Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Peter Southwood]

This seems a reasonably prudent path.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Pine W
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 6:14 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community 
conversations launching next week

I've been reading sections of the strategy document with a couple of
thoughts in mind.

* The relatively decentralized nature of the community makes
negotiations challenging, both within the community and between the
community and WMF.

* Clashes between the community and WMF are usually lose-lose
situations. Even for the side that eventually comes out on top, I
think that there is a lot of stress, a lot of time lost, a lot of
damage to assumptions of good faith, and a lot of unhappiness.

In my brief search of the strategy document:

* I think that the quality of the strategy document is more uniform
than the quality of the working group draft recommendations, and the
document is generally readable. Thanks very much to the people who
contributed time and effort to produce a generally coherent document
that can be used as a basis for discussions.

* I have seen some descriptions of problems that I think are generally good.

* I have not seen proposals that I think are likely to result in
significantly improved relations between the community and WMF. There
is some discussion of improving the efficiency of global discussions,
but that would be difficult to do and is a separate issue from
improving relations between the community and WMF.

* There are multiple calls for changes that would cost many thousands
of hours of volunteers' time to design, even assuming that there was
consensus that the changes should be made. I think that the ambition
here is unwise.

* There are some proposals which are unlikely to get consensus. Even
assuming that there is consensus in principle, getting consensus on
implementation would be difficult.

The best way forward, I think, would be to have the community as a
whole and individual wiki communities adopt portions of the
recommendations as they think best. There may be a few proposals which
the community is willing to adopt globally through requests for
comment on Meta. Proposals which are not adopted globally may be
adopted by local consensus so long as they do not conflict with global
policy.

The WMF Board may want to adopt portions of the document for WMF's
use. At this point, I would encourage WMF instead to wait to see what
the community does with the recommendations. When the community
decides to move forward with portions of the recommendations globally
and/or locally, WMF can then offer to support those initiatives in
ways that have community consensus. Patience will be required, but I
think that this path will lead to the most harmonious and sustained
progress. The alternatives involve more opportunities for chaos,
frustration, and WMF-community conflict; please, let's not go there.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
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] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Pine W]

I've been reading sections of the strategy document with a couple of
thoughts in mind.

* The relatively decentralized nature of the community makes
negotiations challenging, both within the community and between the
community and WMF.

* Clashes between the community and WMF are usually lose-lose
situations. Even for the side that eventually comes out on top, I
think that there is a lot of stress, a lot of time lost, a lot of
damage to assumptions of good faith, and a lot of unhappiness.

In my brief search of the strategy document:

* I think that the quality of the strategy document is more uniform
than the quality of the working group draft recommendations, and the
document is generally readable. Thanks very much to the people who
contributed time and effort to produce a generally coherent document
that can be used as a basis for discussions.

* I have seen some descriptions of problems that I think are generally good.

* I have not seen proposals that I think are likely to result in
significantly improved relations between the community and WMF. There
is some discussion of improving the efficiency of global discussions,
but that would be difficult to do and is a separate issue from
improving relations between the community and WMF.

* There are multiple calls for changes that would cost many thousands
of hours of volunteers' time to design, even assuming that there was
consensus that the changes should be made. I think that the ambition
here is unwise.

* There are some proposals which are unlikely to get consensus. Even
assuming that there is consensus in principle, getting consensus on
implementation would be difficult.

The best way forward, I think, would be to have the community as a
whole and individual wiki communities adopt portions of the
recommendations as they think best. There may be a few proposals which
the community is willing to adopt globally through requests for
comment on Meta. Proposals which are not adopted globally may be
adopted by local consensus so long as they do not conflict with global
policy.

The WMF Board may want to adopt portions of the document for WMF's
use. At this point, I would encourage WMF instead to wait to see what
the community does with the recommendations. When the community
decides to move forward with portions of the recommendations globally
and/or locally, WMF can then offer to support those initiatives in
ways that have community consensus. Patience will be required, but I
think that this path will lead to the most harmonious and sustained
progress. The alternatives involve more opportunities for chaos,
frustration, and WMF-community conflict; please, let's not go there.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Peter Southwood]

A big part of the problem is when these things are implemented, and people ask 
questions because they don't know what is going on, they are often met by 
complete absence of response from anyone at WMF, or in the case of the 
strategy, whoever it was that published the stuff for comment. I agree that 
there is an unreasonable expectation for instant response, but really it does 
not take much planning to ensure that someone is available to answer immediate 
questions, which would probably prevent most situations from going critical. 
Then someone presents a boilerplate non-answer from a group username and the 
shit hits the fan. Sure, we have our drama queens. By now the WMF should have 
noticed the pattern, and made a plan to work within the reality. Really poor PR 
demonstrating a lack of understanding of the audience.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Aron Manning
Sent: 04 February 2020 13:56
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community 
conversations launching next week

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 08:57, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time,
> and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time.
>

While MediaViewer's introduction wasn't prepared appropriately and
superprotect was an inconsiderate, rushed and authoritarian solution to
stop the wheel-warring, it is a fundamental issue of the community that
such disagreements are always dealt with anger, combative actions and
rushed decisions.
The parallels with last year's Fram debacle are strong both on WMF's and
the communities' side: no conversation, drama, wheel-warring again,
immediately. This is how "collegial discussion" of differences should
happen?

I see this as a fundamental issue, that's strongly related to why so much
harassment (and lesser forms of incivility) are part of our everyday
editing experience (I'm talking about less-known members of the community,
who aren't protected by their established status, not us). Those
differences can't be dealt with anger, but only with level-headed, honest
and just moderation.


On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 11:23, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> In the Strategy discussions, I have experienced and witnessed several times
> that defenders of the "strategy synthesis/recommendations" do not want to
> talk about an issue. They say things like:
>

With experience in projects on this scale, one can understand that not all
questions can be answered. While I wish the working group members would
have engaged more in the discussions (kudos to the few, who did, thank you
for showing an example to follow), it is very de-motivating to read
negative comments written in a matter of minutes, that reject months of
work with the strike of a few buttons, without making any effort to think
about solutions to the problem and realizing how hard (impossible, in fact)
it is to implement solutions that satisfy every individual's every need and
concern.

This is disrespectful to the hard work put into these recommendations and
damaging to the motivation of the volunteers and staff members, who gave
their time out of goodwill and -faith, and takes away from their time and
energy to improve the recommendations. What I find disheartening about this
is that most of the negative comments come from users, who opposed the 2017
Movement Direction
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction/Endorsement#Oppose>,
which is the basis for the current recommendations. Although the first name
is especially *not* representative of the "not constructive" comments, I
would hope that who don't understand or share this vision, would express
their "concerns" with less drama, respecting the work of those, who can
imagine a future with a more friendly and diverse editing culture.

Imagine, how helpful it would be if I were to approach users with
authority, to ask them to assume good faith and treat newcomers with
respect. It would cause some discord, which would turn into angry
responses, which would eventually result in my de facto ban. As it did on
enwiki. Fortunately, the consultations are a more civil atmosphere and
there is space for negative comments, to a certain extent.


