[Wikimedia-l] [recent changes]

[Denny Vrandecic]

I exchanged a walk on part in the war for a lead role in the cage.

I find myself tied and limited in my actions and projects. In order to
avoid the perception or potential for Conflict of Interests I have to act
extremely carefully in far too many parts of my life. Instead of being able
to pursue my projects or some projects at work - which I think would align
very well with our mission - I found myself trapped between too many
constraints. I feel like I cannot offer my thoughts and my considerations
openly, since they might easily be perceived as expressions of interests -
regarding my previous work, regarding my friends, regarding my current
employment.

This hit home strongly during the FDC deliberations, where I had to deal
with the situation of people deliberating a proposal written by my Best
Man, around a project that has consumed the best part of the previous
decade of my life. Obviously, I explained the conflicts in this case, and
refrained from participating in the discussion, as agreed with the FDC.

This hit home every time there was a topic that might be perceived as a
potential conflict of interest between Wikimedia and my employer, and even
though I might have been in a unique position to provide insight, I had to
refrain from doing so in order not to exert influence.

There were constant and continuous attacks against me, as being merely
Google’s mole on the Board, even of the election being bought by Google. I
would not have minded these attacks so much - if I would have had the
feeling that my input to the Board, based on my skills and experiences,
would have been particularly valuable, or if I would have had the feeling
of getting anything done while being on the Board. As it is, neither was
the case.

I discussed with Jan-Bart, then chair, what is and what is not appropriate
to pursue as a member of the Board. I understood and followed his advice,
but it was frustrating. It was infuriatingly limiting.

As some of you might know, Wikidata was for me just one step towards my
actual goal, a fully multilingual Wikipedia. I hoped that as a Trustee I
could pursue that goal, but when even writing a comment on a bug in
Phabricator has to be considered under the aspect that it will be read as
"it is a Board-member writing that comment" and/or “It’s a Googler writing
that comment”, I don’t see how I could effectively pursue such a goal.

It was at Wikimania 2006 in Boston, when Markus Krötzsch and I had lunch
with Dan Connolly, a co-editor of the early HTML specs. Dan gave me an
advise that still rings with me - to do the things worth doing that only
you can do. This set me, back then, on a path that eventually lead to the
creation of Wikidata - which, before then, wasn't something I wanted to do
myself. I used to think that merely suggesting it would be enough - someone
will eventually do it, I don’t have to. There’s plenty of committed and
smart people at the Foundation, they’ll make it happen. Heck, Erik was back
then a supporter of the plan (he was the one to secure the domain
wikidata.org), and he was deputy director. Things were bound to happen
anyway. But that is not what happened. I eventually, half a decade later,
realized that if I do not do it, it simply won't happen, at least not in a
reasonable timeframe.

And as said, Wikidata was just one step on the way. But right now I cannot
take the next steps. Anything that I would do or propose or suggest will be
regarded through the lense of my current positions. To be fair, I do see
that I should not be both the one suggesting changes, and the one deciding
on them. I understand now that I could not have suggested Wikidata as a
member of the Board. It takes an independent Board to evaluate such
proposal and its virtues and decide on them.

I want to send a few thank yous, in particular to the teams at the
Wikimedia Foundation and at Google who helped me steer clear of actual
conflicts of interests. They were wonderful, and extremely helpful. It
bears a certain irony that both organizations had strong measures against
exactly the kind of things that I have been regularly accused of.

I only see three ways to stay clear from a perceived or potential Conflict
of Interest: to lay still and do nothing, to remove the source of the
Conflict, or to step away from the position of power. Since the first
option is unsatisfying, the second option unavailable, only the third
option remains.

So I have decided to resign from the Board of Trustees.

It was not an easy decision, and certainly not a step made any easier by
the events in the last few months. I understand that I will disappoint many
of the people who voted for me, and I want to apologize: I am sorry,
honestly sorry, but I don’t see that it is me the Board needs now, or that
the movement needs me in that position. What I learned is that the profile
that allows someone to win an election is not the profile that makes an
effective Trustee.

But be warned that you will continue to hear from me, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Using this list to tear people down

[Denny Vrandecic]

Thanks. I also got reminded about that a few times, recently. I would love
this to be more reflected upon.


On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> There's a quote popularly attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt:
>
> "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds
> discuss people."[0]
>
> Now, I'm not calling any particular people small minded, nor am I
> suggesting we stop talking about issues. What I am suggesting is that we
> talk about issues, and not people. The axe grinding and personal
> denigrations are being pushed further and further to the limits during this
> turmoil, and I humbly ask that it stop, and that moderation is used if
> needed to do so. I'll have no sympathy for those who wish to continue to go
> after fellow human beings for political gain.
>
> 0. http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/18/great-minds/
>
> --
> ~Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Discourse installation

[Denny Vrandecic]

Thanks!

