
 and New Zealand).
 
 Hiding banners after one impression is new for us, and any feedback we can
 get on how it's working will really help us. We are trying to minimize the
 number of banners our users see each year.
 
 If you visit Wikipedia anonymously (and you're outside of the 5 English
 countries), have you seen any fundraising banners in the last two weeks?
 If so, how many times have you seen a banner?
 
 Thanks for your help!
 
 Megan
 
 On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Megan Hernandez 
 mhernan...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
 
 Hi all,
 
 We wanted to let you know the fundraising team is starting up testing in
 February.  We're starting at low levels, so most people will not even
 notice banners to start with.  5% of anonymous users will see a banner just
 one time.  We are not showing any banners to logged in users.
 
 There was an announcement in November about us splitting up the
 fundraiser this year.  Just a very quick recap: We ran the end-of-year
 campaign in November and December in the top 5 English-speaking countries
 (US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand).  The campaign was successful
 and we were able to take the banners down a few weeks ahead of schedule:
 https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_raises_25_million_in_2012_fundraiser
 
 
 We are now working on starting up testing in countries that were not
 included in the end-of-year campaign.  We'll be working on translations and
 optimizing our donation pages in many countries over the coming months.
 
 We will post a report of the year-end campaign with much more detailed
 information and will send a note to this mailing list when it's available.
 
 We always need help making improvements in different countries and
 languages.  If you have any suggestions, please do leave us a note on the
 fundraising meta discussion page:
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2013
 
 Thanks!
 
 Megan
 
 --
 
 Megan Hernandez
 
 Head of Annual Fundraiser
 Wikimedia Foundation
 
 
 
 -- 
 
 Megan Hernandez
 
 Head of Annual Fundraiser
 Wikimedia Foundation
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Voice Intro Project

[Charles Andres]

Even if I'm really in favor of sound content in articles, I'm not sure that a 
license like the CC by SA is good for that. Do the subject are really aware of 
what it means?, that their voice could be used without their consent  
afterwards?

It could be a good opportunity to open a constructive discussion about new 
license with NC and ND option?

Charles




Le 8 févr. 2013 à 14:57, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :

 I'd like to ask your support the project I started:
 
   
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/open-licensed-format-recordings-voices-wikipedia-wikimedia-commons/
 
 asking the subjects of Wikipedia articles to record a 10-second sample
 of their speaking voice, for use on those articles.
 
 An example script is Hello, my name is [name]. I was born in [place]
 and I have been [job or position] since [year].
 
 So far, the participants:
 
   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Voice_intro_project
 
 include Sue Black, Cory Doctorow, Bill Thompson and Dave Winer; and
 we've just had our first recording in French - but we need many more.
 
 Do you know anyone who has an article about them? Do you know of tools
 that would simplify the process of making ogg files, open licensing
 them, and uploading them to Commons? How can we include more speakers
 of other languages?
 
 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l