> * "this feels like défa vu"

* "you are not constructive"
> * "we must look forward, not backward"
> * "we don't want to talk about details now, we leave that for later"
>

I don't know exactly what was implied with "déja vu" and fortunately, I
haven't met the last response, that I strongly disagree with. The concern
about some feedback not being constructive is, however, very valid, that
I've reflected on above. Responses that give alternative solutions,
highlight questions worth focusing on and generally *add* something to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Chris Keating]

Hi Aron,


>
> I see this as a fundamental issue, that's strongly related to why so much
> harassment (and lesser forms of incivility) are part of our everyday
> editing experience (I'm talking about less-known members of the community,
> who aren't protected by their established status, not us). Those
> differences can't be dealt with anger, but only with level-headed, honest
> and just moderation.
>
>
I entirely agree with this. In fact, this is why the movement strategy
recommendations put emphasis on creating shared expectations (through the
movement charter) as well as methods of conflict resolution.

Chris
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Aron Manning]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 08:57, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time,
> and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time.
>

While MediaViewer's introduction wasn't prepared appropriately and
superprotect was an inconsiderate, rushed and authoritarian solution to
stop the wheel-warring, it is a fundamental issue of the community that
such disagreements are always dealt with anger, combative actions and
rushed decisions.
The parallels with last year's Fram debacle are strong both on WMF's and
the communities' side: no conversation, drama, wheel-warring again,
immediately. This is how "collegial discussion" of differences should
happen?

I see this as a fundamental issue, that's strongly related to why so much
harassment (and lesser forms of incivility) are part of our everyday
editing experience (I'm talking about less-known members of the community,
who aren't protected by their established status, not us). Those
differences can't be dealt with anger, but only with level-headed, honest
and just moderation.


On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 11:23, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> In the Strategy discussions, I have experienced and witnessed several times
> that defenders of the "strategy synthesis/recommendations" do not want to
> talk about an issue. They say things like:
>

With experience in projects on this scale, one can understand that not all
questions can be answered. While I wish the working group members would
have engaged more in the discussions (kudos to the few, who did, thank you
for showing an example to follow), it is very de-motivating to read
negative comments written in a matter of minutes, that reject months of
work with the strike of a few buttons, without making any effort to think
about solutions to the problem and realizing how hard (impossible, in fact)
it is to implement solutions that satisfy every individual's every need and
concern.

This is disrespectful to the hard work put into these recommendations and
damaging to the motivation of the volunteers and staff members, who gave
their time out of goodwill and -faith, and takes away from their time and
energy to improve the recommendations. What I find disheartening about this
is that most of the negative comments come from users, who opposed the 2017
Movement Direction
,
which is the basis for the current recommendations. Although the first name
is especially *not* representative of the "not constructive" comments, I
would hope that who don't understand or share this vision, would express
their "concerns" with less drama, respecting the work of those, who can
imagine a future with a more friendly and diverse editing culture.

Imagine, how helpful it would be if I were to approach users with
authority, to ask them to assume good faith and treat newcomers with
respect. It would cause some discord, which would turn into angry
responses, which would eventually result in my de facto ban. As it did on
enwiki. Fortunately, the consultations are a more civil atmosphere and
there is space for negative comments, to a certain extent.


> * "this feels like défa vu"

* "you are not constructive"
> * "we must look forward, not backward"
> * "we don't want to talk about details now, we leave that for later"
>

I don't know exactly what was implied with "déja vu" and fortunately, I
haven't met the last response, that I strongly disagree with. The concern
about some feedback not being constructive is, however, very valid, that
I've reflected on above. Responses that give alternative solutions,
highlight questions worth focusing on and generally *add* something to the
proposals, can be incorporated into the proposals and many of those were
included in the new iterations. The primary purpose is to incorporate the
feedback and it is understandable, that there's no capacity to respond to
everything and even feedback that found its way into the recommendations,
won't necessarily be answered. That's how projects of this size work.
Obviously, constructive comments will be answered first - that's rewarding
and helpful to the process -, rather than effortless "I don't agree with
this" responses, which is in fact not constructive, but very similar to the
stonewalling
 patterns
that often weigh heavily on discussions in the community.

It is understandable, that every change awakens our basic fear of
unpredictability. The future is unpredictable, what we can do is to give
our best in manifesting every change. Instead of theorizing about what
might be the result of the recommendations. To move forward we need to
explore new possibilities, and if it's not giving the expected results, we
need to move even further, until the desired results are accomplished. The
best result is seldom the first result. We could learn from the success of
SpaceX about how to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,
I strongly agree with what Chris wrote.
In the Strategy discussions, I have experienced and witnessed several times
that defenders of the "strategy synthesis/recommendations" do not want to
talk about an issue. They say things like:
* "this feels like défa vu"
* "you are not constructive"
* "we must look forward, not backward"
* "we don't want to talk about details now, we leave that for later"
This kind of reactions do not contribute to an atmosphere in which I feel
that my concerns are taken seriously.
Kind regards
Ziko








Am Di., 4. Feb. 2020 um 08:57 Uhr schrieb Chris Keating <
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>:

> >
> > Superprotect is now over five years old. Superprotect's removal is now
> over
> > four years old. It was a mistake, and it was explicitly acknowledged as
> > such: the then-ED of the WMF said it had "set up a precedent of
> > mistrust". Almost all of the people involved in it are no longer
> affiliated
> > with the Wikimedia Foundation, and in fact, plenty of the staff members
> at
> > the Wikimedia Foundation were hired *after* superprotect was removed.
> >
> > I don't think bringing up superprotect in this discussion is especially
> > relevant or helpful.
>
>
> I sort of want to agree with this, but actually I think it goes a bit
> deeper.
>
> If you ask questions about the relationship between the WMF and the
> community, sooner rather than later someone will talk about Superprotect.
> If you ask any of the 1,000 people who signed the petition against
> Superprotect, most of whom are still active one way or another, then
> Superprotect will probably be the first thing out of their mouths, even
> though it happened 6 years ago. It's sufficiently ingrained in peoples'
> minds that asking these people not to talk about Superprotect is like a
> British person asking someone from the USA not to talk about the Boston Tea
> Party.
>
> In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time,
> and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time.
>
> In part it's because people perceive there is nothing to prevent an
> identical situation recurring. In some ways I think this perception is
> unfair, for all the reasons you mention. But it still exists, and in part
> it exists because of things the WMF has not done.  The Foundation's
> expectations about how it interacts with the community remain fairly
> unclear and fairly undocumented, from the Board level down. I recall there
> have been some written statements of how the WMF now handles product
> features, though I think this didn't come the ED or less the Board. I don't
> believe there was ever a written review publilshed of Superprotect, while
> there are written reviews and statements lessons learned from many other
> situations that had much less impact. In short, the WMF is not seen as
> having put the issue to bed in a way that results in everyone involved
> moving on.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
> ___
> 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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Chris Keating]

>
> Superprotect is now over five years old. Superprotect's removal is now over
> four years old. It was a mistake, and it was explicitly acknowledged as
> such: the then-ED of the WMF said it had "set up a precedent of
> mistrust". Almost all of the people involved in it are no longer affiliated
> with the Wikimedia Foundation, and in fact, plenty of the staff members at
> the Wikimedia Foundation were hired *after* superprotect was removed.
>
> I don't think bringing up superprotect in this discussion is especially
> relevant or helpful.