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
ebernhard...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> This test instance is not yet using OAuth to utilize SUL credentials.
> Discourse only supports OAuth2, and MediaWiki only supports OAuth1, so some
> engineering time needs to be spent to build a bridge between the two.
>
> For now, with the test, you will need to create a new account.
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Denny Vrandecic <dvrande...@wikimedia.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I don't know where else to ask - I was thinking of trying out the
> > Discourse installation, and wasn't sure if I should create a new account
> or
> > if I could just use my SUL credentials? And if the former, wouldn't that
> > later clash when we merge to something like OAuth?
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Discourse installation

[Denny Vrandecic]

Sorry, I don't know where else to ask - I was thinking of trying out the
Discourse installation, and wasn't sure if I should create a new account or
if I could just use my SUL credentials? And if the former, wouldn't that
later clash when we merge to something like OAuth?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

[Denny Vrandecic]

I agree as well.
On Feb 29, 2016 06:00, "Jimmy Wales"  wrote:

> On 2/29/16 5:52 AM, Nathan wrote:
> > There is a simple and easy way to rectify this: you and the other members
> > of the board can honestly and fully describe the circumstances that led
> you
> > to eject Heilman from the board.  I've seen lots of indirect and
> > non-specific claims from both sides; I wish you would all stop making
> vague
> > assertions and just tell us what happened. I'm sure you can come up with
> > lots of reasons why you Simply Cannot Do That, but if that's the case
> then
> > maybe stop talking about it altogether.
>
> I agree with you completely.
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Denny Vrandecic]

In order to avoid misunderstandings, would you please clarify what you mean
with "fully vetted"? This term can mean so many different things, and I
want to make sure.
On Feb 26, 2016 05:32, "Comet styles"  wrote:

> I was banned on this mailing list last month for pointing out Lila's
> incompetency as a leader..I just hope the next ED we have is fully
> vetted before they are selected and I'm really hoping that we get
> someone with a "wikipedia" background for a change.. Why don't we hire
> someone who know the project inside and out instead of someone who is
> thrust into the position without the know-how?...
>
> The events of the last 2 months seemed like something from a Hitchcock
> film..Good luck to Lila on her future venture but lets just hope the
> incompetency levels we have at both the Board and Staff level stops
> here...If the community has to go through this again this year, I'm
> sure the next job on the line may very well be at the very TOP..
>
> Cometstyles
>
> On 2/26/16, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> > There will be an AllHands staff discussion about recent events tomorrow,
> > per Katherine Maher on Facebook.
> >
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/wikipediaweekly/permalink/963758547005310/?comment_id=963762980338200_comment_id=963831903664641_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R3%22%7D
> >
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Erik Moeller 
> wrote:
> >
> >> 2016-02-25 12:19 GMT-08:00 Gayle Karen Young :
> >> > I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff,
> not
> >> on
> >> > the staff, and not on Lila.
> >> > I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there
> is
> >> an
> >> > enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in
> moving
> >> > forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point
> >> > onward.
> >>
> >> Well said, Gayle, and best wishes in the journey ahead, both for WMF
> >> and the movement, and for Lila. I'll go back to lurking for a bit, but
> >> may chime in on some of the topics that have been raised in some of
> >> the very constructive side conversations.
> >>
> >> Warmly,
> >>
> >> Erik
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
> --
> Cometstyles
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Denny Vrandecic]

I wanted to explicitly state that a number of us are reading intensively
many of the ideas suggested in a diversity of channels, including this
mailing list.

We are hearing you.

We cannot reply to all of them, as we simply lack the bandwidth. But we are
listening.

Thank you for your passion.



On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Gayle Karen Young 
wrote:

> I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff, not on
> the staff, and not on Lila.
> I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there is an
> enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in moving
> forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point
> onward.
>
> Wishing you well always,
> Gayle
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Sydney Poore 
> wrote:
>
> > Patricio, thanks for the update.
> >
> > I appreciate you and Lila informing the wikimedia movement now, before
> all
> > of the details of the transition plan are complete.
> >
> > As the BoT works on a transition strategy and plans for hiring a new ED,
> > perhaps a member of the Board can take on the role of Chief Communicator.
> >
> > Understandably, it is not always easy to know when to make announcements
> > and updates to the wikimedia movement especially when plans are
> incomplete.
> >
> > At this moment in time, a good communication strategy that keeps everyone
> > regularly informed will help build a stronger bond between the WMF Board
> > and the rest of wikimedia movement.
> >
> > My thoughts are with you and the rest of the Board as you work through
> this
> > situation.
> >
> > Warm regards,
> > Sydney
> >
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> > Wikipedian in Residence
> > at Cochrane Collaboration
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Patricio Lorente <
> > patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear friends,
> > >
> > > This week, the Board of Trustees accepted Lila’s resignation. Her last
> > day
> > > will be  March 31, 2016.
> > >
> > > I would like to thank Lila for her efforts over these past two years,
> and
> > > her passion for our shared mission. Together, we wish her the best in
> her
> > > future endeavors and accomplishments.
> > >
> > > The Board of Trustees is meeting regularly to determine next steps. Our
> > > top priority is to develop a clear transition plan that seeks to build
> > > confidence with community and staff, appoint interim leadership, and
> > begin
> > > the search for a new Executive Director. We will continue working
> closely
> > > together over the coming days, and will share an update next week.
> > >
> > > This work will require extensive collaboration by the Board over the
> next
> > > few weeks. Although we know you’ll have questions, it is likely we’ll
> be
> > > very focused on planning the next steps. We appreciate your patience
> and
> > > understanding during this time.
> > >
> > > Patricio
> > >
> > > TRANSLATION NOTE: This message is also posted on Meta at the Board
> > > Noticeboard for for translation. You can find it here:
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/25_February_2016_-_Executive_transition_planning
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> > > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> > > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ___
> > > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> > > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
> > >
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

[Denny Vrandecic]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Patricio Lorente 
Date: Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:50 AM
Subject: [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning
To: "wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org>, wmf...@lists.wikimedia.org


Dear friends,

This week, the Board of Trustees accepted Lila’s resignation. Her last day
will be  March 31, 2016.

I would like to thank Lila for her efforts over these past two years, and
her passion for our shared mission. Together, we wish her the best in her
future endeavors and accomplishments.

