[Wikimedia-l] Re: Mozilla's social media pledge

[Dan Szymborski]

Mastodon is not really a centralized social network in any meaningful way,
any more than "joining IRC" is. It's a bunch of individual servers, and
participating in that kind of environment isn't just signing up for an
account. It doesn't make sense to even talk about actually getting involved
without discussing *which* of the multitude of Mastodon instances to
"join," whether WMF should start its own WMF-themed instance, and whether
the reach from the instances are sufficient to be worth the trouble, or
other things first. There's a lot of legwork to be done first, as opposed
to the simpler task of signing up for, say, an alternative of similar
construction, like Spoutible.

Dan

On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 3:24 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> You may know the concern I have with this topic. Now, that we can see
> Twitter adding a Dogecoin icon in order to push a fraudulent pyramidal
> scheme and how the verified accounts won't be relevant anymore if they
> don't pay is a good moment to do two movements: joining Mastodon and
> bulding a new communications scheme where diversity, content and the
> community is in the center. We know that the word for crisis is not
> opportunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_"crisis;),
> but, indeed, we are seing how the Titanic sinks and we have a good
> opportunity to move away and start to build good practices.
>
> As always, some volunteers will be here to help in this travel.
>
> Galder
> --
> *From:* Erik Moeller 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2023 7:23 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Mozilla's social media pledge
>
> The latest announcement from Twitter is that the site is going fully
> pay-to-play -- to be in recommendation feeds or even vote in polls,
> you will need to be a subscriber. [1] While it remains to be seen
> whether the site will follow through, these plans are consistent with
> the relentless promotion of a subscription-based model under the
> company's current leadership.
>
> While new alternatives are launching every month, Mastodon remains the
> primary place folks are migrating to. This Dewey Square report is a
> good read on recent developments, including the Mozilla Mastodon
> instance, the Medium.com one (which is rapidly closing in on 10K
> users), and the Flipboard one.
>
> https://www.deweysquare.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/DSG-Snapshot-of-the-Twitter-Migration-March-2023.pdf
>
> Being open source and community-based, Mastodon should be a perfect
> fit for Wikimedia, and I still very much hope that Wikimedia
> Foundation will set up an official presence in the fediverse, much
> like many chapters/affiliates already have.
>
> Warmly,
> Erik
>
> [1]
> https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/27/23659351/elon-musk-twitter-for-you-verified-accounts-polls
> ___
> 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/5UL33JNWV4QTB46MB3RZGYDMKNGZX5CN/
> 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/2VRSSAZCTTSJZIMBZM4QDORU6232NFG3/
> 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/33HP5FSDGUCNUKWUJER7V57CVRINWIZ5/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

[Dan Szymborski]

Since the answers express mutually exclusive propositions, then by
definition, one of them *has* to be substantially misleading as anyone who
reads it would get the opposite of the true situation. If Andreas had an
intent to be hostile, he could have said lie, which he did not.

Dan



On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:21 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> I will support the underlying questions of this type (it's helpful to have
> conversations about our organizational structure, and how it works -
> clarifications are great!) but I would really hope that you could leave
> aside insinuations of the type "If it isn't, and the money is still with
> Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November substantially
> misleading?". They are unnecessary and don't actually add any information.
> Could we possibly keep it a bit more constructive?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 5:02 AM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The WMF appears to have made contradictory statements about the Wikimedia
>> Endowment. Earlier this week, Rai 3, a channel of the Italian national
>> broadcaster, aired a program about Wikimedia and Wikipedia.[1] On their
>> website, they also link to responses the WMF gave to various questions the
>> programme makers asked.[2]
>>
>> One of these questions concerned the Endowment. I quote:
>>
>> *Q: The Endowment has reached $33 million and passed them reaching $100
>> million today. Why the Wikimedia Foundation didn’t move it to a separate
>> 501e3 entity? Being entrusted into the Tides Foundation is not available to
>> the public any financial report about Wikipedia Endowment. Don't you think
>> there is a lack of information and transparency about a fund that is
>> created through worldwide donations? *
>>
>> *A: Your information is incorrect. The Wikimedia Endowment was
>> established as a separate entity and received its 501(c)(3) nonprofit
>> status in 2022 following a 2021 board resolution. *
>>
>> This answer was given to Rai in November 2022. Now I do recall an October
>> 2022 blog post from the WMF reporting that the WMF's application for a
>> 501(c)(3) non-profit had received approval and that the WMF was "in the
>> process of setting up the Endowment's strategic and operational policies
>> and systems".[3]
>>
>> Has the money actually been moved from the Tides Foundation to this new
>> 501(c)(3)?
>>
>> At the time of writing, the Endowment website continues to tell its
>> readers that the funds are held and administered by the Tides
>> Foundation.[4]
>>
>> Is the information on the Endowment website obsolete?[5] If it isn't, and
>> the money is still with Tides, wasn't the answer given to Rai last November
>> substantially misleading?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.rai.it/programmi/report/inchieste/La-community-8bb003fb-d8cd-42bb-bef0-0063a0e1b1fb.html
>> [2]
>> http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895524547_RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2024%20NOVEMBRE%202022_EN.pdf
>> and
>> http://www.rai.it/dl/doc/2023/01/16/1673895525034_TRADUZIONE%20RISPOSTE%20WIKI%20MAIL%2010%20GENNAIO%202023_ITA.pdf
>>
>> [3]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-10-31/News_from_the_WMF
>> [4] https://archive.ph/S8iI0#selection-2949.0-2949.1007
>> [5]
>> https://diff.wikimedia.org/2023/01/11/adding-expertise-to-the-wikimedia-endowment-board/
>> refers to the "fact that we met – and even surpassed – our expected
>> timeline for the Endowment’s maturation into a 501(c)(3)."
>> ___
>> 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/7XYR2NTQQGCP5W5YBEA75JIXT6GOZRPF/
>> 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/IC32GRFZPR5JRJ43S2GPETUTNZP3JWQW/
> 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/STYZAODTWAI2VUR73ZB23LNKQKP2Y2JA/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC

[Dan Szymborski]

It's almost as if ratifying an incomplete document based on vague framework
and future changes is a terrible idea.

That this is coming up now is not the least bit surprising. It was brought
up, along with many things, during one of the arbitrarily endpointed
"discussion" periods that involved people in the Wiki movement asking
questions and receiving next to no substantive communication from people
who were writing the document. You'd have better luck asking the wishing
well what it did with your penny.

Dan



On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 1:06 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Definitions of terminology makes sense in any document that is intended as
> an enforceable guide to behavior. Without them, whose definition applies?
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lane Chance [mailto:zinkl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2022 11:17
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Open letter on negating race and ethnicity as
> "meaningful distinctions" in the UCoC
>
> It would make the UCoC easier to understand if there was a glossary on
> the same page. A chosen definition of "race" or "ethnicity" being used
> in the context of this policy document may not be the same as exists
> in the reader's head, how they describe their own identity, or as
> might be used on their local language Wikipedia. This could then be
> the place to distinguish the relevance to the policy of race versus
> racism.
>
> In this thread we see stated as a fact that Jews are an ethnicity but
> not a race, which could cause a big argument in its own right. See the
> "Whoopi Goldberg" incident.
>
> Lane
>
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 01:19, Zachary T.  wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I think there's a misinterpretation here. Saying that race and ethnicity
> aren't meaningful distinctions among people doesn't mean that racism
> doesn't exist. That's a lot of negatives, but the way I see it, it's just
> recognizing that race is in fact a social construct, and thus because of
> that it isn't truly meaningful. I would suggest using inherently meaningful
> to clear up the confusion here, because I think that more clearly expresses
> the sentiment.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:23 PM Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello, Anasuya and Whose Knowledge.
> >>
> >>
> >> (Context for those who don’t know me: I am the Vice President of
> Community Resilience & Sustainability, and among others I oversee the team
> shepherding the UCoC process.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank you very much for raising this issue. Foundation staff have been
> discussing this as well with the same points that you have raised, and it
> is something we’ve been thinking about how to address.
> >>
> >>
> >> As probably many of you know, the plan all along had been to get the
> UCoC policy, to get the enforcement approach, and then to see how they work
> together in operation. Our plan has been to review the policy and
> enforcement approach together a year after the ratification of Phase 2.
> However, we decided to prioritize a slower approach to Phase 2 to make sure
> it was functional out the gate especially for the functionaries and
> volunteers who enforce it, as a result of which the timeline we had
> imagined for Policy review has been considerably pushed back. If we had
> made our preliminary time plan, we would have started testing these out
> months ago. The Policy and Enforcement Guidelines would have been ripe for
> review sometime around November 2022.
> >>
> >>
> >> As you all know, the vote has just concluded on the UCoC Phase 2. In
> the vote, community members were asked if they supported it as written or
> not, with the ability to provide feedback either way - with the notion that
> the feedback would help us focus on major blockers to the enforcement
> approach. I have already spoken to several members of the Board about some
> of the concerns that have been raised about the enforcement guidelines;
> we’ve spoken about this passage in the Policy, too. I know from my
> conversations with the Board that they want to get this done right, not
> just get it done - and they are very open to understanding these major
> blockers.
> >>
> >>
> >> The project team is compiling a report for the Board on the challenging
> points surfaced during the vote. We think the enforcement guidelines are a
> very good first draft for the enforcement pathways, but–based on the
> comments we’ve seen–we are very aware there may be more work ahead before
> we reach a Board ratified version of those guidelines. As this passage in
> policy is not necessary to achieve the goal of the UCoC - which is to
> forbid harassment and attacks based on personal factors including race and
> ethnicity - our intention has been to recommend to the Board that the
> passage in question be reviewed simultaneously with any further Phase 2
> enforcement workshopping, instead of waiting for the “year in operation”
> review intended.
> >>
> >>
> >> I 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Board statement endorsing community voting on the enforcement guidelines for Universal code of Conduct (UCoC)

[Dan Szymborski]

I don't have a problem with WMF staff voting, so long as they meet the
community voting guidelines; as Risker notes, many staff members are part
of the community. But staffers who do *not* otherwise meet the standard for
a community member to vote should not be voting.