I sort of want to agree with this, but actually I think it goes a bit
deeper.

If you ask questions about the relationship between the WMF and the
community, sooner rather than later someone will talk about Superprotect.
If you ask any of the 1,000 people who signed the petition against
Superprotect, most of whom are still active one way or another, then
Superprotect will probably be the first thing out of their mouths, even
though it happened 6 years ago. It's sufficiently ingrained in peoples'
minds that asking these people not to talk about Superprotect is like a
British person asking someone from the USA not to talk about the Boston Tea
Party.

In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time,
and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time.

In part it's because people perceive there is nothing to prevent an
identical situation recurring. In some ways I think this perception is
unfair, for all the reasons you mention. But it still exists, and in part
it exists because of things the WMF has not done.  The Foundation's
expectations about how it interacts with the community remain fairly
unclear and fairly undocumented, from the Board level down. I recall there
have been some written statements of how the WMF now handles product
features, though I think this didn't come the ED or less the Board. I don't
believe there was ever a written review publilshed of Superprotect, while
there are written reviews and statements lessons learned from many other
situations that had much less impact. In short, the WMF is not seen as
having put the issue to bed in a way that results in everyone involved
moving on.

Thanks,

Chris
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Pine W]

Hi Dan,

I think that there are a couple of lines of thought here. I think that
we should make a distinction between individuals and the institution
of WMF.

For the former, I think that you make a good point. Along the same
lines, there were probably people who worked at WMF at the time and
had no involvement in the decisions regarding Superprotect, or may
have done internal advocacy against it.

For the latter, the institution of WMF remains, and so does the
loosely defined organization which I call "the community". WMF's
actions in 2019 with regards to English Wikipedia's governance had
some disturbing parallels with Superprotect.

An issue to which I've been giving increasing thought recently is the
distinction between an individual WMF employee/contractor and WMF as
an institution. I especially try to be mindful of this distinction
when employees communicate in public and say that they are
communicating individually, that is, not in a WMF role. They take some
personal risk in doing this, and I usually think that their comments
which are made in their personal capacities are constructive and made
in good faith. The same goes for WMF employees who volunteer for
projects such as Commons photo campaigns or in the strategy process
outside of their work hours. Where the situation becomes more complex
is when WMF employees are participating in what appear to be their
normal staff roles. Sometimes a decision that is made by one person in
the organization in their staff role will not be a decision that other
people in the organization would have made in the same way, but when
someone uses a staff account then I generally attribute their actions
to their employer.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Dan Garry (Deskana)]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 23:49, Pine W  wrote:

> Here are a couple of arguments from WMF in favor of SuperProtect, which was
> implemented to prevent local users from removing MediaViewer.


Superprotect is now over five years old. Superprotect's removal is now over
four years old. It was a mistake, and it was explicitly acknowledged as
such: the then-ED of the WMF said it had "set up a precedent of
mistrust". Almost all of the people involved in it are no longer affiliated
with the Wikimedia Foundation, and in fact, plenty of the staff members at
the Wikimedia Foundation were hired *after* superprotect was removed.

I don't think bringing up superprotect in this discussion is especially
relevant or helpful.

Dan

Source for most of the above: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Superprotect
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Aron Manning]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Pine W  wrote:

> Here are a couple of arguments from WMF in favor of SuperProtect, which was
> implemented to prevent local users from removing MediaViewer.
>

It's interesting that this topic came up, as there was a bug in MediaViewer
that disturbed me so much I've started working on a patch a month ago. The
bug is no longer an issue in most cases, but I'm still working on some
improvements.

It seems to me that users still could disable MediaViewer with the same one
line of javascript as used in Common.js. To be exact about SP, what I've
seen is it was implemented to prevent local admins (specifically one former
German admin) from removing MW project-wide for all editors *and readers*.
I assume the "Disable MediaViewer" option, which allows every user to
decide for themselves comfortably, wasn't implemented back then...
How long before that feature was added?

Aron
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Pine W]

Hi Aron,

I should be careful not to paint everyone with the same brush.

I have great respect for WMF's mission. It would be difficult to have
adequate legal support and technical infrastructure for Wikimedia projects
without one or more organizations providing formal and ongoing support.

WMF as an institution is something that I should distinguish from
individuals who work for WMF, or individuals who are on the WMF Board. I
think that there are some people at WMF who do excellent work. While I
don't want to name them here, there are numerous employees who I think go
above and beyond the call of duty to support the community and WMF's
mission.

Also, I should point out that Leila is a different from Lila. (In the past,
I owed Leila money for misspelling her name.)

However, all is not well. I don't enjoy the periodic clashes that happen
between the community and WMF.

Here are a couple of arguments from WMF in favor of SuperProtect, which was
implemented to prevent local users from removing MediaViewer. I don't know
that these same arguments would be made today, but WMF's statements
regarding its unwelcome intervention in English Wikipedia's governance in
2019 give me a lot of reason to question how much respect WMF has for the
English Wikipedia community and how well WMF knows English Wikipedia.

1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC=616518543#Response_to_the_Media_Viewer_RfC

2. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-August/073927.html

I hope that this background information is helpful.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[David Goodman]

Leila, the decrease in interest  that you mention is typical of processes
in which the continued discussion leads to recommendation which are only
recommendations. If I were of the opinion that what I said here would only
at most be used as input to the person actually making the decision, I
would very likely say what I have ti say at an early stage, and then stop,
because there would be decreasing effect from anything I might say further.
But if what I  and others say were to be what makes the actual decision, my
interest will very likely increase as the time of decision approaches--and
at that point, people who may not have wanted to discuss, but know their
view and what to join in the decision, will do so.

Your suggestion, which I think amounts to saying that you and board will
decide what to do in the end, will justify most people in ignoring this
process. The only ones who continue will be either those who want to talk
indefinitely, or those who want to encourage others to raise the level of
dissatisfaction with the decision process (or its likely conclusion)  to
the level that it might be changed.