The Board of Trustees is meeting regularly to determine next steps. Our top
priority is to develop a clear transition plan that seeks to build
confidence with community and staff, appoint interim leadership, and begin
the search for a new Executive Director. We will continue working closely
together over the coming days, and will share an update next week.

This work will require extensive collaboration by the Board over the next
few weeks. Although we know you’ll have questions, it is likely we’ll be
very focused on planning the next steps. We appreciate your patience and
understanding during this time.

Patricio

TRANSLATION NOTE: This message is also posted on Meta at the Board
Noticeboard for for translation. You can find it here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/25_February_2016_-_Executive_transition_planning
-- 



___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Denny Vrandecic]

Thanks to all the answers to my response. I am still reading them, and I
probably will not be able to answer to all in a timely manner (I have to
work, after all), but I wanted to make a few things clearer, quickly:

Milos, I indeed do not care about reelection. And if I have to choose
between truth and political wisdom, I hope to continue to choose the first.

More importantly, Milos, I did a massive error in my formulation, as I know
realize, which lead to a misunderstanding. I have to apologize for that.
When I said that the Board has to make a decision in the interest of the
Foundation when there is a conflict between the Communities and the
Foundation, I was phrasing myself very badly, I now realize. I actually did
not mean a direct conflict between a single Community and the Foundation,
i.e. with these two as being directly opposed to each other and fighting
over something, but rather the more complicated case of a decision where
there is a conflict of interests between the Foundation and the
Movement-at-large, the Board is obliged to decide in the best interest of
the Foundation.

I do not buy in the mythology of an "evil community" at all. I do not even
buy into the mythology of a great divide between the communities and the
foundation. There are plenty of people who are active and constructive in
both, and who bridge both. The cases where the Foundation and the Movement
are directly opposed to each other should be extremely rare, and,
thankfully are. I don't think there was anything even close to that brought
to the Board in my tenure so far.

More often though is the case that there is a third-party situation, e.g.
an imminent and considerable legal threat to the Foundation. In that case,
the interests of the Movement at large has to be secondary for the Board.

I regard the Movement-at-large as much more resilient than any and each of
its parts. And I am thankful for that, because I think our mission is much
too important to leave it with a small NGO in the Bay Area. It has to be a
mission carried by every single one of us, it has to be a mission that is
inclusive of every one who wants to join in realizing it.

I have overstated my point in my last mail, obviously, and also
intentionally to make a point (and thanks for everyone to calling me out on
that). But as many have confirmed, there is truth in this overstatement. I
don't think that such situations will occur often. But when they occur, and
that is what I said, they will be painful and frustrating and potentially
shrouded in confidentiality / secrecy. Therefore it remains my strong
belief, that reaffirming the current Board as the movement leadership body
is a bad idea, because the overstated incompatibility that I have described
remains.

I could imagine with a much smaller Board of Trustees, which itself is a
constituent of a body representing the whole Movement.
I could imagine a wholly new body to represent the whole movement.
I could imagine many, many small new bodies who somehow make local
decisions on the one side and bubble up to an ineffective, but extremely
resilient and representative voice.
I could imagine many other models.
But I have a hard time to imagine the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
Foundation sincerely filling out the role of the movement leadership, due
to the inherent constraints and incompatibilities between these roles. As
rare as they appear, they do appear.

Dariusz, you say that a disengagement from the Foundation by the community
would increase a specific Foundation versus the rest of the movement
situation. I don't think that the formal composition of the Board matters
as much as its role, duties, and obligations.

The German Wikimedia chapter, the one chapter I have a bit experience with,
is a membership organization. The Board is elected by the members in its
entirety. I don't see any claim of that Board to lead the German Wikimedia
communities. I don't see that the German chapter is significantly closer to
the German Wikimedia communities, or that their relation to the communities
is considerably less strained, than the Foundation is to the overall
communities (besides the obvious locality of their relation).

Dan, Brion, James, in particular thanks to you for arguing why my
overstatement was, well, an overstatement. But I still remain convinced
that the view of the Board as having the role of leading the movement is
merely an accident of the fact that we have no other obvious leadership,
and that the Board is being sucked into that vacuum. It is not designed to
be so, and, I argue, due to the legal and formal obligations, it shouldn't.

MZMcBride, I currently lack the time to answer to your specific and
excellent points in particular. Sorry. I hope to come back to it.





On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <
djemieln...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > Thus, not the senate, but assembly is the right form of 

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

[Denny Vrandecic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Denny Vrandecic <dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
wrote:

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

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

[Denny Vrandecic]

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

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

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

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



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

> >
> > This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated
> > Board, nor is a developing world-dominated.
> >
>
> "Nor is a developed world-dominated."
>
> Sorry, my bad.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

[Denny Vrandecic]

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



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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikimedia Foundation BoT

[Denny Vrandecic]

Delphine,

thank you.

Whereas I do not agree with everything you say (but I think those are
discussions for another time), I wholeheartedly agree with your insight
that the Board as a whole is dumber than its member on average. Thank you
for putting this down to words. I would even say, dumber than any of its
members (including myself, who probably ranks at the bottom).

The Board is not the governing body of the movement, and the Foundation is
not the movement. The ED is not the president, and the Chair of the Board
is not the Queen or King. The FDC is neither Santa Claus nor the IRS. Some
of the issues come from the demands and expectations to these positions
that would come from such roles - e.g. the expectations towards the Board
are sometimes mistaken for the expectations one would have towards a
representative governing body of the movement. But the actual, and
sometimes legal roles and responsibilities these bodies have (your much
aligned fiduciary responsibility comes to mind) weight stronger than these
mere expectations, which leads to much suffering.