Also, the exact wording of how the poll question will be composed is an
absolute imperative to be known and debated openly *before* the question is
asked. As we know from opinion polls and even state ballot initiatives, it
only takes the targeted inclusion or omission of as little as a word or two
to turn a poll into a push poll.

Dan

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:59 PM Luis Villa  wrote:

> Pretty much everything I know is discussed in my posts in a thread from
> six-ish years ago:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/EAGK7LYON3VN7LSHX27C54CEOAR63FCY/#UDZZ6UEH6EIJV4LBOYGCR7RZ3NF4CXTM
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
>
>> Honestly I don’t remember the NDA, and I don’t even remember if I signed
>> one. It was a long time ago.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:48 AM Andreas Kolbe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Philippe, Luis,
>>>
>>> Glad to hear that's never been done – though there is always a first
>>> time, and even if there is no compulsion, it's enough for each manager to
>>> remind their direct reports, "Oh, and remember to participate in the UCoC
>>> vote. Really important." Or are you saying that could not happen either?
>>>
>>> At any rate it might be good to see a breakdown of participation
>>> numbers, so the proportion of staff and community votes for/against is
>>> known.
>>>
>>> While you are here, would either of you care to describe what was
>>> covered by non-disclosure agreements in your time?
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 5:20 PM Philippe Beaudette <
>>> phili...@beaudette.me> wrote:
>>>
 What Luis said. In my time at the WMF we may have pulled some
 boneheaded moves (with the best of intent and luxury of after-analysis) but
 we never did that. Nor have I heard of it being done to anyone.

 On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 11:12 AM Luis Villa  wrote:

> There are a *lot *of ex-WMF employees out there, many of whom have
> left the Foundation on very bad terms and talked about it very publicly,
> including me. They tend to be very open about talking about their bad
> experiences *because their loyalty is to the community well above and
> beyond the Foundation*.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, this group of people *who often dislike
> the Foundation and talk about that a lot *have never accused the
> Foundation of pressuring employees to vote a certain way. Maybe, just
> maybe, that’s a sign the Foundation doesn’t do that? [It certainly never
> did while I was there, and I can’t imagine that would have been any
> different under Katherine.]
>
> There are so many very real challenges facing the org and the
> movement. It pains me to see so many bytes wasted on this totally 
> imaginary
> one.
>
> Luis
>
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 7:20 AM Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
>
>> Anne, Alphos,
>>
>> There is no reason to assume that staff must be "craven and
>> ill-informed" for them to be able to be pressured to vote a certain way. 
>> At
>> the end of the day, they are employees. Employees are routinely asked to 
>> do
>> things – and comply so as to keep their jobs.
>>
>> Are you ware of anything in WMF employment contracts that prevents
>> management from asking staffers to participate in a vote, or to vote a
>> certain way? (If not, maybe this would be something worth thinking 
>> about?)
>>
>> One thing I *do* recall is that WMF staff have to sign
>> non-disclosure agreements. I asked once what these non-disclosure
>> agreements look like – nobody would say. :) It seems there is a
>> non-disclosure agreement about the non-disclosure agreements. If I am
>> wrong, someone please post theirs here!
>>
>> As for WMF not being a "puppeteering archvillain", I remember what
>> the mood at WMF was like around the time of the Knowledge Engine and 
>> James
>> Heilman's removal from the board. People in charge told pork pies. WMF
>> staffers leaked documents to us at the Signpost, anonymously, because 
>> they
>> were scared.
>>
>> Last year, a number of ex-staffers posted at the en:WP village pump
>> about how their dream job at the WMF had turned into a nightmare and how
>> they'd had to quit to keep their sanity.[1] They voiced complaints about 
>> a
>> toxic management culture.
>>
>> María Cruz said on Twitter she experienced "gaslighting, lying,
>> neglect of misconduct reports, threatening behavior in meetings, lack of
>> inclusion, lack of recognition, from mid and upper 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Approval of Human Rights Policy

[Dan Szymborski]

The fundamental problem here is that the WMF's response to everything is
simply *reactive*. A policy is instituted, with zero real collaboration,
little or no discussion, foggy goals, sparsely answered direct questions
and then simply announced to the community in faux-press release fashion.
And then when people in the community like Andreas Kolbe, who has been an
important voice of caution on many issues, speak up, they're told that this
isn't the specific bureaucratically appointed time to have a discussion.

Then, various WMF-affiliated people assure that we can talk about this,
which is basically "this is our decision, not yours, but we'll be happy to
tell you why we did this, though we're not going to change anything" with
any substantive changes require near rebellion in the Wiki movement. And
telling the community things like that "there's a secret playbook we have"
is making everything worse. *Why* is there a secret playbook for a
collaborative movement? That is not how collaboration and consensus work.

If I and my five friends are collaborating to make a fancy dinner, that
involves *discussing*. It doesn't mean that I decide what the six dishes
will be, inform the other five friends what my decision is, and then simply
assuage them afterwards that I'd love to hear their input. If K says she
doesn't like the parsnip dish I decided on, I don't say "well, I considered
that as part of my decision, so that's that." If P asks why we don't have a
dessert, I don't tell him that this is not the time of the dinner planning
that we may talk about dish choices, but he can ask about it between 4 PM
and 4:30 PM next Tuesday. My friends would get very angry at this very
quickly.

The WMF likes the *idea* of this being a community-driven, collaborative
project rather than actually doing the stuff that *makes* it a
community-driven, collaborative project. How many times does this process
have to repeat in identical fashion before we stop pretending that this
*is* a community-driven collaborative project? If the goal is simply to be
another generic top-down Silicon Valley information charity, just one that
has somehow procured a gigantic unpaid workforce that the elites can
command, then just state it outright so that people don't spend their free
hours toiling in the delusion they're part of a movement.

Best,

Dan



On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 8:52 AM Maggie Dennis  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 8:07 PM geni  wrote:
> 
>
>
>> You and who's army? If one of the world's more questionable
>> governments decides to target Wikipedians within its territory there's
>> not a thing you can do about about it. You’re not France. You can’t
>> threaten governments into submission (and if one of the most powerful
>> states on earth can’t get Zara Radcliffe out you certainly can’t).
>>
>> You’re not a mineral extraction company. You don’t have mercenaries on
>> retainer to try and get your people out.
>>
>> You policy is worse than useless. It doesn’t help at all but
>> marginally increases the risk of being involved with Wikipedia as what
>> can be seen as a harmless hobby writing about trains turns into being
>> involved with a human rights campaigning organisation.
>>
>
> There seems to be a lot of distress in this email, and I'm sorry to see
> it. :( I hope I can speak thoughtfully to these issues without raising
> dangers or making it seem like your concerns - which are completely valid
> and which I share - are being minimized.
>
> For those who don't know me, I'm the VP of Community Resilience and
> Sustainability
> .
> For full disclosure, I'm not one of the team working on the Human Rights
> Policy directly, but one of the people who is working on that directly does
> report up through my line to me. I hired him. He is our Human Rights Lead
> in charge of working to intervene in exactly such situations. We hired him
> because we have faced exactly such situations, and we needed competent
> approaches for threats that would arise whether we wanted them to or not.
>
> I'm only going to speak here to that element of this policy, since it is
> one of the specific areas of my focus.
>
> I've spoken about our human rights interventions at the higher level in my
> office hours several times over the past year. (They are linked, with
> notes, from the page above.) The role rose when an early approach one of
> my teams led to collaborate across particularly high risk regions on
> finding resources for people in trouble
>  led us to find more
> critical need for direct support. We CANNOT threaten governments. We are
> NOT an extraction company. You are totally correct. We need to stay humble
> in our approaches. Instead, the Human Rights Team
>  who supports threats
> on the ground is working on several initiatives to help that includes
> digital 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

[Dan Szymborski]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Erik Moeller  wrote:

At least in my understanding, this thread conflates a good practice
> (waiting periods) with violations of COI policies. As I understand it,
> WMF adhered to its existing COI policy through the usual measures
> (recusal & resignation from the Board).
>
> The primary purpose of COI policies is to prevent self-dealing.
> Typical scenarios described in COI guidelines written from a US
> perspective like [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] focus on Board members hiring
> relatives, or securing contracts for their own business. They
> generally do not _prohibit_ even such transactions outright but
> describe how they must be managed. WMUK's 2012 governance review was,
> in part, triggered by a trustee's Wikimedia-related consulting
> activities while on the Board.
>
>
Speaking of conflating, there's a lot of conflating of "ethical" with "not
specifically against WMF policy." This kind of insider favoritism among
boards *is* fraught with serious ethical concerns, no matter what
WMF's specific policies state. The fact when questioned, we're given
descriptions of the hiring timeline that are, in different places, both
inconsistent and opaque. If WMF policies don't specifically disallow this
kind of under-the-table dealing, then that's not evidence that the hiring
is OK, that's evidence that WMF policies are sorely lacking. The lookback
period for private inurement and private benefit to disqualified persons is
five years for a reason.