On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:25 PM Aron Manning  wrote:

> Hello Pine,
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 08:06, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Aron,
> >
> > Some of your comments remind me of arguments that I heard from WMF around
> > the time that the WMF Board decided to let Lila have her way with
> > Superprotect. WMF's solution to various question about who should make
> > decisions and whether diverse needs were being adequately addressed was
> to
> > put itself in charge.
> >
>
> My knowledge about Superprotect is khm... superficial (no pun intended),
> from recollections and some randomly read discussions, but you made me
> interested to deepen my knowledge. Could you reference the arguments that
> you were reminded of, together with my specific comments that you
> associated with it, so I can better understand your comment?
>
> Regarding my comments: these are original thoughts based on researching
> policies and guidelines, the actual application of those, user feedback
> from editors (present and former) and impressions from readers. The extent
> of my research pales in comparison to those made by the WMF, therefore I
> focus on topics where I've acquired enough knowledge that my opinion and
> vision have taken form. Superprotect is not one of those topics, but maybe
> one day it will be.
>
>
> > I'm curious. How do you think that all-Wikiverse governance should be
> done?
> > This is a complex topic. You partially addressed this in your previous
> > email, and I would like to hear more, particularly regarding governance
> > structures, representation, and methods for creating all-Wikiverse
> policies
> > and budgets.
> >
>
> Thank you for asking. I'm happy (this week ;-) that someone shows an
> interest in these discussions. My hope is that there will be a global
> project for volunteers motivated in researching and improving the
> efficiency of governance practices, creating recommendations in cooperation
> with the WMF. Similar to the working groups - if you wish -, with
> significantly more volunteer participation and a focus on implementation
> details, not high-level concepts.
>
> My interest is more localized than what you expect as I'm not interested in
> questions of high-level governance of the all-Wikiverse such as budgets,
> representation, and global structures. The devil is in the details, that's
> where my focus is: I believe *how* we implement the Medium-term plan
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
> >
> will
> determine which targets are met. I've experienced the need to meet some of
> those targets and understand others' need for the rest. I wish to put my 2
> cents into the implementation.
>
> In this spirit, I've advocated for transparency and cooperation between the
> communities and the WMF in the office actions consultation which you can
> read
> here
> <
> https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/meta.wikimedia.org/Aron_Manning/1/Talk:Office%20actions/Community%20consultation%20on%20partial%20and%20temporary%20office%20actions/09%202019
> >
> (in
> chronological order) and drafted a design proposal
> 
> for the planned User reporting system
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative/User_reporting_system_consultation_2019
> >
> that yet again focuses on transparency while giving privacy to the reporter
> in the initial stages (before a report is evaluated) and making it
> technically possible to include limited non-public evidence. I would be
> delighted if you would share your thoughts on the discussion page.
>
>
> Aron
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Aron Manning]

Hello Pine,

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 08:06, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Aron,
>
> Some of your comments remind me of arguments that I heard from WMF around
> the time that the WMF Board decided to let Lila have her way with
> Superprotect. WMF's solution to various question about who should make
> decisions and whether diverse needs were being adequately addressed was to
> put itself in charge.
>

My knowledge about Superprotect is khm... superficial (no pun intended),
from recollections and some randomly read discussions, but you made me
interested to deepen my knowledge. Could you reference the arguments that
you were reminded of, together with my specific comments that you
associated with it, so I can better understand your comment?

Regarding my comments: these are original thoughts based on researching
policies and guidelines, the actual application of those, user feedback
from editors (present and former) and impressions from readers. The extent
of my research pales in comparison to those made by the WMF, therefore I
focus on topics where I've acquired enough knowledge that my opinion and
vision have taken form. Superprotect is not one of those topics, but maybe
one day it will be.


> I'm curious. How do you think that all-Wikiverse governance should be done?
> This is a complex topic. You partially addressed this in your previous
> email, and I would like to hear more, particularly regarding governance
> structures, representation, and methods for creating all-Wikiverse policies
> and budgets.
>

Thank you for asking. I'm happy (this week ;-) that someone shows an
interest in these discussions. My hope is that there will be a global
project for volunteers motivated in researching and improving the
efficiency of governance practices, creating recommendations in cooperation
with the WMF. Similar to the working groups - if you wish -, with
significantly more volunteer participation and a focus on implementation
details, not high-level concepts.

My interest is more localized than what you expect as I'm not interested in
questions of high-level governance of the all-Wikiverse such as budgets,
representation, and global structures. The devil is in the details, that's
where my focus is: I believe *how* we implement the Medium-term plan

will
determine which targets are met. I've experienced the need to meet some of
those targets and understand others' need for the rest. I wish to put my 2
cents into the implementation.

In this spirit, I've advocated for transparency and cooperation between the
communities and the WMF in the office actions consultation which you can read
here

(in
chronological order) and drafted a design proposal

for the planned User reporting system

that yet again focuses on transparency while giving privacy to the reporter
in the initial stages (before a report is evaluated) and making it
technically possible to include limited non-public evidence. I would be
delighted if you would share your thoughts on the discussion page.


Aron
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Pine W]

Hi Aron,

Some of your comments remind me of arguments that I heard from WMF around
the time that the WMF Board decided to let Lila have her way with
Superprotect. WMF's solution to various question about who should make
decisions and whether diverse needs were being adequately addressed was to
put itself in charge.

I'm curious. How do you think that all-Wikiverse governance should be done?
This is a complex topic. You partially addressed this in your previous
email, and I would like to hear more, particularly regarding governance
structures, representation, and methods for creating all-Wikiverse policies
and budgets.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Aron Manning]

The following views are mine. I'm not affiliated with either the Foundation
or those speaking in the name of the communities. This is a volunteer's
opinion.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:24, Pine W  wrote:

>  Hi Leila and Todd, thanks for the constructive comments.
>
> I think that global consensus is possible, but it's challenging.
>

To measure the needs of the movement, the organizers of the consultation
have to take into consideration all the editors - present and future -, the
affiliates, and even the readers. Thousands of regulars, hundreds of
thousands of casuals, not counting the millions of readers, who contribute
with their donations.

The participation of this many people in the consultations would not be
feasible. The most that can be expected is a few hundred editors, who voice
their opinions, mostly representing the English Wikipedia and Commons. I
believe this is what Leila meant. Any of the consensus models can only
reflect a local consensus
 at
best.
Deciding the movement's future based upon this comparatively small
selection of contributors would result in a one-sided outcome.

The needs of the movement, however, can be measured globally by systematic
research and this is what the Foundation has been doing in recent years and
now serves as the basis for the recommendations. My personal experience and
impressions confirm many of these findings: The movement needs to move
forward, to keep up with the times. The start of a new decade is the best
time to take that big step.

With these fundamental changes, there will be many differing views and
visions. Regardless whether those differences are big or small, at this
scale, this many participants could only agree to disagree.
A simple vote-counting would not be able to establish any kind of consensus
besides vetoes, what would only undermine and disrupt the consultation.
Wikipedia is not a vote for a good reason.
On the other hand, the true model of consensus, which evaluates the merits
of the comments is simply unmanageable above a few dozen participants.
Neither of these models could achieve consensus or equally consider every
community and contributor.

The purpose of the consultations is not to struggle seeking global
consensus with many differing views, but to gather constructive feedback
from the communities.
It is clear that the Foundation and the Working Groups are asking for
meritable comments, which they can incorporate in their proposals.