I do not know of many topics as important as clearing up the roles and
bodies of the movement as a whole. But I know that unless we do, we will
continue to crash face-forward into brick walls again and again. I have no
idea how to get to that promised land, but I hope it will not take us forty
years of wandering in the desert to do so.

I want to say it very clearly, that I honestly believe that, no matter how
stupid the Board seems to have acted, that I believe that each and every
member of the Board during their time on the Board while I have been there
- and I want to explicitly include James - has acted to their best
intentions and to the best of their knowledge. I expect that to continue.
It is utterly frustrating to see how things are turning out.

To all others: many of the Board members receive and read these comments on
many different channels. But we have basically two options to engage, and
both are suboptimal.
# One option is to make sure that the Board's communication with the
community always represents the opinion of the Board as a whole, which
means to discuss it internally at first, to check with legal and PR, and to
go through these cycles again and again. Almost any message, no matter how
vivid and bubbly it might have been, will turn out as a bloodless,
corporate-like speech after that. Never mind that such a process will never
be fast enough to allow for anything that resembles a conversation.
# The alternative is to allow every member of the Board to engage
individually as they like. This will mean that there are much more
individual conversations going on, things can be better explained. But this
also means that the individual Trustee's statement must not be taken as
golden representations of the Board's thinking. If ten Board members engage
with the community (which won't happen anyway, but even if it's five), do
expect five different voices and opinions, and don't expect that everything
said will actually become a resolution (which, in the end, is the only way
the Board as a Board can communicate anyway). This obviously can lead to
plenty of "that Trustee said that" or "no, I talked with Trustee X, and she
said that this change is a bad idea", etc. - never mind possible legal
implications.

Since I have been on the Board there was never even really a discussion
which of these options we should take. And I am not surprised by it -
considering how creative and dissective some community members can be with
the statements from Board members. Seriously, I am not feeling comfortable
with sharing any of my thoughts here, and even this mail I hope I will
press send before I just delete it.

This mail, please, do not read it as an excuse for the Board. I am not
trying to downplay the current situation nor to take responsibility away
from the Board. I am not trying to blame anyone at all, but merely trying
to explain why the heck we act so fucking dumb sometimes.

Again, thanks,
Denny




On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Delphine Ménard 
wrote:

> I believe that Dariusz' comment was somewhat blown out of proportions
> (due in part to difficulties in communication inherent to our
> multicultural movement). I also think that some of the statements he
> made were too "blanket" to let go, so I understand the frustration.
>
> This said, Ori, I want to thank you for what I believe is the most
> daring, heartfelt and bold emails ever written to this list.
>
> And I use the word bold very specifically because I believe that this
> is what is missing today. Boldness. Boldness does not only translate
> in taking (un)calculated risks, it also comes in the capacity of
> admitting failure.
>
> I'll tell you where I think we, as an organisation, have failed. It
> was already a long time ago, when we started to talk about efficiency.
> When the Foundation started working and acting like an American Global
> Corporation, and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

[Denny Vrandecic]

So how to deal with legitimate uses that require many requests?

Is it better to not serve them at all?
On Jan 16, 2016 19:50, "John" <phoenixoverr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In cases of excessive resource usage we have several options. Contact the
> source, throttle them, or flat out disable access depending on what each
> case calls for.
>
> I have seen the dev team to this liberally in the past when needed. If any
> one person or group is exploiting us by using unproportionate amounts of
> resources  thats one thing, if we are just trying to make money by selling
> access to what we already have thats another. Limiting abusive sources
> shouldnt be an issue, but as soon as we start selling access we loose sight
> of our mission.
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Denny Vrandecic <dvrande...@wikimedia.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > I find it rather surprising, but I very much find myself in agreement
> with
> > most what Andreas Kolbe said on this thread.
> >
> > To give a bit more thoughts: I am not terribly worried about current
> > crawlers. But currently, and more in the future, I expect us to provide
> > more complex and this expensive APIs: a SPARQL endpoint, parsing APIs,
> etc.
> > These will be simply expensive to operate. Not for infrequent users -
> say,
> > to the benefit of us 70,000 editors - but for use cases that involve tens
> > or millions of requests per day. These have the potential of burning a
> lot
> > of funds to basically support the operations of commercial companies
> whose
> > mission might or might not be aligned with our.
> >
> > Is monetizing such use cases really entirely unthinkable? Even under
> > restrictions like the ones suggested by Andreas, or other such
> restrictions
> > we should discuss?
> > On Jan 16, 2016 3:49 PM, "Risker" <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm.  The majority of those crawlers are from search engines - the very
> > > search engines that keep us in the top 10 of their results (and often
> in
> > > the top 3), thus leading to the usage and donations that we need to
> > > survive. If they have to pay, then they might prefer to change their
> > > algorithm, or reduce the frequency of scraping (thus also failing to
> > catch
> > > updates to articles including removal of vandalism in the lead
> > paragraphs,
> > > which is historically one of the key reasons for frequently crawling
> the
> > > same articles).  Those crawlers are what attracts people to our sites,
> to
> > > read, to make donations, to possibly edit.  Of course there are lesser
> > > crawlers, but they're not really big players.
> > >
> > > I'm at a loss to understand why the Wikimedia Foundation should take on
> > the
> > > costs and indemnities associated with hiring staff to create a for-pay
> > API
> > > that would have to meet the expectations of a customer (or more than
> one
> > > customer) that hasn't even agreed to pay for access.  If they want a
> > > specialized API (and we've been given no evidence that they do), let
> THEM
> > > hire the staff, pay them, write the code in an appropriately
> open-source
> > > way, and donate it to the WMF with the understanding that it could be
> > > modified as required, and that it will be accessible to everyone.
> > >
> > > It is good that the WMF has studied the usage patterns.  Could a link
> be
> > > given to the report, please?  It's public, correct?  This is exactly
> the
> > > point of transparency.  If only the WMF has the information, then it
> > gives
> > > an excuse for the community's comments to be ignored "because they
> don't
> > > know the facts".  So let's lay out all the facts on the table, please.
> > >
> > > Risker/Anne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 16 January 2016 at 15:06, Vituzzu <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you for sharing this but, above all, to focus on digging real
> > data.
> > > >
> > > > IMHO we shouldn't forget our mission, so licenses must be as free as
> > > > possible. Turning into something "more closed" would definitely
> deplete
> > > one
> > > > of the most valuable source (the open source world) of volunteering
> we
> > > have.
> > > >
> > > > Crawlers' owner should definitely share our increasing expenses but
> any
> > > > kind of agreement with them should include ways to improve ou