I'd feel this way no matter how high quality the hire is. It's
fundamentally wrong and comes after some really cynical manipulations of
election and board rules by this board over the last year. That this hire
is also a controversial figure in English Wikipedia for multiple reasons is
irrelevant to the insider favoritism shown here.

I maintain that the ethical solution is a simple one: a cancellation of the
hiring and, in my opinion, resignation letters from the person or people
with the final say over this decision, no matter in how good faith the
decision was. If not unethical because of good faith, it's a flabbergasting
example of poor judgment.

Best,

Dan
___
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/7ES5Q442CF33DVZQVJIZC4OPTQCY7UQL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

[Dan Szymborski]

There is nobody in existence whose advice is worth crossing serious bright
lines in ethics of corporate governance and quite possibly legal ones. This
isn't a parking ticket.

Whether the offer and acceptance were made in good faith or bad faith leads
to the same conclusion: a completely unacceptable situation that must be
remedied aggressively, not papered-over with corporate doublespeak. Whether
poor ethics or poor judgment, neither trait ought to be welcome in a
decision-making capacity. I would not want *any* person with input on the
ED position who thought this was actually a good idea, even assuming the
best possible faith. For this kind of skating on the edge of inurement, we
should already be beyond the initial question of dismissal of the hire to
the question of other, internal restructuring. This is several orders of
magnitude worse than anything Dr. Heilman was removed for in 2015. If
significant measures are not taken to remedy this situation, then this
should be basically the only issue in the upcoming board elections, and it
would be a shame to have an election in which the community is trying to
deal with serious lapses of ethics or judgment rather than trying to decide
the WMF's other, mission-connected priorities.

Best,

Dan

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 8:34 AM Adam Wight  wrote:

> +1 to Paulo's point, personally I would like to see us ease up on María
> and this seemingly temporary paid role.  It's not a sinecure, not an
> arbitrary nepotistic position—rather, it looks like WMF would benefit.
>
> If the people in this thread truly have the good of the organization and
> the movement at heart, there are much bigger structural issues with WMF and
> this is just a reminder that we have to fix these.  Save your energy for
> fighting actual corruption and not just the perception of it.  How about we
> encourage María in her advisory role to help hire an ED committed to
> accountability to the communities, for example?
>
___
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/DQUVWBJ5CVAB6S3P5GEZXNRR5I4ADZBS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

[Dan Szymborski]

"Moving forward" would involve directly addressing and fixing this shocking
example of board malgovernance, not corporate-doublespeaking about the
future in a way that avoids any and all culpability and transparency for
this gross ethical lapse. This doesn't need to be "explained" to us; it
needs to be remedied. Preferably with pen, paper, and farewells for the
pushers of this latest débâcle.

Best,

Dan

On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:27 PM  wrote:

> Hello again,
> Thank you to everyone that has provided valuable feedback. Moving forward,
> we will articulate and follow the best practices that emerge from these
> important discussions and our corresponding review of the attendant
> policies, procedures, and practices. Developing a more clear and consistent
> policy approach to future decisions is important for us.
> Maggie had been planning to do a community office hour in July in order to
> avoid conflicting with annual plan discussions and Movement Strategy
> meetings. We’ve decided instead to host that time next week. I’ll be there
> as General Counsel and also as a member of the transition team and am
> working to see if the other members of the Transition Team or Board of
> Trustees will be able to join me so we can discuss any further questions or
> concerns you may have. I’m prioritizing doing this sooner over making sure
> everyone can attend. It’s less notice than we would like to give, but
> otherwise it would be well into July before we’d be able. The time and
> details will be coming very soon, hopefully tomorrow.
> Best regards,
> Amanda
> ___
> 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/4HJ2TXAXKVFTX46WMULPURWDCMZP7ZWW/
> 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/C2A6J4WYXU7SSAL326UDDBY4IARMVBZS/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Update From the Board

[Dan Szymborski]

It's my fault for not posting the link! I actually thought I had.

Dan

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 9:40 AM Uwe Herzke  wrote:

> @Pelagic:
>
> As I just saw, that you were referring to an even older post, that was
> about this section on the same talk page, the talk page on Meta about
> the changes. That's the first place to look for such stuff, as that's
> the most legitimate place for such discussions. Where did you expect this?
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/October_2020_-_Call_for_feedback_about_Bylaws_changes_and_Board_candidate_rubric#Update_after_the_first_feedback_round
>
> Greetz from Sänger
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] An Update From the Board

[Dan Szymborski]

Surprised to not see this here yet. Not exactly reassuring and the
reference that the community process "may" feature voting is a dark shadow
on the rest of this, but it is what it is.


===


In response to comments from community members, the Board Governance
Committee has agreed to incorporate the following suggestions
immediately:[1][2]

   1. *Replace the definition and repeated use in the Bylaws of “Chapters,
   Thematic Organizations, and User Groups” with “Affiliates”.* This is
   meant to make the language simpler, as well as not require a modification
   to the Bylaws if movement affiliate models change.
   2. *Clarify when the CEO is and can be excluded from executive
sessions.* This
   further explains the current standard practice.
   3. *Change the name “rubric” to “evaluation form”.* This addresses
   issues of confusion and difficulty of translation related to the term
   “rubric”.

In the next committee meeting on November 17, we plan to continue
discussing the following proposals:

   - *Address concerns about the possibility of having a minority of
   community-sourced seats compared to Board-selected seats.* Our intention
   has always been to maintain the current structure of having a governing
   majority of community-sourced trustees, and the Bylaws should reflect that.
   Commenters have pointed out that the current draft of the revisions would
   allow, in an extreme case, for there to be a 9-member Board with 7
   Board-selected trustees, 1 Founder, and only 1 community-sourced trustee.
   We will edit the draft to ensure that is not a possibility.


   - *Clarify what it means to have a “community nomination process”.* Many
   commenters have expressed concern that the proposed Bylaws language would
   allow the Board to select community members to appoint to the
   community-sourced seats without a community voting process. Specifically,
   concerns have been raised about whether there will be a community vote on
   nominated trustees.

The Board’s priority for the revised community nomination process is for a
process that enables diverse and equitable representation from communities
across the Wikimedia movement, in keeping with the goals and values of our
movement and strategic direction. The final process may feature voting; it
may integrate other means of community representative selection -- we are
looking at various models from communities and cultures around the world.At
the end of the day, we are committed to having a trustee selection process
that gives meaningful voice to the Wikimedia communities. For the purpose
of this effort, we will consider how to ensure that 1) the Bylaws confirms
the principle of community governance; 2) the selection process delivers
the diverse and strategic movement leadership required for the future of
our movement; 3) the selection mechanisms ensure appropriate community
input and agency in keeping with our culture and values.

   - *Increase the amount of time it takes for the trustee term limits to
   reset.* This addresses the concern that the current period of time, 18
   months, is fairly short compared to the term limit of 9 years.


   - *Remove or change the structure of the Founder seat.* This seat is
   unique in that it is reserved for one person (Jimmy Wales), and it is not
   subject to term limits. Commenters have suggested eliminating this seat,
   converting it into a different type of seat, or converting it into a
   different, non-trustee role.


   - *Adjust the approach to community discussion for these governance
   changes.* In addition to further refining these Bylaws changes, we are
   hoping to launch the discussion of community-sourced trustee selection
   pathways in early 2021. We have heard the requests to have longer
   discussion periods and to have multiple rounds of discussions. We will take
   these requests into consideration as we plan our timeline of next steps.
   The Board expansion is meant, in part, to provide additional Trustee
   capacity to engage directly with Communities in such discussions, and we
   look forward to creating the conditions where this exchange can take place
   more frequently.

We will post another update following our November 17 meeting.

In the meantime, we will update the documentation to reflect the current
status and to explain the process through which we expect to discuss and
make decisions on the topics above. This will include the conversation
about selection pathways. We are also thinking how to organize these
conversations in ways that make them enjoyable, open to nuance and
collaboration, and accessible across the diversity of our movement.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protest

[Dan Szymborski]

This isn't a completely honest description of events. You alternate between
attacking Brown-Haired Girl and asking her not to interact with you and you
chime in with things such as the diff below. It would take an enormously
charitable reading for that thread to be considered anything close to your
description.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard=prev=974491119

You have been repeatedly uncivil to other editors; it's not without cause
that the one-way interaction ban in that discussion is going towards you.
For someone who bemoans a toxic environment, you're doing quite a lot to
maintain that environment.