I remain concerned about the current timeline for this strategy process. I
> think that after initial community discussions, a phased approach over a
> period of years for !votes and implementation might be best.
>

Continuous consultations about individual projects and specific
implementations would be of great benefit to bridging the gap between the
Foundation and the communities.
However, only experience will prove the changes beneficial, procrastinating
the decision would be just a waste of time and opportunity.
It seems to be an easy way out to run votes endlessly, without doing the
hard work to achieve the movement's targets, but it leads nowhere, just
creates disruption.

That's not why we are here. Although I can't vouch for all, I believe we
are here to improve the projects we work on and to collaboratively create
the world's biggest encyclopedia and knowledge platform, which shows an
example of what's possible, that makes us proud.

Perhaps an early phase could focus on reviewing our current mechanisms for
> all-Wikiverse governance and considering some changes to those mechanisms.
>

The governance processes haven't seen a significant update since the
initial influx of editors, but these processes and the technical tools did
not scale with the sudden increase in editor count. A significant technical
debt  has been carried along
for more than a decade. These processes need significant updates to address
the abuse (bullying and occasional harassment) of editors, who aren't
protected by the network of supportive editors who have known them for
years.

Addressing this issue is fundamental to improving diversity and editing
experience within the communities. Although the issues faced by Wikipedia
are the same as in any online community, many communities - most notably
open source communities - have progressed significantly in regards of
addressing abuse and conduct issues.

Perhaps the strategy process organizers will have some recommendations for
> us to consider regarding governance.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )



Aron
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Pine W]

 Hi Leila and Todd, thanks for the constructive comments.

I think that global consensus is possible, but it's challenging.

I remain concerned about the current timeline for this strategy process. I
think that after initial community discussions, a phased approach over a
period of years for !votes and implementation might be best.

Perhaps an early phase could focus on reviewing our current mechanisms for
all-Wikiverse governance and considering some changes to those mechanisms.
However, that might be contentious and time consuming, and I think that we
should be careful about what we wish for.

Perhaps the strategy process organizers will have some recommendations for
us to consider regarding governance.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Todd Allen]

That's...really not how this works. We don't say "It's hard to gain
consensus, so screw it, we're going ahead anyway." If you can't gain
consensus for what you're doing, then you should stop doing it. Yes,
consensus for major changes is hard. That doesn't mean it is not required
or should be ignored.

Todd

On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 5:48 PM Leila Zia  wrote:

> [writing at my personal capacity.]
>
> Hi Pine,
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:20 PM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > * I realize that a lot of time and money has been spent in the strategy
> > process to this point. I hope that there will be consensus on at least
> some
> > of the recommendations.
>
> True consensus based decision making for this stage, at least given
> the technologies available to us at the moment, is not possible, imho.
> One of the immediate challenges we will face is that the time
> available to folks to participate is varying across people
> significantly. We also have languages as the barriers for people to
> talk directly with each other across languages. At best you can expect
> heavy engagement early on (within different communities) and then
> people gradually disengaging as conversations become lengthy and
> sometimes even harsh or toxic. You may end up with some version of
> consensus at the end (even that is hard as you have to aggregate
> results across many communities and what if one doesn't agree with
> another), but that will be the consensus of those who stayed around
> and that's not a good place to be when you want to finalize the
> recommendations. That makes me think that the approach through which
> one entity accepts responsibility and make a decision while taking
> into account the conversations and feedback that will come in in the
> following weeks may be a better approach.
>
> (Disclaimer: The process is very complex and I don't claim to know
> what the right approach is.)
>
> Best,
> Leila
>
> ___
> 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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Leila Zia]

[writing at my personal capacity.]

Hi Pine,

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:20 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
> * I realize that a lot of time and money has been spent in the strategy
> process to this point. I hope that there will be consensus on at least some
> of the recommendations.

True consensus based decision making for this stage, at least given
the technologies available to us at the moment, is not possible, imho.
One of the immediate challenges we will face is that the time
available to folks to participate is varying across people
significantly. We also have languages as the barriers for people to
talk directly with each other across languages. At best you can expect
heavy engagement early on (within different communities) and then
people gradually disengaging as conversations become lengthy and
sometimes even harsh or toxic. You may end up with some version of
consensus at the end (even that is hard as you have to aggregate
results across many communities and what if one doesn't agree with
another), but that will be the consensus of those who stayed around
and that's not a good place to be when you want to finalize the
recommendations. That makes me think that the approach through which
one entity accepts responsibility and make a decision while taking
into account the conversations and feedback that will come in in the
following weeks may be a better approach.

(Disclaimer: The process is very complex and I don't claim to know
what the right approach is.)

Best,
Leila

___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Pine W]

Hi Nicole and Kaarel,

Thank you for sharing your comments.

A few points:

* I realize that a lot of time and money has been spent in the strategy
process to this point. I hope that there will be consensus on at least some
of the recommendations.

* Hopefully the discussions in the next few weeks will be informative. Even
if some recommendations are not adopted, that is *not* necessarily a
failure, and I hope that the strategy organizers and volunteers will not be
discouraged if only a minority of recommendations are adopted.
Recommendations which are not adopted may become fruitful seeds for future
conversations.

* At this stage in the strategy process, changes are not prescribed
. The community and WMF are free
to adopt or decline them without lengthy discussions and speculation about
what impacts recommendations would have if adopted. Volunteers are not
obligated to spend their time engaging with this process, or to their time
justifying their decisions to the organizers of the strategy process.
However, there is likely to be discussion about the strategy
recommendations, and hopefully those discussions will provide a sense of
areas where there may be grounds for a formal consensus later this year.

* I believe that the formal process for adopting strategy recommendations
by the community could take one or both of these forms. (My impression,
which may be incorrect, is that you intend for this adoption process to
take place after the "community conversations" in the next few months.)
1. A global request for comment on Meta, with each recommendation set for
an individual !vote so that individual recommendations may be accepted or
not.
2. Local requests for comment, according to what participants on each wiki
decide. This may be practical for some recommendations more than others.

I hope that these comments are helpful.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Nicole Ebber]

Hi Lodewijk,

Thanks for your questions and feedback. I would like to respond to some of
it already, but need a bit more time to answer the other parts.

* We have learned a lot from the experience of the last round of community
conversations and are indeed aiming for a more active, responsive approach
and for more actual conversations with those who engage.
* Please note that no response on Meta to a comment made in past
conversations does not mean that it was not considered. All comments have
been read and summarized, and many have been incorporated into the next
iterations.
* Please also note that depending on the availability of working group
members, some have engaged more than others with on-wiki comments, and some
have immediately modified their recommendations while others have taken
more time to review and incorporate. I can assure you that additional
effort was made between the writing group and liaisons to include further
input from the communities in the documents that we will share with you all
next week.
* I think going forward, a three day window is realistic for comments that
require a response, even if that sometimes means the initial response is
that more time is needed to thoroughly respond.