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia's 15th BD

[Denny Vrandecic]

For Wikipedia's 15th birthday I wish that we will move towards thinking how
to massively increase the effectivity of each and every single contributor
and their reach. I wish us to think how we can, by 2020, create
well-sourced, high quality, comprehensive Wikipedias in more than 200
languages, and be able to maintain those without assuming that we have
30,000 or more active editors in each of these languages.

I want us to think about ways how to achieve a billion articles. We need
tools and workflows that go well beyond Wikidata and Content Translation to
really achieve that goal. Ways to allow to create and maintain a knowledge
base which abstracts from natural language, and ways to generate articles
in any of our supported languages on the fly. This generators have to be as
community-editable and creatable as the content itself, as anything else
won't scale for our means.

That's my wish for our 15 year old project.




On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:27 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A few hours ago I had the pleasure of celebrating Wikipedia's fifteenth
> birthday here in Tbilisi
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_fifteenth_birthday_party_in_Tbilisi_01.JPG
> >
> with Wikimedia Georgia. Press and Television were both in attendance.
>
> We had some interesting discussions - there may be an application coming in
> for internationalisation to deal with the problem that many Georgians can
> only edit in the Latin script.
>
> I then went on to take some photos in the Georgian National Museum, though
> it may be a few days before I organise and upload those. I tried to get
> better photos of this bracelet
> <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pyrope_and_Turquoise_jewellery.JPG
> >and
> I have photos of another Georgian diadem
> 
>
>
> > Jonathan
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

[Denny Vrandecic]

No, I think the questions of community representation on the Board and the
creation of an independent body able to represent the communities are
orthogonal. I do not see anyone suggesting that the Board should not have
community representatives.

But I see the need for a body representing the communities that does not
derive its power from the Board, but from the communities directly.

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> >
> >
> >
> > Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent the
> > communities than one subordinate to the Board?
>
>
> My concern is that in the long run such a body may lead to excluding
> community representation from the Board ("since we have a community body
> already..."). Also, I think that we're lacking a senate, not a government
> per se.
>
> dj
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

[Denny Vrandecic]

David,

thanks for that perspective. I agree that in theory the Foundation has the
power you describe. But it is the same theory that lead to the
implementation of Superprotect, and we know how this worked out. I do not
think that the use of such a power would be accepted.

Or am I wrong?

Denny


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:01 AM, David Goodman  wrote:

> Whatever I may think of some of the recent actions of the board,
> I think its present role goes well beyond
> " bring stability and assure that
> the daily business is done: keep the platform online, deal with legal
> cases and keep a positive financial balance. "
>
> The key roles are to ensure the quality of WP, and
> " to lead   'in a political manner' "  the open information movement.
>
> First, it  it does have the power to deal with a situation  where"Let's
> say, a specific Wikipedia would be in trouble - maybe there are reports
> that it was taken over by a small group of POV-pushers. "
> It has  control of the trademark, and the ability to prevent any particular
> WP from using it. It cannot prevent any aberrant group from using our
> material while calling itself something else, but it can prevent it calling
> itself Wikipedia.
> True, this may not be effective in some cases as it used to be, before some
> of the individual language chapters had developed organizational and
> financial resources of their own, to the extent that some of them could
> well persist as the major free encyclopedia in their language communities
> even without the WP name
>
> Second, when dealing with the ongoing threats to free information, the WMF
> can and does effectively speak for all those interested as perhaps the best
> known and the strongest voice. This is not something to be regarded
> lightly.  It can organize the greatest general public indignation that any
> one organization can, and it can coordinate and act asa center for the work
> of others. Much as all languages in the world need a good free
> encyclopedia, all the people in the world need this freedom even more.
>
> On the other hand, it is not needed financially--many other groups in the
> movement can successfully raise sufficient money to keep the whole
> operation going, if not to maintain the present number of programers
> working on ancillary projects
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent
> the
> > > communities than one subordinate to the Board?
> >
> >
> > My concern is that in the long run such a body may lead to excluding
> > community representation from the Board ("since we have a community body
> > already..."). Also, I think that we're lacking a senate, not a government
> > per se.
> >
> > dj
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

[Denny Vrandecic]

My issue with the current proposal on Meta is that it creates a body which
works towards the Board.

This is, in my opinion, a fundamental mistake: it perpetuates the idea that
the Board is the major governing body of the movement at large.

I would very much prefer an independent and strong body that can speak and
represent the communities but is not subordinate to any bodies of the
Wikimedia Foundation, including its Board.