Dan

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:21 PM Chris Sherlock 
wrote:

> I don’t have much to say, so I will try to make this short.
>
> I have been told that I have “invoked [my] mental heath as a weapon”, and
> that I should “stop whining”. The full, unedifying, thread can be viewed
> here:
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BHG
>
> Consequently I have blanked my user and talk page and scrambled my
> password, in protest.
>
> I thank the many, many kind and lovely people on Wikipedia who I have met
> over the years. However, it is quite clear now that Wikipedia is too a
> toxic an environment to continue editing. This is a pity, I had hoped to
> get the Ada Winifred Weekes Baker article to GA status, and continue to
> research and write articles about Australian women (there are hundreds and
> hundred left to go, see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chris.sherlock/Australian_Women_In_Red/ADB
> ).
>
> I ask folks to be kind to one another.
>
> Thank you,
> Chris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

[Dan Szymborski]

As long as people are going to continue to talk about me and imply that I'm
actually *harassing* people, then I feel I have a right to defend myself.

No, clear warnings weren't given. I compared the action of a *non-profit
board* tangentially to *flatulence* and I was immediately talked down to
and lectured at in a patronizing fashion. Nothing was explained, it was
just supposed to be self-evident that it *was* offensive and it *was*
across a line without a single shred of an argument that covered rules or
policy.

I brought up that the UCoC standard is a reasonable person standard, not a
"most offended person" standard and this was never addressed. Instead, I
was demeaned by being placed on a special moderation protocol. Asaf Bartov
threatened me that if I continued to defend myself -- even as people
continued to discuss me -- that *I'm* hijacking the thread. Jackie Koerner
spoke at me in an incredibly condescending, arrogant manner, presuming it
was their place to educate me so I could "learn" what I did.

I asked Asaf if Koerner was given a similar warning for a very long, smug,
patronizing screed about me as on-topic. Bartov reiterated that nobody else
was given any warning about off-topic communication. Only *I* am not
allowed to talk about *my* apparent offense.

Now "other cultures" is considered an excuse for insults far more direct
than I made with myself as the target. People like Allen and Southwood ask
for specifics and are brushed off with "well, it just is." You want to talk
about other cultures, but then don't respect our culture, where it's
extremely offensive to accuse people without evidence, start with the
assumption that the person whose opinion you don't like is in the wrong,
and hold out people for mockery.

I intentionally didn't single-out who I think the worst players on the WMF
board are. I intentionally, when tweeting this conversation and when
exchanging DMs and emails with colleagues in tech, journalism, and related
entities that make donations to Wikimedia, redact all the names and made it
clear that my beef is with the WMF and that anyone who tries to harass any
of these people are not on my side. I've even --surprisingly -- gotten a
few emails from administrators at English Wikipedia who I don't even know,
giving me support though they're concerned if they speak up, everything
will blow up even more and they will be subject to reprisals from WMF.

I daresay I've shown the individuals referenced here with far more respect
than has been shown me. I don't have any desire to "educate" people to the
"correct" opinion as a few of you do. I'm just expressing my opinion on how
the WMF board has conducted itself, I don't seek to lecture Koerner into
seeing their error of their ways or have any desire to prevent Bartov from
effectively responding to criticism as they presume to do for me.

If you enter into this conversation thinking things as harmless as
comparisons of the WMF to a fart resulting in severe penalties are things a
UCoC will successfully bring to the communities, you are dead wrong. Given
the history of communications "at" English Wikipedia from the WMF and
various Wikimedia-connected individuals causing months of turmoil, I'm
fairly certain that the target of disdainful lecturing should be targeted
at the mirror, not me.

Cheers,

Dan


On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 8:04 AM Quim Gil  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 4:08 AM effe iets anders  >
> wrote:
>
> > I would love us to be more gentle, but at the same time it is also
> > important to recognize diversity in character, expression and opinion.
>
>
> Well, precisely?  :)
>
> "To recognize diversity in character, expression and opinion" is crucial.
> Recognizing privilege is just as important.
>
> There is abundant evidence about strong and disrespectful language driving
> away those who actually would contribute diversity in a conversation. For
> one (usually privileged) participant that goes through moderation after
> ignoring warnings, how many (usually less or no privileged) disengage and
> leave silently to avoid or boycott disrespectful behavior? That is where
> the big loss in diversity lies.
>
> One good reason to really care about high standards of respect and civility
> is precisely to increase the diversity of our movement. Most of our "open"
> discussion channels are not open at all. Full participation in these
> channels is in practice quite exclusive. Those who thrive are privileged
> persons who can handle an aggressive communication style or even enjoy it.
> Wikimedia-l is no exception, and the UCoC thread is a typical example.
>
> More and more contributors are taking action to change this trend, and this
> is one of the best things happening right now in our movement.
>
> --
> Quim Gil (he/him)
> Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

Sure, WMF running roughshod over the community is something that doesn't
happen.

I must be imagining the events that led to the community open letter on
renaming, which featured nearly a thousand individual endorsers and 72
community affiliates.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming

And do we *really* want to go into events leading to Heilman's suspension
from the board or Tretikov's resignation? The Fram suspension and under
whose authority the investigation was launched? Should we talk a bit about
the Funds Dissemination Committee?

I would wager we don't, but if someone's going to suggest to me with a
straight face that we should assume the goodness and purity of the WMF,
then there's all this and a *lot* more to unwind. This can't be hand-waved
away; too many people "know where the bodies are buried."

Cheers,

Dan



On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:48 AM Anders Wennersten 
wrote:

> I want to echo Jackies two mail
>
> The community for svwp is not so big and complicated issues on conduct
> are uncommon. But when they occur we often get caught in argument like "
> you who claim to decide over svwp CoC are just a small kabal of some
> 10-120 admins, you are unrepresentative and the enwp CoC says
> otherwise". It will be of big help for us when we need not go into
> detailed discussion over every abuse, but can refer to the UCoC (and not
> just ToU).
>
> And wordings... We consist of people form many different culture and
> language, so what one small group can be seen as acceptable wording can
> be seen as offensive to other.
>
> When I worked in the Swedish global company Ericsson, the interal
> language was English. But in reality that internal vocabulary only used
> 5-10% of the English words, and never puns or sarcasm, and often rather
> blunt expressions than too "flowery". I think something similar must be
> what we use in our internal communication of Wikimedia. And that will be
> welcome for all non-native English people, but can be harder for native
> English people. I have given feedback to top WMF people when the used
> too complicated/flowery sentences that made it hard for non-natives to
> understand what was said.
>
> Anders
>
>
> Den 2020-09-10 kl. 16:16, skrev Jackie:
> > Dan,
> >
> > I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
> > Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
> > understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your
> use
> > of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference
> spelling
> > from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
> > correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
> > words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an
> organization
> > of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment
> is
> > hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
> > people in the free knowledge movement.
> >
> > This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
> > discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
> > *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are
> rather
> > homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
> > discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive
> and
> > covered by a Code of Conduct.
> >
> > In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a
> CoC
> > would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
> > reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
> > public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
> > off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
> > concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
> > identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
> > and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
> > education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
> > violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their
> behavior
> > impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
> >
> > If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is
> offensive, I
> > am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I
> find
> > that text-based communication provides complications for discussions
> about
> > emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
> &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

I'm not "confused" at all. Nor do I have any willingness to be "educated"
by you. I reject your argument and I will reiterate that nothing I said
would be in violation of any UCoC in existence.

This kind of condescending talking-down-to is far more insulting than
anything I said. Perhaps you should reflect on your apparent belief that
there's a form of lèse-majesté in play for the Wikimedia Foundation.

All I have done is point out the WMF's actions over the last 18 months
which are certainly insulting to the community. You didn't have an
administrator revolt in English Wikipedia because someone made a reference
to ArbCom that referenced a malodorous moment, there was one because the
WMF and the poorly named Trust & Safety insulted and demeaned the community
repeatedly.

And for the public record, please note that I withdraw any permission for
you to send messages to my email address. After your two messages, I want
to make sure that any interaction between us is *in camera*.

Cheers,

Dan




On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:16 AM Jackie  wrote:

> Dan,
>
> I am so glad you have given us a real-world example as to how a Universal
> Code of Conduct would be super helpful. It would provide you with a clear
> understanding of how your comments impacted others. It wasn't just your use
> of the word "flatulence" (which, funny enough, I had to reference spelling
> from your email because I have *never* written this word in any
> correspondence). As a parent, I certainly understand the place of such
> words in juvenile humor, but your use here was to implicate an organization
> of professionals is simply operating in bad faith. That sort of comment is
> hostile and denigrates people who *actually* work very hard to empower
> people in the free knowledge movement.
>
> This language serves to alienate people from participation and sews
> discord. These mailing lists are already missing a lot of the people who
> *should* be at the table in these discussions. The mailing lists are rather
> homogeneous in participation because of responses like this call for
> discussion. I hope the future means we move to something more inclusive and
> covered by a Code of Conduct.
>
> In a situation like this where someone has said something offensive, a CoC
> would provide a process for everyone to follow and understand. The people
> reporting the concern would have avenues on which to do so without facing
> public backlash and the steps for reviewing reports would be clear. Based
> off of other CoC examples, this often includes who will respond to such
> concerns and how they will respond. CoCs often go further to clearly
> identify which steps will be taken for certain offenses and what response
> and support the original person reporting the issue can receive. I feel
> education is a huge part of CoC violation response. Perhaps the person
> violating the CoC can do better after becoming aware of how their behavior
> impacts others and still be a valuable member of the community.
>
> If you are still genuinely confused about how what you said is offensive, I
> am more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or video chat. I find
> that text-based communication provides complications for discussions about
> emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
> upset about the result.
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:23 AM Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its
> inception.
> > Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am absolutely flabbergasted that a generic reference of an
> organization
> > > to flatulence, something we see in rated-G television isn't considered
> > > "collegial" enough yet the actions that the WMF has taken over the last
> > 18
> > > months, many of which were pushed by people on this list *are*
> considered
> > > collegial.
> > >
> > > If a joke that would be appropriate for a four-year-old leads to
> special
> > > moderation, what action ought be taken for someone on the list pushing
> > the
> > > failure of a collaborative process that WMF is foisting upon the
> > community?
> > > One of the people "doth protesting too much" about the reference is
> also
> > > someone banned from English Wikipedia for a whole litany of *actual*
> > things
> > > that took up countless hours of community time, including making legal
> > > threats based on finding offense in normal Wikipedia actions.
> > >
> > > I am a longtime, accredited journal

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

I strongly disagree. There's no "reasonable person" standard in which
anything I said would be found offensive. I'm frequently sought out by
professors as a *mentor* for journalism students and we talk about issues
such as this. I'm no shock jock.