I’ll follow up on this over the next few days with additional information
about the process, and more will become clear once we publish the documents
and the call for review next week.

Best wishes,
Nicole

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:29, effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Just to emphasize my point: I have searched, and was still unable to find
> any serious consideration or response for some of the feedback that was
> provided all the way back in August. In the next iteration, these examples
> seem to have been ignored.
>
> It may well be that this is a particularly sad example and that in other
> cases this was done much better, or that I happen to be looking at this one
> WG that didn't engage/respond/consider . However, this strengthens my
> feeling that it would be nice to have open and clear expectations to the
> community what will be done with their feedback.
>
> From Kaarels message in another thread I seem forced to conclude that no
> changes should be expected based on feedback (that would be the same as my
> very limited experience last August), but that someone will only summarize
> opposition in some report to the board. Is that a correct reading? This
> strongly informs the strategy for community members to follow: try to
> engage in an argument/conversation, or in activist petitions, if they would
> have concerns with some recommendation.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:42 AM effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Nicole,
> >
> > Last round (or was it the round before that?) there were some
> disappointed
> > community members because their feedback did not really spark any
> > conversation/exchange in a timely manner. I don't want to go back to
> focus
> > on things that coulda woulda shoulda been better though.
> >
> > However, I did want to ask whether this time, you (plural) could commit
> to
> > provide timely engagement with the feedback. As I understand it, there
> will
> > be a single round of feedback (even if it is a six week round), before
> the
> > board votes on it. It would be nice if we could make that truly
> interactive
> > and most likely to result in improvements and addressing concerns, rather
> > than registering them.
> >
> > Would you, for example, be able to commit to a three day response time to
> > constructive questions? Maybe even to actively entertain constructive
> > improvement suggestions?
> >
> > I realize that there has been a long process within the walls of many
> > committees so far - and that no change will be easy to make without
> risking
> > the fabric. Your initial announcement sounds a bit like you're only
> > collecting 'feedback' which you will 'summarize' and report back - which
> > suggests that not much will happen with it unless we collectively make a
> > lot of noise.
> >
> > I would much prefer an active and constructive conversation with the
> > committee members, which is open for actual change over a set of
> > petitions/protests.
> >
> > Best,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:38 AM Nicole Ebber 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> We’ve got lots of news to share from movement strategy: The first
> version
> >> of the movement strategy document is almost ready, and we’ll be
> starting a
> >> new round of community conversations.
> >>
> >> == First version of the movement strategy document coming next week ==
> >> The writers have been hard at work developing the first version of the
> >> movement strategy document. A key part of this has been turning the 89
> >> recommendations produced by the nine working groups into one coherent
> set
> >> and consolidating the work into 13 recommendations. Alongside this, the
> >> document also features principles that guide the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[effe iets anders]

Just to emphasize my point: I have searched, and was still unable to find
any serious consideration or response for some of the feedback that was
provided all the way back in August. In the next iteration, these examples
seem to have been ignored.

It may well be that this is a particularly sad example and that in other
cases this was done much better, or that I happen to be looking at this one
WG that didn't engage/respond/consider . However, this strengthens my
feeling that it would be nice to have open and clear expectations to the
community what will be done with their feedback.

From Kaarels message in another thread I seem forced to conclude that no
changes should be expected based on feedback (that would be the same as my
very limited experience last August), but that someone will only summarize
opposition in some report to the board. Is that a correct reading? This
strongly informs the strategy for community members to follow: try to
engage in an argument/conversation, or in activist petitions, if they would
have concerns with some recommendation.

Lodewijk

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:42 AM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Hi Nicole,
>
> Last round (or was it the round before that?) there were some disappointed
> community members because their feedback did not really spark any
> conversation/exchange in a timely manner. I don't want to go back to focus
> on things that coulda woulda shoulda been better though.
>
> However, I did want to ask whether this time, you (plural) could commit to
> provide timely engagement with the feedback. As I understand it, there will
> be a single round of feedback (even if it is a six week round), before the
> board votes on it. It would be nice if we could make that truly interactive
> and most likely to result in improvements and addressing concerns, rather
> than registering them.
>
> Would you, for example, be able to commit to a three day response time to
> constructive questions? Maybe even to actively entertain constructive
> improvement suggestions?
>
> I realize that there has been a long process within the walls of many
> committees so far - and that no change will be easy to make without risking
> the fabric. Your initial announcement sounds a bit like you're only
> collecting 'feedback' which you will 'summarize' and report back - which
> suggests that not much will happen with it unless we collectively make a
> lot of noise.
>
> I would much prefer an active and constructive conversation with the
> committee members, which is open for actual change over a set of
> petitions/protests.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:38 AM Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> We’ve got lots of news to share from movement strategy: The first version
>> of the movement strategy document is almost ready, and we’ll be starting a
>> new round of community conversations.
>>
>> == First version of the movement strategy document coming next week ==
>> The writers have been hard at work developing the first version of the
>> movement strategy document. A key part of this has been turning the 89
>> recommendations produced by the nine working groups into one coherent set
>> and consolidating the work into 13 recommendations. Alongside this, the
>> document also features principles that guide the recommendations and a
>> narrative of change that summarizes how the recommendations fit together
>> and contribute to helping our Movement align with our strategic direction.
>>
>> There has been a high level of activity in the last few weeks, both by the
>> writers and the community strategy liaisons, to create a set of
>> recommendations that encompasses the work of the working groups and the
>> broad community input received throughout the process. They’ve gone above
>> and beyond what was asked of them, and I would like to thank them
>> wholeheartedly for the huge effort they’ve invested into this work and for
>> their inspiring dedication to making this happen.
>>
>> == Community conversations begin next week ==
>> A new round of community conversations around this document will begin
>> next
>> week. We encourage people from across our Movement – members of online
>> communities, affiliates, boards, WMF staff – to review the recommendations
>> and share what these might mean for their community, organization, or
>> context. With this round, we are looking to come to a common understanding
>> that the recommendations enable us to move forward in our strategic
>> direction.
>>
>> Conversations will be held on Meta [1], on various language wikis, on
>> social media, and on your community’s other preferred channels. They will
>> run until the first week of March. After that, the core team will take one
>> week to summarize all community input and reflect it back in a short,
>> public report. The community will then have one week to suggest changes to
>> the posted summary so that it accurately reflects their viewpoints.
>> Community Strategy Liaisons will help 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Kaarel Vaidla]

Hi everyone,

Thank you for your feedback regarding the community conversations process
and your care for doing it in the right way! It is truly appreciated.