I see how the community council as currently suggested in

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

can be useful, but I am not sure whether that would resolve the kind of
conflicts that we are seeing currently and which arise from the perception
that the Board is the top body of the Movement, but instead it has legal
obligations to the Foundation.

Am I the only one who would rather see an independent body represent the
communities than one subordinate to the Board?


On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> >> My impression is therefore that some sort of a preparatory work is
> needed
> >> to avoid these two traps. Ideally, there would be a drafting group with
> a
> >> broad representation (possibly the members of the group will be
> prohibited
> >> to sit in the first edition of the elected body), and the Board will
> >> preliminary express an interest (so that the group knows the chances are
> >> not zero). Of course we can just agree on electing the representative
> body
> >> witout actually asking the Board, but I am not sure this would be the
> right
> >> way of doing it.
> >>
> > Agreed. A mixed working group could be a way to go.
>
> From my perspective, anything which would move the situation from the
> status quo would work.
>
> Presently, the discussion has been started on Meta and it would be
> good to see your input there. I don't see the proposal as anything in
> the form take it or leave it, but as the beginning of the discussion
> (or reloading it after a lot of time).
>
> Working group could be created based on that discussion; the other
> option -- and I'd like to believe in it -- is to create the final
> proposal based on completely public discussion.
>
> Significant difference between the previous attempts to do something
> like this is the fact that at least three Board members (Denny,
> Dariusz and Guy) support something similar to this idea. Previously,
> Board was the body which at least passively obstructed the idea. That
> means that we have much better chances for success this time.
>
> So, please join the discussion; if you have a different idea as the
> whole proposal, write it there, so we could discuss. We could
> rearrange the page into the set of relatively coherent proposals and
> discuss about the proposals integrally, about their features and
> finally find the best possible solution, which would be the product of
> as wide as possible consensus.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

[Denny Vrandecic]

Milos,

I find a lot in your email to agree with.

The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, in my understanding, is not the top
governance body of the Wikimedia movement. It sometimes stands in for that,
because we don't have anything better - but its composition and its legal
obligations suggest that this is and should not be the case.

You write that Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing
body. At least for myself, I can say that this is not the case. My
understanding restricts the Board only to the role of being the Board of
the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not the community. The Board is
not the voice of the community for the Foundation. The community is neither
lead by the Foundation, nor by the Board. I don't even think there is a
community - there are numerous overlapping communities.

It seems to me that in open collaborative projects like ours, the amount of
scrutiny and criticism a governance body receives is negatively correlated
to the amount of competences it has. Creating or deleting content, banning
disruptive users from a project, deciding how the energy of the community
should be spent on creating content? None of these is the business of the
Board. None of these is the competence of the Board. And that’s good.

When I started working on the Croatian Wikipedia, I did not send a request
to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation to see if what I did was good.
When I became the first admin and bureaucrat on the Croatian Wikipedia, it
was not the Board that bestowed these powers on me. When I suggested to
create a Semantic Wikipedia, it was not a request sent to the Board.

The power of the communities does not emanate from the Board. The power of
many of our other organs do not emanate from the Board (some do, though).

Let's say, a specific Wikipedia would be in trouble - maybe there are
reports that it was taken over by a small group of POV-pushers. This would
be a serious issue - what is the body in our movement to deal with that
issue, though? Does anyone argue here that the Board has these powers? What
could the Board do? What other organ would be the right one to make such
decisions? Which other organ is willing to take on these decisions?

I think that the Wikimedia movement needs to reconsider its governance
structures. We need something like a constitution. Maybe a general
assembly, as Milos suggests, or another body that somehow represents the
communities at large is needed. Maybe a reshuffling or explicating of the
powers vested in the current bodies is needed. What is the role of the
affiliates? What should the Board be deciding and what not? How can the
Foundation talk to a body representing the communities? How can we
strengthen the voices of the communities? Which body could credibly
represent the voice of the communities towards the Foundation?

The Board currently is exposed to requirements from a number of different
sources, and sometimes requirements that contradict with each other. In
order to become more effective, I would like to invite everyone to consider
Milos' suggestions and come up with your own. Our movement is now in its
teenage years - let us have a strategic goal of having a better
constitution before we leave adolescence. Let us aim at having a better
understood governance structure before we turn 18.

Cheers,
Denny


On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Forking the issue of Board composition.
>
> We tend to think of Board as the governing body of the movement, not just
> WMF. Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing body of
> WMF, with shiny cool movement supporting it.
>
> We tend to discuss of community representation, they tend to assimilate
> anyone who joins them. While "trust and honesty" are noble words, they tend
> to be the words of excuse, covering forced imposition of the dominant
> position over everybody inside of the group.
>
> The Board composed as it is now has no capacity to overcome this problem. I
> am not talking about particular persons inside of the Board, but about the
> culture of assimilation, which usually ends in assimilation, but, as we
> could see now, it could end in removal of a Board member.
>
> I see two options to overcome this problem and both of them require wide
> consensus, including the present Board.
>
> One option is to restructure the Board itself, the other one is to create
> new cover organization, with WMF as one of its institutions.
>
> It's obvious to me that Wikimedia is not an ordinary organization or even
> an ordinary movement. The importance of Wikimedia movement is on the level
> of smaller country. Our needs are on the level of a city-sized society. And
> our governance should be so.
>
> At the moment, we have a kind of a mix which works because of that culture
> of assimilation and because WMF makes enough money. Destroying any of those
> corruptive powers would destroy WMF itself. So, if we want to change
> something, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Denny Vrandecic]

James,

all these things that you answered about - being out of process,
disruption, ignoring advice - all of these were some of the things you
explicitly apologized for just two weeks ago. Those were not my words,
those are yours.