If anything, this spell highlights one of the fundamental dangers with a
UCoC that ought to be avoided. An information community that defines
acceptable discourse by the most offended is one in which the principles
are toothless, the growth anemic. Information, by its very essence, will
offend many people. A group that comes to a screeching halt become someone
compared the *actions* of an *organization* to flatulence in mild terms is
a group that cannot but fail to be productive at any task beyond the
blandest of triviality.

I should note that I have nothing in principle against a UCoC. My main
philosophical disagreement is one being imposed, with the community that
built and energized the movement being considered an inferior partner, and
I'm using the word "partner" very optimistically. The basic reality is that
community consultations have proven over the last year to have the same
efficacy as consulting with the knife-bearer in an alley about the proper
ownership of your wallet. A fart -- or even the scandalous further
disclosure that Everybody Poops -- shouldn't derail from the basic issues
at play involving the WMF's actions and its stunning lack of comity in this
and similar situations.

I'll cut off this dreary logorrhea now, to return to pondering whether I
should be amused or bemused about the whole affair. I never thought that
the first time someone would try to wash my mouth out with soap would be
when I was 42.

Cheers,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

will
> be
> > unique to this as its already an issue in all projects where the new
> person
> > is the one frequently dismissed as wrong when there is a clash between
> > them and someone who has been around long enough to be known.
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:11, Yair Rand  wrote:
> >>
> >> The UCoC is obviously a WMF-driven project. It was announced in June
> 2019
> >> by a member of the WMF Trust and Safety team, was added to the strategy
> >> process by the group of WMF appointees (or sometimes WMF
> >> appointee-appointees) who made up the working group, had
> >> pseudo-consultations about it started by WMF staff (with
> wildly-misleading
> >> reports written up afterward, again by the WMF), and the UCoC itself was
> >> drafted by a mixed group of WMF staff and WMF appointees, through a
> process
> >> set by the WMF.
> >>
> >> The communities have repeatedly expressed unambiguous consensus against
> >> having a WMF-imposed UCoC. The WMF has absolutely no business in setting
> >> ordinary conduct policy, and they could have the ED and every board
> member
> >> and C-level declare the UCoC to be policy, and threaten every affiliate
> >> into declaring it as policy, and the only impact would be demonstrating
> how
> >> far removed they are from Wikimedia. The communities are self-governing
> and
> >> will implement policy based on community decisions.
> >>
> >> That said,  I disagree with Dan's calls for
> nonparticipation/noncooperation
> >> or for specifically withholding funds or support. If we end up in a
> >> situation where the WMF tries to block, desysop, threaten, or sue
> >> contributors, or to seize control over the projects, that would be the
> time
> >> for all editors and affiliates and donors to level-headedly level the
> >> Foundation to its foundations. Until then, we should attempt to work
> with
> >> them, even when their behaviour leaves much to be desired.
> >>
> >> -- Yair Rand
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 9 בספט׳ 2020 ב-16:03 מאת ‪Jackie‬‏ <‪
> >> jackie.koer...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
> >>
> >>> Hi Dan,
> >>>
> >>> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation
> of
> >> a
> >>> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
> >>> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I
> >> can
> >>> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
> >>> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of
> >>> people working together. It was determined as a major need during
> >>> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I
> am
> >>> glad to see this moving forward.
> >>>
> >>> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings
> >> about
> >>> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express
> >>> themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why
> >> we
> >>> need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you
> >> share
> >>> in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot
> take
> >>> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however,
> would
> >>> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a
> good-faith
> >>> discussion about the UCoC.
> >>>
> >>> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as
> >>> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the
> UCoC
> >>> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect
> >> on
> >>> people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Jackie
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello Dan,
> >>>>
> >>>> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
> >>> and
> >>>> more useful on the Draft talk page.
> >>>>
> >>>> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
> >>> proceedings",
> >>>> you 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

That's OK. I have much bigger platforms. My apologies for the
ultra-offensive reference to...flatulence.

Best,

Dan

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 4:03 PM Jackie  wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> I hear that you are upset by the suggestion and likely implementation of a
> Universal Code of Conduct. I also hear that you feel like this is a
> WMF-driven project. I cannot change your opinion about the UCoC, but I can
> say your feelings about this being a WMF-driven project are untrue. It
> doesn't matter how strongly you feel this, it's actually many groups of
> people working together. It was determined as a major need during
> discussions I had as part of the Community Health Working Group and I am
> glad to see this moving forward.
>
> I am glad you feel comfortable expressing yourself and your feelings about
> the UCoC. I also would like to say the way in which people express
> themselves and mask insults as "lively discussion" is a huge reason why we
> need a UCoC. To that point, I agree with Isaac and would suggest you share
> in a (collegiate) conversation on the Meta talk page. I just cannot take
> you seriously with the language you used in your email. I, however, would
> love to take your comments seriously and have you engage in a good-faith
> discussion about the UCoC.
>
> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as
> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the UCoC
> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect on
> people in and outside of the Wikimedia community.
>
> Best,
>
> Jackie
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Dan,
> >
> > You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better
> and
> > more useful on the Draft talk page.
> >
> > That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the
> proceedings",
> > you probably expected a different model where different language
> > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
> > UCoC.
> >
> > The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should review the draft and
> if
> > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
> > improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
> > support the drafting committee at this stage.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
> >
> > > I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
> > get a
> > > $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an
> opinion
> > on
> > > proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
> > is
> > > about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
> > flatulence
> > > to itself.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde <
> reachout2is...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
> > WMF
> > > > as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
> > > >
> > > > I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
> > that
> > > > looks like an "imposition"
> > > >
> > > > The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
> > policy
> > > or
> > > > guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
> > > Wikimedia
> > > > project.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Isaac
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> > > > > community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
> > > Doubly
> > > > > so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has
> arbitrarily
> > > > > denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
> > > > > community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
> > taken
> > > > over
> > > > > the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
> > process
> > > > when
> > > > > it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called
> one.
> > > > >
> > > > > The best use of time at this point is to organize the commun

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

There was meant to be a " " there, but my phone rudely stripped it.

If it does it again, I'll make up a rule and suspend it for a year. It's
what the WMF would want, I'm sure.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:45 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szymborski  wrote:
>
> > The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the
> community
> > board elections
> [...]
>
> They're not elections; we get to vote on nominations, the board decide
> whether to accept them.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

Yeah, we've seen from the branding fiasco just how much the imperial
overlords deign to respect the opinions of the peasants.

The only tiniest shred of direct accountability on the board, the community
board elections, have been scuttled for Very Convenient Reasons.

The model is terribly broken and nobody should provide any support,
financial or otherwise, to the WMF in its current incarnation.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:42 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> Hello Dan,
>
> You are allowed to offer an opinion but I Honestly think that's better and
> more useful on the Draft talk page.
>
> That being said, by "effective vote or representation in the proceedings",
> you probably expected a different model where different language
> Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
> UCoC.
>
> The current model isn't bad.  I do think we should review the draft and if
> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
> support the drafting committee at this stage.
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 19:25 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
>
> > I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to
> get a
> > $10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion
> on
> > proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings
> is
> > about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its
> flatulence
> > to itself.
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or
> WMF
> > > as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
> > >
> > > I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything
> that
> > > looks like an "imposition"
> > >
> > > The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing
> policy
> > or
> > > guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any
> > Wikimedia
> > > project.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Isaac
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski, 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> > > > community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound.
> > Doubly
> > > > so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
> > > > denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
> > > > community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has
> taken
> > > over
> > > > the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative
> process
> > > when
> > > > it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
> > > >
> > > > The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to
> > use
> > > > every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> > > > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct>, which
> > the
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > > > > >,
> > > > > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until
> > October
> > > > 6,
> > > > > 2020.
> > > > >
> > > > > The UCoC Drafting Committee
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> > > > > >wants
> > > > > to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you
> or
> > > > your
> > > > > work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what
> > could
> > > > be
> > > > > improved?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