I am happy to share a couple of points from the design perspective:

   - The movement strategy recommendations are, as some of you have noted,
   the product of lengthy consultation and consideration.
   - The goal of *this* round of conversations is to share the
   recommendations that came out of working group discussions and
   consultations with a wide range of communities. We ask for input on the
   recommendations to help the Board identify which may present challenges or
   create opportunities - in general, how people think they and their
   community would be affected by the prescribed changes. We hope that a
   transparent and honest conversation will happen so that this information is
   well understood.
   - The main discussions about the recommendations would need to happen in
   the first 4 weeks of conversations, which should be enough to convey
   essential viewpoints and provide context to create a good understanding
   around them.
   - We will start pulling together and structuring feedback as soon as the
   conversations start. This includes translations and summaries. This means
   that the 1 week break will be used for finalizing the community input
   report and not for creation of that report in its entirety.
   - The final week of conversations is planned for the review of that
   report so that we can make sure it accurately reflects the conversation.
   - The recommendations are meant to give an overall direction for moving
   forward. Implementation of these recommendations will need to happen in
   context, and so more specific discussions will be continued in the
   framework of implementation discussions.

I hope it makes sense, but am happy to hear any further thoughts and ideas
for improving the quality of the conversations ahead of us.

Best regards,
Kaarel


On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 9:47 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Anders,
>
> I think that the original hope was that there would be community consensus
> around the recommendations from the strategy process. However, what I have
> heard so far leads me to think that the reception to the recommendations
> has been mixed.
>
> Neither the WMF Board nor the community are required to accept
> recommendations from the strategy organizers. I'm not trying to say this in
> a combative or demoralizing way. As much as anyone, I had hoped that there
> would be consensus around the recommendations, but so far I do not get the
> sense that there widespread optimism about this process or the
> recommendations from it.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
*Kaarel Vaidla*
Process Architect for
Wikimedia Movement Strategy
2030.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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Pine W]

Hi Anders,

I think that the original hope was that there would be community consensus
around the recommendations from the strategy process. However, what I have
heard so far leads me to think that the reception to the recommendations
has been mixed.

Neither the WMF Board nor the community are required to accept
recommendations from the strategy organizers. I'm not trying to say this in
a combative or demoralizing way. As much as anyone, I had hoped that there
would be consensus around the recommendations, but so far I do not get the
sense that there widespread optimism about this process or the
recommendations from it.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[effe iets anders]

Hi Nicole,

Last round (or was it the round before that?) there were some disappointed
community members because their feedback did not really spark any
conversation/exchange in a timely manner. I don't want to go back to focus
on things that coulda woulda shoulda been better though.

However, I did want to ask whether this time, you (plural) could commit to
provide timely engagement with the feedback. As I understand it, there will
be a single round of feedback (even if it is a six week round), before the
board votes on it. It would be nice if we could make that truly interactive
and most likely to result in improvements and addressing concerns, rather
than registering them.

Would you, for example, be able to commit to a three day response time to
constructive questions? Maybe even to actively entertain constructive
improvement suggestions?

I realize that there has been a long process within the walls of many
committees so far - and that no change will be easy to make without risking
the fabric. Your initial announcement sounds a bit like you're only
collecting 'feedback' which you will 'summarize' and report back - which
suggests that not much will happen with it unless we collectively make a
lot of noise.

I would much prefer an active and constructive conversation with the
committee members, which is open for actual change over a set of
petitions/protests.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 9:38 AM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> We’ve got lots of news to share from movement strategy: The first version
> of the movement strategy document is almost ready, and we’ll be starting a
> new round of community conversations.
>
> == First version of the movement strategy document coming next week ==
> The writers have been hard at work developing the first version of the
> movement strategy document. A key part of this has been turning the 89
> recommendations produced by the nine working groups into one coherent set
> and consolidating the work into 13 recommendations. Alongside this, the
> document also features principles that guide the recommendations and a
> narrative of change that summarizes how the recommendations fit together
> and contribute to helping our Movement align with our strategic direction.
>
> There has been a high level of activity in the last few weeks, both by the
> writers and the community strategy liaisons, to create a set of
> recommendations that encompasses the work of the working groups and the
> broad community input received throughout the process. They’ve gone above
> and beyond what was asked of them, and I would like to thank them
> wholeheartedly for the huge effort they’ve invested into this work and for
> their inspiring dedication to making this happen.
>
> == Community conversations begin next week ==
> A new round of community conversations around this document will begin next
> week. We encourage people from across our Movement – members of online
> communities, affiliates, boards, WMF staff – to review the recommendations
> and share what these might mean for their community, organization, or
> context. With this round, we are looking to come to a common understanding
> that the recommendations enable us to move forward in our strategic
> direction.
>
> Conversations will be held on Meta [1], on various language wikis, on
> social media, and on your community’s other preferred channels. They will
> run until the first week of March. After that, the core team will take one
> week to summarize all community input and reflect it back in a short,
> public report. The community will then have one week to suggest changes to
> the posted summary so that it accurately reflects their viewpoints.
> Community Strategy Liaisons will help facilitate conversations in Arabic,
> French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, and Spanish. There will also be targeted
> support for English speaking communities. Finally, Strategy Liaisons from
> affiliates and online language communities will also receive support for
> facilitating conversations on their own channels.
>
> If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Looking forward
> to hearing from you soon.
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations
>
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Leiterin Internationale Beziehungen
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Anders Wennersten]

The people who has written the forthcoming recommendations, have been 
engaged for around two years, and they have spend manmonths of dedicated 
work.


It is not realistic to believe that an outsider (as we others now are) 
can substantially change any of the recommendations. We can though give 
comments based on our different backgrounds. And one or two aspect 
perhaps have such strong weight that it will be of interest for the 
Board to take in when deciding the strategy


Perhaps it is the word "conversation" that is confusing, it is more 
about "asking for comments" as I see it.


And one week to summarise the comment and one week to get feedback to 
this summary could be enough, as an actually discussion of the 
recommendation content as such is not a feasible considering the total 
process


Anders

Den 2020-01-14 kl. 11:03, skrev Paul J. Weiss:

I share the time concerns that Pine and Todd addressed. But my larger
concern is about the purpose of this next community conversation. You say
that the core team will summarize the community input, and then the
community will have a week to "suggest changes to the posted summary so
that it accurately reflects their viewpoints". So it seems that while
WMF wants to know how the community feels about the upcoming strategy
document, it is not giving the community any say, at this point in the
process, of the content of that document. So then why bother having another
community conversation at this juncture? Why take up so much community time
to develop responses to a document that will a priori not change based on
those responses? That seems to be a textbook case of how to get
dissatisfaction and disillusionment. Although I would prefer for the
community to still have a say in things, if the sense is that the document
really is done, maybe it should just be sent to the BOD now, saving 8 or
more weeks of time.  If the community conversation does go ahead, I think
it is very important to make it very clear what will be and won't be done
with the responses, allowing community members to make informed decisions
about how much time and effort to devote to the conversation. It took a
couple of read-throughs for me to realize that there will be a response
summary and suggestions to that document, but no further round of revision.