Seeing you defend these, again, does this mean your apology was not sincere?

It was this apology of yours that gave me several sleepless nights -
literally, unfortunately.
It was this apology that let me regain most of the respect, and some of the
trust I had lost.
It was this apology that gave me hope that you might have finally
understood.

And now you are here again, being defensive about these very issues? About
nothing else in what I wrote, but merely about these things?

Please, tell me that you were sincere.

Denny



On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:48 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> With respect to Denny's statement that I acted out of process, yes I spoke
> with staff at staff's request. However, so did the majority of the rest of
> the trustees. And the chair and vice chair were aware of these
> conversations. Additionally the situation in question justified these
> conversations IMO. With respect to "ignoring advice" I did use my own
> judgement. With respect to the "disruption" I do not feel I can take
> responsibility for the engagement survey results. I did bring staff
> concerns forwards to the board but I was simply reporting these concerns.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

[Denny Vrandecic]

I got asked by a number of people to share my personal opinion, which is
set out below, regarding the dismissal of James from the Board. This took
me far longer to write than I hoped for, and it was very hard to write.

I am not sure if this will change anyone’s mind - in fact, I am afraid that
any story of “James sticking it to the evil Board” or of “James as the
knight in the shining armour, fighting against the tyranny represented by
the Board, the Board’s secrecy and malfeasance” will be hard or impossible
to dispel. Also, although I am an elected Board member, I am regularly
being told off with the false claim that my seat was bought by my employer
- Google - anyway. So how much of what I could say, could really have an
effect on anyone?

But let’s get to the gist of the story: why the heck was James removed?

James actually already said very clearly why he was removed: “My fellow
trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me . . . .”  Indeed, the
vast majority of the Board lost their trust in James' ability to fulfill
the duties and obligations of a Board member without overstepping his
charter and being an effective and cooperating member of the Board.

I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago,
I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me.
And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as
openly and frankly as I would desire; I was unconvinced that it would be
held in confidence. I rewrote the mail because I had concerns about James'
being on the Board, as I had lost my trust in him. This is, I think many
will agree, not a healthy situation.

At the next executive session I raised this issue to the whole Board -
James included. It became clear that I was not the only Trustee who felt
that way. We had a discussion in which we openly discussed this matter.
James was asked, repeatedly, to consider a resignation, but he suggested
that it would not matter whether he resigns or whether he is voted off. I
disagreed with him on this point.

So what were our options at this point? How should we have handled this
unfortunate situation? Should we simply sideline James in all conversations
where the lack of trust or following process is an issue? But if we do so,
sure, all of it would be quieter, and the community and the outside world
would likely never notice anything - but I would have an even bigger issue
with that: if we sidelined a community-elected Board member for basically
their whole term, would the community-elected members truly be sufficiently
represented on the Board according to the spirit of the bylaws? This didn’t
seem like an adequate solution to me.

I am, to be completely frank, rather surprised and also relieved by the
fact that the Board not only acted, but acted decisively - despite knowing
very well that there would be quite some community fallout. The Board was
not afraid to make a hard and likely unpopular decision, because it truly
believes to act in the best effectivity of the Board, and thus also the
best effectivity for the Foundation and the Movement at large. This gives
me hope in this Board.

I saw that James wrote an email where he lists three things he was
supposedly accused of. At least for me, his list does not reflect the
reasons why I voted for his removal. Indeed, in the last few days on the
Board, James apologized to the Board for his previous behaviour. It was
that stated behavior underlying that apology that served as one reason why
I voted as I did. I do not know why James changed his view on these reasons
in the days before and after the vote.

Based on some of the comments I have read, I wanted to explicitly address
these rather, say, interesting conspiracy theories, from my perspective:

-- James was not removed from the Board because he was demanding more
transparency.
-- James was not removed from the Board because of a difference in opinion
about the strategy of the Foundation.
-- James was not removed from the Board because of difference in opinion or
disagreement about the governance of the Foundation.
-- James was not removed from the Board because he was insisting to see
some documents that the Board was withholding from him
-- James was not removed from the Board because any third party wanted him
removed (like a big pharma company who was unhappy with James on the Board
and was promising a big donation if he is gone - I am just listing this
because it was indeed mentioned.)
-- James was not removed from the Board because he demanded more community
input or was fighting for NPOV.
-- James’ removal had nothing to do with the role and composition of
community-elected vs appointed Board members.
-- James was not removed from the Board because he dared to ask too many
uncomfortable questions.
-- James was not removed because he didn’t want to sign an NDA.

As I saw it, James acted out of process, ignored advice and caused
disruption. He sure was not the only Trustee who 

[Wikimedia-l] Board approval of the FDC recommendation

[Denny Vrandecic]

The financial funding in the FDC recommendation was approved by the Board
of Trustees on December 9, 2015. The resolution is available here:

<
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_approval_of_FDC_recommendation_(2015-16,_Round_1)
>

As usual the Board is extremely grateful for the work done by the FDC
volunteers in reaching their recommendations. The thoughtful and detailed
discussion renews our enthusiasm for the process in which the community has
strong input into the funding levels of different affiliates.

As noted above we have approved the committee's financial funding
recommendations, and asked the Executive Director to proceed within her
authority and discretion.

At the same time the Board has two additional comments which it would like
to make.

With regards to the request for more community input in strategic and
annual planning of the Wikimedia Foundation, the Board and the Executive
Director agree that this is an important priority. Some steps have already
been taken and some are likely to still be worked out in partnership with
the FDC.