I'm also perfectly free to express to the IRS that I'd really like to get a
$10 million check from them at tax time. The ability to offer an opinion on
proceedings with no effective vote or representation in the proceedings is
about as good as a fart in the wind. I'd prefer the WMF keep its flatulence
to itself.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:17 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> On the contrary, I do not think this is an imposition by the Board or WMF
> as we are allowed to comment on the draft, and suggest improvement.
>
> I have been following the process closely and I do not see anything that
> looks like an "imposition"
>
> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy or
> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any Wikimedia
> project.
>
> Regards
>
> Isaac
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020, 16:11 Dan Szymborski,  wrote:
>
> > As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
> > community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly
> > so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
> > denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
> > community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken
> over
> > the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process
> when
> > it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.
> >
> > The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to use
> > every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, everyone.
> > >
> > > We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct>, which the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > > >,
> > > for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October
> > 6,
> > > 2020.
> > >
> > > The UCoC Drafting Committee
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> > > >wants
> > > to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or
> > your
> > > work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could
> > be
> > > improved?
> > >
> > >
> > > Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with
> > translations
> > > so far.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please join the conversation
> > > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review>
> > > and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
> > >
> > > To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct
> > > page
> > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct>, and the
> FAQ
> > > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ>, on
> > Meta.
> > >
> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
> > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > >
> > > [3]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> > > [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
> > >
> > > --
> > > Patrick Earley
> > > Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > pear...@wikimedia.org
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Universal Code of Conduct draft for review

[Dan Szymborski]

As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
community seats, to voice their opinions of actions that WMF has taken over
the last 18 months. A collaborative process is a collaborative process when
it's actually a collaborative process, not just when it's called one.

The best use of time at this point is to organize the communities to use
every means at its disposal to resist such an imposition.

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 4:18 PM Patrick Earley  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
>
> We are excited to share a draft of the Universal Code of Conduct
> , which the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees called for earlier this year
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> >,
> for your review and feedback. The discussion will be open until October 6,
> 2020.
>
> The UCoC Drafting Committee
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Drafting_committee
> >wants
> to learn which parts of the draft would present challenges for you or your
> work. What is missing from this draft? What do you like, and what could be
> improved?
>
>
> Many thanks to the Committee, and everyone who has helped with translations
> so far.
>
>
> Please join the conversation
> 
> and share this email with others who may be interested to join, too.
>
> To learn more about the UCoC project, see the Universal Code of Conduct
> page
> , and the FAQ
> , on Meta.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/May_2020_-_Board_of_Trustees_on_Healthy_Community_Culture,_Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
>
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/FAQ
>
> --
> Patrick Earley
> Policy Manager, Trust and Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> pear...@wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Feedback requested on draft outline of Transition events

[Dan Szymborski]

This is a bit like your local pizza place asking you what time you're going
to pick up the pizza you didn't actually order.

"Here are the recommendations. Now let's start implementing those
recommendations!" is definitely something that's missing a middle step.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:00 PM Kaarel Vaidla  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> This is an update regarding the progress of the Movement Strategy and the
> design of the transition events.
>
> The Transition Design Group
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/People
> >
> [1] has over the past month been discussing how to create events that can
> facilitate a smooth and inclusive Transition process for the movement to
> start implementing the Movement Strategy recommendations
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> >
> [2].
>
> The Support Team has been sharing weekly summaries
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Updates
> >
> [3] from the Design Group discussions, which have largely centred around
> people and process for the Transition events, as well as ensuring
> legitimacy of the process, needed resource, and communications.  Transition
> will mark a major milestone for our movement to create a collaborative,
> 18-month implementation plan that will begin to shape the future of our
> work, culture, and collaborations.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation will organize the virtual Transition events,
> planned for September to December, 2020. Your help is needed to make sure
> the events can be as inclusive, participative, and engaging as possible. We
> are excited to share the outline for the transition events
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Events_Outline/Draft
> >
> with you and invite everyone to provide feedback [4].
>
> The draft outline offers both light and detailed information regarding the
> events. Even though the draft outline is available only in English at the
> moment, the actual events will be multilingual with materials available in
> a variety of languages and formats. The Transition events aim to be easy to
> join only once or for multiple events. They are for everyone, whether a
> newcomer or a seasoned strategy enthusiast. They are being designed for
> diverse participation across time zones and regions in order to create a
> movement-wide implementation plan.
>
> The review period for the draft outline is for two (2) weeks from August 06
> to 20. After receiving your feedback, the Design Group will finalize the
> plan and the Wikimedia Foundation will ensure the delivery of the events
> according to the design.
>
> Please comment on the talk page on Meta
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Events_Outline/Draft
> >
> [5] and feel free to use the questions below as an orientation:
>
>
>1.
>
>How can the plan be improved? In your opinion, what are some barriers to
>entry that must be lowered so everyone can take part in Transition?
>2.
>
>How can we make sure that you and your community have what you need to
>participate in the Transition events?
>3.
>
>If you have attended other virtual events, what has your experience been
>like and what lessons can be applied in this case?
>
>
> We are hosting office hours to hear from you. Join us on Tuesday Aug. 11 @
> 15.00 UTC (LINK ) or Thursday Aug. 13
> @ 01.00 UTC (LINK ). Alternatively,
> you can share your thoughts directly via email strategy2...@wikimedia.org.
>
> Hoping that everyone is well and safe in these challenging times in the
> world. Very grateful for your time and attention.
>
> On behalf of the Support Team,
>
> Kaarel
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/People
>
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
>
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Updates
>
> [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Events_Outline/Draft
>
> [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Events_Outline/Draft
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Events_Outline/Draft
> >
> --
>
> Kaarel Vaidla (he/him)
>
> Movement Strategy 
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Dan Szymborski]

Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We want to confirm that the Brand Project team has been directed by the
> Board to develop new branding options and to evaluate those options with
> communities. We invite your perspectives.
>
> We are asking that you continue to participate in the process which
> includes completing the survey, available in 7 languages.[1] Your
> participation in this survey will not be calculated as support for a
> change.
>
> We have been alerted to the Community open letter on renaming. We will take
> that information into the process.
>
> The Board will consider all the options, including the option to do
> nothing, and make a decision at their August meeting.
>
>-
>
>Zack & the Brand Project team
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Naming_convention_proposals
>
>
> On Friday, June 26, 2020, Tito Dutta  wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> > The timeline is pretty clear. Glad to know about the special board
> meeting
> > in early July. Other than the open letter there was a straw poll also:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_
> > brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Community_feedback_and_straw_poll
> > The early July briefing, I hope that will be presenting all the aspects
> and
> > opinions.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:57, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation
> Board
> > > of Trustees about the Brand Project.
> > >
> > > Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was
> supposed
> > to
> > > happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project
> > were
> > > the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from
> > changing
> > > fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to
> > what.
> > > Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but
> > if a
> > > recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have
> > been
> > > to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> > > changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> > > August meeting.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about
> > the
> > > project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> > > consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working
> on
> > > for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> > > also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> > > planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is
> needed,
> > > and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can
> > have
> > > an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
> > >
> > > We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> > > possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional
> option
> > > like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with
> > more
> > > than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the
> > survey
> > > now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey
> will
> > > not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed
> > to
> > > collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote
> > on
> > > whether to adopt them.
> > >
> > > Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
> > >
> > > * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to
> > review
> > > and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive
> the
> > > briefing on discussions happening;
> > >
> > > * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> > > posted publicly after the meeting;
> > >
> > > * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding,
> not
> > > about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to
> > stop,
> > > pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a
> discussion
> > > on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
> > >
> > > * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps
> > about
> > > the Brand project.
> > >
> > > I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on
> > renaming
> > > [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the
> > position
> > > of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and
> that
> > > some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are
> also
> > > some who 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps

[Dan Szymborski]

A survey in which the board's decision cannot possibly be disputed sounds
like a perfect fit rather than an unfit one.