Thanks,
Paul


At 2020-01-13  11:46 p, you wrote:

I would tend to agree. This process has been ongoing for many months now,
and the community raised substantial concerns about the initial proposals.
Whether deliberate or not, allowing only a week for discussion of the final
product seems an attempt to ram it through. Surely longer than a week can
be allowed for discussion of such a critical item. Todd On Mon, Jan 13,
2020 at 11:25 PM Pine W  wrote: > Hi Nicole, > > After
reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that >
happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I

feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in

problems. > In particular, giving the core team one week to review feedback
and giving > the community one week to review the core team's summary seem
risky at > best, even if everyone is communicating in English. When taking
into > account the need for translations,my guess is that one week is an >
impossibly short timeframe for quality work in these phases of the strategy

process. > > I suggesting adding at least one more week to the timeframe

for the core > team to review feedback including translations of comments,
and at least > three more weeks for conversations with the community
regarding the core > team's summary. > > I am concerned that this process
may be heading toward a rushed and chaotic > finish. > > Pine > (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) >
___ > 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
>
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Paul J. Weiss]

I share the time concerns that Pine and Todd addressed. But my larger
concern is about the purpose of this next community conversation. You say
that the core team will summarize the community input, and then the
community will have a week to "suggest changes to the posted summary so
that it accurately reflects their viewpoints". So it seems that while
WMF wants to know how the community feels about the upcoming strategy
document, it is not giving the community any say, at this point in the
process, of the content of that document. So then why bother having another
community conversation at this juncture? Why take up so much community time
to develop responses to a document that will a priori not change based on
those responses? That seems to be a textbook case of how to get
dissatisfaction and disillusionment. Although I would prefer for the
community to still have a say in things, if the sense is that the document
really is done, maybe it should just be sent to the BOD now, saving 8 or
more weeks of time.  If the community conversation does go ahead, I think
it is very important to make it very clear what will be and won't be done
with the responses, allowing community members to make informed decisions
about how much time and effort to devote to the conversation. It took a
couple of read-throughs for me to realize that there will be a response
summary and suggestions to that document, but no further round of revision.

Thanks,
Paul


At 2020-01-13  11:46 p, you wrote:

I would tend to agree. This process has been ongoing for many months now,
and the community raised substantial concerns about the initial proposals.
Whether deliberate or not, allowing only a week for discussion of the final
product seems an attempt to ram it through. Surely longer than a week can
be allowed for discussion of such a critical item. Todd On Mon, Jan 13,
2020 at 11:25 PM Pine W  wrote: > Hi Nicole, > > After
reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that >
happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I
> feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in
problems. > In particular, giving the core team one week to review feedback
and giving > the community one week to review the core team's summary seem
risky at > best, even if everyone is communicating in English. When taking
into > account the need for translations,my guess is that one week is an >
impossibly short timeframe for quality work in these phases of the strategy
> process. > > I suggesting adding at least one more week to the timeframe
for the core > team to review feedback including translations of comments,
and at least > three more weeks for conversations with the community
regarding the core > team's summary. > > I am concerned that this process
may be heading toward a rushed and chaotic > finish. > > Pine > (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) >
___ > 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
>
___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Alice Wiegand]

I understand that the community conversation is planned to be conducted for 
around the next 6 weeks, it’s the discussion of the summary of that, which is 
planned for one week.

Alice.

> Am 14.01.2020 um 08:47 schrieb Todd Allen :
> 
> Surely longer than a week can
> be allowed for discussion of such a critical item.

___
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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Todd Allen]

I would tend to agree. This process has been ongoing for many months now,
and the community raised substantial concerns about the initial proposals.
Whether deliberate or not, allowing only a week for discussion of the final
product seems an attempt to ram it through. Surely longer than a week can
be allowed for discussion of such a critical item.

Todd

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 11:25 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Nicole,
>
> After reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that
> happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I
> feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in problems.
> In particular, giving the core team one week to review feedback and giving
> the community one week to review the core team's summary seem risky at
> best, even if everyone is communicating in English. When taking into
> account the need for translations,my guess is that one week is an
> impossibly short timeframe for quality work in these phases of the strategy
> process.
>
> I suggesting adding at least one more week to the timeframe for the core
> team to review feedback including translations of comments, and at least
> three more weeks for conversations with the community regarding the core
> team's summary.
>
> I am concerned that this process may be heading toward a rushed and chaotic
> finish.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> 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: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Pine W]

Hi Nicole,

After reading this email, and taking into consideration a discussion that
happened during the January online meeting of United States Wikimedians, I
feel that the timeline here is aggressive and likely to result in problems.
In particular, giving the core team one week to review feedback and giving
the community one week to review the core team's summary seem risky at
best, even if everyone is communicating in English. When taking into
account the need for translations,my guess is that one week is an
impossibly short timeframe for quality work in these phases of the strategy
process.

I suggesting adding at least one more week to the timeframe for the core
team to review feedback including translations of comments, and at least
three more weeks for conversations with the community regarding the core
team's summary.

I am concerned that this process may be heading toward a rushed and chaotic
finish.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

[Nicole Ebber]

Hi everyone,

We’ve got lots of news to share from movement strategy: The first version
of the movement strategy document is almost ready, and we’ll be starting a
new round of community conversations.

== First version of the movement strategy document coming next week ==
The writers have been hard at work developing the first version of the
movement strategy document. A key part of this has been turning the 89
recommendations produced by the nine working groups into one coherent set
and consolidating the work into 13 recommendations. Alongside this, the
document also features principles that guide the recommendations and a
narrative of change that summarizes how the recommendations fit together
and contribute to helping our Movement align with our strategic direction.

There has been a high level of activity in the last few weeks, both by the
writers and the community strategy liaisons, to create a set of
recommendations that encompasses the work of the working groups and the
broad community input received throughout the process. They’ve gone above
and beyond what was asked of them, and I would like to thank them
wholeheartedly for the huge effort they’ve invested into this work and for
their inspiring dedication to making this happen.

== Community conversations begin next week ==
A new round of community conversations around this document will begin next
week. We encourage people from across our Movement – members of online
communities, affiliates, boards, WMF staff – to review the recommendations
and share what these might mean for their community, organization, or
context. With this round, we are looking to come to a common understanding
that the recommendations enable us to move forward in our strategic
direction.

Conversations will be held on Meta [1], on various language wikis, on
social media, and on your community’s other preferred channels. They will
run until the first week of March. After that, the core team will take one
week to summarize all community input and reflect it back in a short,
public report. The community will then have one week to suggest changes to
the posted summary so that it accurately reflects their viewpoints.
Community Strategy Liaisons will help facilitate conversations in Arabic,
French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, and Spanish. There will also be targeted
support for English speaking communities. Finally, Strategy Liaisons from
affiliates and online language communities will also receive support for
facilitating conversations on their own channels.

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Looking forward
to hearing from you soon.

Best wishes,
Nicole

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations


-- 
Nicole Ebber
Leiterin Internationale Beziehungen
Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
https://wikimedia.de

Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
https://spenden.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. 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 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,