With regard to the funding of the WMDE restricted grant, we feel that the
FDC has several legitimate points. The Board approves the total recommended
allocation for WMDE, but does not approve the additional requirements
recommended by the FDC, as conditional to installments deployment. In
particular, the Board does not approve the conditions to be applied as
conditional to the second part of the financing. The Board believes that
approving such conditions would risk applying similar restrictions to
entities that request [unrestricted] annual grants in the future, and does
not believe that such restrictions are necessary, as evaluation of past
results should take place when the entity applies for their next annual
plan grant. However, the Board suggests that entities follow the FDC's
guidance regarding providing information.

Denny Vrandečić,
for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia websites is not accessible almost everywhere in Iran

[Denny Vrandecic]

Oh, thanks for the report. IP blocks suck more than DNS meddling...

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It seems IP of WMF wikis is being blocked so AFAIK it doesn't really depend
> on domain name.
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM Denny Vrandecic <dvrande...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > IIRC we used to have the alternative URL
> >
> > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikinews/fa/wiki/
> >
> > in order to access
> >
> > https://fa.wikinews.org/wiki
> >
> > but it seems that these were turned into redirects, probably when the
> https
> > switch happened.
> >
> > Would it be an idea to not make them redirects but return the content on
> > the wikimedia domain, or, even better, on the wikipedia domain (and maybe
> > any of our domains) as well?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denny
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Mardetanha <mardetanha.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not all WMF websites are blocked in Iran, Till now commons is blocked
> and
> > > Fawikinews (starting this evening), as far as I contacted local
> > > authorities, they didn't confirm the block, they only said it might
> > > technical issue, I am still try to get more information to see what is
> > > happening
> > >
> > >
> > > Mardetanha
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Amir Ladsgroup <ladsgr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It had started with Wikimedia Commons and then upload.wikimedia.org
> > (so
> > > no
> > > > images) and now Persian Wikinews and I just realized except a few
> > number
> > > of
> > > > ISPs all WM websites are blocked everywhere. Obviously analytics can
> > give
> > > > more details.
> > > >
> > > > I talked with legal team in Wikimania and asked them for a direct
> talk
> > or
> > > > any kind of negotiation with Iranian government to make things easier
> > but
> > > > It's going worse. they lifted block on CNN once Rouhani had interview
> > > with
> > > > them two years ago.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > 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
> > > 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
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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
> 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
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] Wikimedia websites is not accessible almost everywhere in Iran

[Denny Vrandecic]

IIRC we used to have the alternative URL

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikinews/fa/wiki/

in order to access

https://fa.wikinews.org/wiki

but it seems that these were turned into redirects, probably when the https
switch happened.

Would it be an idea to not make them redirects but return the content on
the wikimedia domain, or, even better, on the wikipedia domain (and maybe
any of our domains) as well?

Cheers,
Denny




On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Mardetanha 
wrote:

> Not all WMF websites are blocked in Iran, Till now commons is blocked and
> Fawikinews (starting this evening), as far as I contacted local
> authorities, they didn't confirm the block, they only said it might
> technical issue, I am still try to get more information to see what is
> happening
>
>
> Mardetanha
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Amir Ladsgroup 
> wrote:
>
> > It had started with Wikimedia Commons and then upload.wikimedia.org (so
> no
> > images) and now Persian Wikinews and I just realized except a few number
> of
> > ISPs all WM websites are blocked everywhere. Obviously analytics can give
> > more details.
> >
> > I talked with legal team in Wikimania and asked them for a direct talk or
> > any kind of negotiation with Iranian government to make things easier but
> > It's going worse. they lifted block on CNN once Rouhani had interview
> with
> > them two years ago.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Best
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Decentralised Wikipedia

[Denny Vrandecic]

To the best of my knowledge, the two leading candidate technologies for a
decentralized Wikipedia - git and blockchain - would both not scale to
Wikipedia's requirements.

(But I am not an expert in distributed technologies, merely looked into
these two for exactly this use case.)
On Sep 23, 2015 4:59 AM, "Tomasz Ganicz"  wrote:

> Many years ago, there was an idea to organize Wikipedia in usenet/nntp
> style (i.e. multiple servers conected via a dedicated protocol, and one can
> set up another one if he/she has enough resources and skills) - but I guess
> it would very hard to organize, as it all need to be live-synchronized. In
> usenet - texts are created by single person and only once, and then sent to
> relevant group, and then it is distributed to all servers and users who
> subscribe this group. In Wikipedia - any article can be edited by anyone at
> any time, and readers are interested in the final result which the effect
> of collaborative writing. Otherwise there will be various article versions
> splited across various servers.
>
> See:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>
>
>
> 2015-09-23 10:41 GMT+02:00 Erik Aas :
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > this is my first post to this list. I think Wikipedia is a great project
> > and am impressed by how well it works. It seems the (lack of) funding of
> > the project is one of the more severe threats to its continued success.
> > Since (I assume) the biggest cost is the maintenance of servers, I wonder
> > if there are there any plans of making Wikipedia decentralised.
> >
> > Let me elaborate. I'm thinking of a system where many users each would
> > store a small part of the encyclopedia. A user wanting to look up or edit
> > an article connects to another user who has a copy of that article. When
> an
> > article is updated the update is sent to all other users (that are
> online)
> > responsible for storing that article.
> >
> > Are there any efforts to accomplish this? Would it be feasible?
> >
> > Best,
> > Erik
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29=tomasz-ganicz
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> 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
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,