On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:35 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit
> for purpose, regardless of how many people have responded. It is ethically
> questionable to continue using a survey which simply does not allow for the
> possibility of being completely wrong when this possibility has been
> brought up so many times by so many interested and affected parties.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Nataliia Tymkiv
> Sent: 27 June 2020 01:27
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Board update on Branding: next steps
>
> Dear all,
>
> I want to share with you the next steps of the Wikimedia Foundation Board
> of Trustees about the Brand Project.
>
> Originally the Board meeting dedicated to the brand project was supposed to
> happen no earlier than October. The expected outcome from the project were
> the recommendations on what the rebranding should look like - from changing
> fonts/logos to renaming. And if there is going to be a renaming - to what.
> Of course, the Board’s role is not in approving a change in fonts, but if a
> recommendation to rename was to be made - the Board’s role would have been
> to make a decision on that recommendation. The timeline has now been
> changed, and the renaming part of rebranding will be discussed in our
> August meeting.
>
> Moreover, the Board will meet in early July to receive a briefing about the
> project and talk about the process between June 2018 - June 2020. The
> consolidated materials on what the brand project team has been working on
> for a while now will be presented to the Board, and these materials are
> also going to be posted publicly. The more-strategic conversation is
> planned for the August meeting. Time to prepare the materials is needed,
> and the ongoing conversations need to be summarised, so the Board can have
> an in-depth discussion about this, before making any kind of decision.
>
> We would like to continue with the survey [1] - we have discussed the
> possibility of technical changes to the survey with an additional option
> like “no renaming is needed” (not the exact words, mind you), but with more
> than 700 respondents it is not methodologically sound to change the survey
> now. Staff have confirmed to the Board that responses to the survey will
> not be calculated as support for a change. The survey was only designed to
> collect feedback on the possible renaming options, not as a yes/no vote on
> whether to adopt them.
>
> Thus the timeline on rebranding for the next 6-7 weeks is as follows:
>
> * Early July - special Board meeting with the Brand project team to review
> and discuss the process so far, and for the Board members to receive the
> briefing on discussions happening;
>
> * July - consolidated materials prepared for the July meeting will be
> posted publicly after the meeting;
>
> * August 5th - the Board meeting on renaming part of the rebranding, not
> about the process. The Board will make the decision about whether to stop,
> pause, or continue the work on this, within the framework of a discussion
> on strategic goals, tensions and tradeoffs, and potential next steps.
>
> * August (after the meeting) - the Board statement on the next steps about
> the Brand project.
>
> I also want to acknowledge receiving the Community open letter on renaming
> [2] that was posted this week. Thank you for this statement on the position
> of those of you who signed. I know there are other perspectives, and that
> some would agree with it who have not signed it, and that there are also
> some who would not agree. We expect that the Board meetings and
> communication after them will address the concerns raised in the letter.
>
> Stay safe,
> antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> Acting Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
>
> [1] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9G2dN7P0T7gPqpD
>
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_open_letter_on_renaming
>
>
> *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal working
> hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> advance!*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>
>
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Dan Szymborski]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:26 PM Jan-Bart de Vreede 
wrote:

>  Hi Gnangarra
>
> I find your request for Nat to resign uncalled for…. and not in the least
> because of the common misconception you have with regards to the role of
> Board members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
>
>
Resigning is precisely what "taking full responsibility" entails here. So
then what does "taking full responsibility" mean if nothing is to change?

As for the community board seats, the board has arbitrarily changed both
term lengths and moved elections forward, again with no input from the
community. It's going to be *years* after the Fram incident until the
community gets to have any referendum on the actions, inactions, or
conflicts-of-interest among community-elected board members.

And people are absolutely entitled to call for the resignation of members
of the board that aren't community elected. That they're not directly
elected by the community does not cloister them from criticism by the
community. Are people under 18 or non-Americans not allowed to criticize
the president of the United States?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

[Dan Szymborski]

OK, you say that you take "full responsibility" for the situation. What
exactly does "full responsibility" entail? How will the relations between
the board and the communities differ compared to the moment *before* full
responsibility was taken?

Is the board changing the degree to which it will consider community
opinions?
Is the board allowing a wider set of possibilities of new names?
Is the board granting the possibility of no change at all?
Is the board inviting additional community representatives to the board for
the limited purpose of deciding on a new name or whether to rename?
Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
with the community resigning from the board?
Are members of the board who are responsible for this poor communication
with the community recusing themselves from further votes on this specific
matter?
Are you, the person who is taking "full responsibility," resigning from the
board?

As far as I see, absolutely nothing has changed. In fact, certain things
have been made even stronger against the community. Why, in a plea to
better communication is it necessary to remind the community that the board
can do whatever they want?

"However, it is important to be clear: the Board absolutely can change the
name of the Wikimedia Foundation, even to the “Wikipedia Foundation,” if it
decides."?

Imagine I'm driving with three friends in my car and we're deciding where
to go for dinner. They all say "anything but pizza." I respond, "well, I
have the keys and you're in my car, so it's pizza."

After some grumbling, I tell them that their opinions are important and
that they can pick the toppings for their pizzas. Well, not pick the
toppings, but they can choose between "pepperoni," "extra pepperoni" or
"half-pepperoni."

Naturally, there's some consternation about why I'm doing this and how
that's not exactly a choice. Then I remind them that I'm still picking the
toppings too, but their input on whether we get pepperoni, extra pepperoni,
or half-pepperoni is super-valuable and will be taken into consideration.

But I take "full responsibility" for people being unhappy with dinner
choice! Oh yeah, I absolutely get to decided whether we have pepperoni,
extra pepperoni, or half-pepperoni, because, well, I have the keys and it's
my car and it's too bad.

But they're all super appreciated and their opinions are valuable!

One thing I've learned from my years at ESPN/ABC is when I'm being fed a
line of nonsense through the medium of vanilla corporate-speak. And, I'm
sad to say, the community is being fed a massive heap of nonsense. None of
this will change until such time the movement itself is treated like a
*real* stakeholder, not simply the conveniently unpaid employees of a board
with unlimited discretion to do whatever it wants, irrespective of any
opinions of the community. Until such time as there's a state in which the
board recognizes that they're the servants of the movements, the people who
turn the steering wheel of the ship and not the captain, this state of
affairs will continue to exist.

Best,

Dan





On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:44 PM Nataliia Tymkiv 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As Acting Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees since March
> [1] I take full responsibility for this situation. I am truly sorry for all
> the frustration this whole situation has caused to volunteers, who have
> engaged in discussions expressing their concerns, and to the staff, who
> have been working and not really sure if that is really the direction the
> Board is prepared to seriously consider, or if it is just an exercise on
> our part. As Chair of the Board, I recognize the Board owes clear
> information to the communities and guidance to the staff.
>
> In 2017, the Board approved the 2030 Movement Strategic Direction,
> recognizing the strategic importance of growing the reach of the Wikimedia
> projects to new languages, communities, and geographies, as part of our
> global mission. In June 2018, the Board approved a Foundation Annual Plan
> that included research into the Wikimedia and Wikipedia brands to
> understand how they could be tools in helping us reach these goals.
>
> In November 2018 [2], the staff presented research to the Board about the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia brands. I personally, even though a relatively long
> term Wikipedian (and a bit less long term Wikimedian), was basically
> convinced by the findings that a rebranding is needed and beneficial for
> our mission and global vision, and furthermore that it should be based on
> the Wikipedia brand. The information presented there also convinced the
> Board that the team should continue their work, but as you can see from the
> minutes the Board believed that communication is crucial, but already a
> possibility for a new name for the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously
> considered [3].
>
> And I am going to be frank here - intuitively taking the name of something
> like “Wikipedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Brand Project] Rescheduling Naming Convention Proposal community review

[Dan Szymborski]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:58 PM Zack McCune  wrote:

> Hi GerardM,
>
> Indeed!
>
>
> As I mentioned in my earlier message, the process will be multilingual. We
> want to ensure that as many people as possible from across the movement
> have the opportunity to participate, so we are working hard to make that
> happen. When it comes to naming in particular, we need to understand the
> localization opportunities and challenges of the different proposals in
> order to arrive at a system that works globally. We are having both the
> survey and the proposals translated into Arabic, Chinese, French, German,
> Russian and Spanish.


To be perfectly honest, while I'm not a professional translator, it can't
certainly can't take that many hours of work to translate "the board is
going to pick whatever name they want, irrespective of anything the
communities offer" into many languages.

Seriously, why all the theater? The board cared little for how the
community felt about the initial name change proposal, code of conduct, and
crammed the 2030 project so aggressively down the throats of the community
that even the most deluded as to the state of affairs saw it was pointless
to offer any additional feedback. There's still no transparency for board
conflicts-of-interest during the Fram incident or the capricious and
arbitrary extension of the term of community board seats.

Every single person reading this knows that the board is going to do
whatever it wants anyway, so why insult the community with the pretense
that any opinions of the community actually matter?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Dan Szymborski]

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 4:18 PM James Salsman  wrote:

> > "Wikipedia should support any political movement that makes
> > people's lives better because they will then have more time to edit
> > Wikipedia," is an incredibly dubious line of reasoning. It would
> literally
> > cover anything in politics
>
> On the contrary, by definition, it would be restricted to the subset
> of ways to make people's lives better which also allow them more time
> to edit. The contrapositive of 'because' is 'is caused by.'
>
> If campaign finance reform makes people's lives better and allows them
> more time to edit, then there would seem to be five categories:
> 'active opposition,' 'inactive opposition,' 'silence,' 'inactive
> support,' 'active support.' Obviously the Board wants to do what
> supports the community, employees, donors, and readership, not
> necessarily in that order.
>
>

Nah, of course all these things do.

Tax cuts? Well, I don't have to work as hard at work, leaving me more
editing time!
Tax increases? With more services, I won't have to work as hard to make
money, leaving me more editing time!
Free blueberry pancake deliveries? Ever make blueberry pancakes? Takes
forever, freeing up more editing time!
My family turned into delicious sausages? Between holidays, birthdays, and
random errands mom calls me for help with, it's taking up valuable editing
time!

And so on. You can make a tortured case for *anything* someone wants to see
as increasing editing time.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Preparing for feedback on naming convention proposals

[Dan Szymborski]

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 7:25 AM Samir Elsharbaty 
wrote:



> The 2030 Movement Brand Project is now moving into Phase 2: naming
> convention proposals [1]. This is the most anticipated phase of this
> project. It will ask the movement to evaluate which proposal(s) best
> communicate who we are so that billions of new users can understand us and
> join us. We look forward to getting everyone’s feedback on the different
> ideas being developed.
>
> The RFC was quite clear that the answer was none.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

[Dan Szymborski]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 1:21 PM  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:00 AM Bill Takatoshi 
> wrote:
>
> > And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to
> > campaign finance reform
>
>
> I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base has any opinion on this
> “campaign finance reform” (or, for the most part, know what that is). I
> guess it has something to do with the political parties in the United
> States? Sorry, I’m not interested in that very much.
>
>
And even in that case, there's a huge gulf between that and it being
something Wikipedia actively endorses.

The whole "Wikipedia should support any political movement that makes
people's lives better because they will then have more time to edit
Wikipedia," is an incredibly dubious line of reasoning. It would literally
cover anything in politics whatsoever. Tax increases, tax cuts, open
borders, closed borders, federal daily blueberry pancake delivers, etc,
whatever you want, then one can make an argument under this line of logic.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Outcomes of the Harmonization Sprint in Tunis

[Dan Szymborski]

I'm not sure I could design a process more guaranteed to result in complete
resistance from the community if I tried. It's gobsmacking that far more
effort was made on putting together a nice little junket to Tunisia than
any sort of effort to seek community-buy-in. The working groups had
next-to-no direct interaction with any of the community's objections to the
proposals. But again, a trip to Tunis is a lot more fun than remedying risk
assessments with howlers like (I'm paraphrasing) "some people might not
like it" or "people can just leave the project."

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:42 AM Henry Wood 
wrote:

> Paulo,
>
> There is nothing more for us to do, since community input closed on
> the 15 September.  The community will next be consulted on the
> implementation of the recommendations after they are finally agreed.
>
> Henry
>
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 18:08, Paulo Santos Perneta
>  wrote:
> >
> > " A second iteration of draft recommendations [4] was published on Meta
> > just before the sprint for
> > the communities’ information." - It's quite unclear what are we supposed
> to
> > do with this, since those recommendations most probably became outdated
> in
> > the course of the Tunis meetings in the days following their publication.
> > Are we supposed to do anything at all with them?
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia segunda,
> > 30/09/2019 à(s) 17:27:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > We recently held the harmonization sprint in Tunis [1], where
> > > representatives from each working group met in person to continue
> bringing
> > > nine separate sets of draft recommendations into one set. The event
> also
> > > brought together staff members from the Wikimedia Foundation and
> Wikimedia
> > > Deutschland, the WMF Chair of the Board of Trustees, and members of the
> > > core team. A longer narrative report will be published in the coming
> weeks;
> > > in the meantime, see a short day-by-day report on Meta, photos on
> commons
> > > [2], and check out the hashtag #hs2030 on Twitter [3].
> > >
> > > In the lead up to the meeting, the working groups were busy refining
> their
> > > draft recommendations based on feedback received at in person events
> from
> > > Wikimedians across the movement as well as on wiki, via email, and on
> > > social media since March of this year. They had also begun identifying
> > > overlaps in each other’s recommendations and content. A second
> iteration of
> > > draft recommendations [4] was published on Meta just before the sprint
> for
> > > the communities’ information.
> > >
> > > At the sprint, we continued to group recommendations based on
> > > commonalities. From there, we looked at what kinds of structures would
> need
> > > to be in place to deliver the Wikimedia 2030 vision. A first, rough
> > > grouping of recommendations came together at the sprint. But what
> became
> > > clear during the event was that before it’s possible to create a
> coherent
> > > and actionable set of recommendations, fundamental principles that
> underpin
> > > the path towards 2030 need to be formalized.
> > >
> > > The core team is currently processing the discussion materials and
> > > outcomes. Analysis of the current draft recommendations will continue
> so as
> > > to create one unified set. The timeline will shift and we are looking
> into
> > > options for another round of community input.
> > >
> > > I would like to make clear that the reason we were not able to achieve
> our
> > > initial goal in Tunis was due to a lack of clarity and guidance on the
> core
> > > team’s part. Still, the time was not wasted and important, honest
> > > conversations were had. The working group members, as ever, devoted an
> > > enormous amount of energy and care in the lead up to and during the
> event,
> > > and demonstrated their deep understanding of the challenges and
> > > opportunities in our movement. We are extremely grateful for all their
> > > effort. In short, the harmonization sprint underlined the high level of
> > > work and dedication every single working group member has put into
> getting
> > > the movement strategy to its current point, and the passion to shape
> the
> > > future of the diverse and inclusive movement we envision.
> > >
> > > We have valuable lessons to take from this event and incorporate into
> the
> > > overall process and the next steps. We will share these with you all as
> > > soon as possible. If you have questions in the meantime, please feel
> free
> > > to reach out to me.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Nicole
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Harmonization_Sprint
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_2030_Harmonization_Sprint
> > > [3] https://twitter.com/search?q=%23hs2030
> > > [4]
> > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
> > >
> > >
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Dan Szymborski]

This is largely my feeling as well. If you look at one of Andrew's links:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_research_and_planning/community_review/brainstorm


You'll see some quite vigorous opposition to the name change and robust
support for explicitly not changing the name.

Fast-forward more than six months and now 20% of people have to actively
oppose something or it's supported, even though there is no way that you'll
get a response rate on *anything* *ever* to be 20% on a large email list.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:48 PM MZMcBride  wrote:

> Andrew Lih wrote:
> >Folks, it's not clear this email thread is going to register at all as
> >feedback for this process.
>
> Hi.
>
> I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
> a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an
> outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and
> validate that predetermined decision.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

[Dan Szymborski]

Given the typical response rate for polling is extremely low, even among
groups of people who agreed to be polled, the 20% metric is absurd. If you
put out some random notice among a million other emails to 9,000 people on
various lists submitting a proposition to change the name to Fart Factory
Incorporated, there's not a chance you'll get 1,800 to oppose it. Even a
random internet poll, paying no attention to issues of sampling would be
more accurate than this because at least internet polls don't include
non-responses as either yes or no to the question being asked. If you're
going to ask the community for input on something, then it should be done
properly

Best,

Dan

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:59 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> I agree that an RFC would be a reasonable way forward.
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> > the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> > a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there can be no doubt?
> >
> > Something along the lines of:
> > "The WMF have employed Wolff Olins for rebranding advice, and they
> > recommend that Wikimedia rebrands itself around the word "Wikipedia"
> > and projects like Wikimedia Commons are renamed to "Wikicommons" to
> > ensure marketing of the projects can easily be delivered by the WMF.
> > Do you support or oppose this rebranding programme?"
> >
> > With a straightforward RFC to keep on linking to in every discussion
> > on every venue, we might then have tangible evidence of whether "There
> > is considerable support for the branding proposal" or "There is
> > considerable opposition for the branding proposal" is factual. Rather
> > than drifting along for months with the debate and unhappiness that
> > comes from arguing both sides of a mostly political case without
> > firmly verifiable evidence available or relying on complex and less
> > credible stats from surveys that are likely to suffer from embedded
> > bias, especially considering the already banked investment in
> > consultancy that drives the need to change something, to prove the
> > spent money had impact and "value".
> >
> > P.S. Zack and others, it's best to avoid the word "collaboration" when
> > communicating with an international group. It has unfortunate history
> > and gives the impression that you are quoting views from collaborators
> > rather than holding open collegial discussion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fae
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Diane Ranville 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I agree with Pine.
> >> There is a majority of people who actually oppose the rebranding
> >> proposition.
> >> I don't quite understand why this is still going forward (except that
> it is
> >> difficult to acknowledge a mistake and take steps backwards - but it is
> >> sometimes necessary).
> >> Have other options even been considered?
> >>
> >> -speaking in my own name here-
> >>
> >> Diane
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 7:35 AM Pine W  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Zack,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for the report on Meta.
> >>>
> >>> I am troubled by your statement in this email that "There is
> considerable
> >>> support for the brand proposal and general appetite to improve our
> >>> movement’s branding system." What that statement appears to omit is
> that,
> >>> according to the report on Meta, there is also considerable opposition
> to
> >>> the rebranding proposal.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can you explain why you characterized the proposal as having
> "considerable
> >>> support" without in the same sentence acknowledging what appears to be
> >>> considerable opposition?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Of the three top-level metrics that the report on Meta displays that
> >>> measure community and affiliate support or opposition regarding the
> >>> rebranding proposal, one of the three metrics is in favor and two of
> the
> >>> three metrics are opposed. If this was an RfC, and I was using those
> >>> measures of sentiment to evaluate support and opposition regarding the
> RfC,
> >>> I would probably close the current rebranding proposal as declined.
> >>>
> >>> Pine
> >>>
> >>> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 20:49 Zack McCune  wrote:
> >>>
>  *Summary* - We want your help with a voluntary, OPT-IN design process
> for
>  movement branding.  Please join the in-depth discussion group, or
> watch
> >>> for
>  updates on Meta-Wiki.
> 
> 
>  Hello all,
> 
>  After 4 months of community consultation, spanning dozens of
> affiliates,
>  several mailing lists, community conferences, and Meta-Wiki, I am
> pleased
>  to share a summary of feedback on the proposed 2030 movement brand
> >>> strategy
>  [1].
> 
>  From more than 319 comments, representing 150 individual contributors
> and
>  63 affiliates, we assessed 6 major themes in feedback:
> 
>    1.
> 
>