On 2/2/12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
We're getting very off topic, but you are right that there is a problem
with dormant chapters. I know nothing about the Russian chapter, but I do
know how difficult it was to to get the first Wikimedia UK out of the way.
Perhaps the WMF
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:26, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/2/12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
We're getting very off topic, but you are right that there is a problem
with dormant chapters. I know nothing about the Russian chapter, but I do
know how difficult it
On 2/2/12 12:26 AM, Risker wrote:
On 1 February 2012 18:17, Theo10011de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Riskerrisker...@gmail.com wrote:
In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and
As in... Michael Snow ?
Who is a fabulous guy, ran in community election, and was turned down ?
Florence
Domas?
I do not think we respect him less because of that.
Cheers
Yaroslav
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 2/3/12 11:15 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
As in... Michael Snow ?
Who is a fabulous guy, ran in community election, and was turned down ?
Florence
Domas?
I do not think we respect him less because of that.
Cheers
Yaroslav
___
foundation-l
On 3 February 2012 12:57, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
I do not know if Phoebe would have been community elected or not. She did
not try. I can only guess that if she were not chosen this year by chapters,
she could very well be community elected in the future because she is
I think it makes sense to get board members selected by the community
and board members selected by chapters because the focus is different.
I'd love to see members selected by the community being active editors,
involved on a regular basis on the project with editorial and soft
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise
and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to
fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they
require.
Béria Lima wrote:
On 1 February 2012 21:56, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Béria Lima wrote:
Risker, there are SEVERAL documents in meta with the guidelines used to
elect the Chapter seats. Say that nobody knows is a bit offensive.
SEVERAL pages on Meta-Wiki? It's a wonder they haven't
MZ if you understand the process enough to create another page, I don't
think you need my help.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
Theo10011, 02/02/2012 00:36:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Risker wrote:
The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise
and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to
fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they
*It is difficult to get involved in chapters when, like me, you live in
Africa, and the only approved chapter for the entire continent is 8,000
kilometres away.*
Create one in your country! :D That is basicaly what we are doing in
IberoCoop - help groups from all over Latin World with
Hi Bence
I did my own non official statistics about voters and candidates by
language.
Here you are:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gom%C3%A0/Elections_2011
en-wiki presented 39% of the candidates, casted 30% of the votes and
obtained 66% of the members.
de-wiki presented 18% of the
My conclusion was that for even relatively big languages like Catalan it
is
impossible to get representation in community elections unless you start
writing in English Wikipedia.
Well, if I remember correctly, at some point we elected an Italian board
member in the community elections. (I
On Feb 2, 2012 8:22 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Would you please also comment on Russia which has a chapter consisting of
I believe seven (or nine?) members, which does not accept new members and
maintains an invitation-only mailing list (which is open not only to
chapter
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential
in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates.
Jeebus, if that was the goal, it signally failed. I never saw so much
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot
of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would
NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they
aren't well-known
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups.
On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
* Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
community to see?
Heh, indeed. Whether the candidates are public outside the chapters or
not, if you are not ok with your real name being plastered all over
the place (fame! infamy! occasional random emails!) then being on the
board is probably not for you.
-- phoebe
I would even say that for the chapter
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 04:28, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for letting us all know about this, Beria.
So...a few questions.
Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?
Will the names of the
On 1 February 2012 03:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
* Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
community to see? *
The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
candidate has no problem with that.
Last time, the chapters
I'm interested in answers to the procedural questions, too.
It's seems like a quixotic process, as laid out on the meta page. The board
members are to be selected by completely unstructured discussion, with
consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems to allow for the
discussion to
Hello, I will (try to) answer everyone - so I will send several mails in a
row... please stick with me during the process.
*Excellent; I am pleased to see that the chapters are becoming more
transparent in this respect. However, if the plan is to mirror the
discussion on Meta, why not just
On Feb 1, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Last time, the chapters decided to keep the process very confidential
in order to allow free and frank discussion of the candidates. It was
felt that it would be good to have confidential discussions, in
contrast to the public ones that are
*Was it a conscious decision by the chapters to change that approach? I
was under the impression that you had decided to stick with the same
process we used last time.*
We didn't change the process, Thomas. Last time the Call for Candidates was
also public and in meta, and the timeline and
*The board members are to be selected by completely unstructured
discussion, with consensus judged by the moderators. The process even seems
to allow for the discussion to reach its conclusion in person, with no
permanent records, at the Chapters Meeting. If the discussion reaches no
Like I said Stuart, we didn't changed the process.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
*Is there some threshold for participation beneath which the current Board
might refuse to certify the results? *
I do really LOVE when you people ask questions that has already been
answered by a document, but let's
Nathan, Is REALLY frustrating when you spend days making a text with a lot
of links to relevant documents and people simply ignore and ask you again
the same thing that is already there. I have enough things to do, answer
things that has already a document to answer isn't one of them.
But let
On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Nathan wrote:
My question is - if the 38 chapters represent only a small portion of the
whole of Wikimedia...is it really appropriate for Chapters to continue to
have a role in filling Board seats?
I think this is a valuable discussion to have, and it ties in
Finding people not well known to editors: great.
Finding people shy of 'grueling' public election process: ok...
How does either lead to hiding candidate names? not doing background checks?
Not publishing what kinds of questions are asked?
As others said, this feels very strange.
On
I am highly perplexed why we have a *public call for candidates* when the
rest of the process remains so private.
Alex
2012/2/1 Chessie derby_...@yahoo.com
Finding people not well known to editors: great.
Finding people shy of 'grueling' public election process: ok...
How does either lead
*if not all chapters participate, or if the discussion is dominated by a
few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the
selection
forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters,
is there any thought to refusing to certify under these
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot of
value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would NOT typically
be candidates in election. That might be because they aren't well-known
On 1 February 2012 16:44, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll give my personal view on the question, and invite others on the board
to jump in. I think the difference between the specific expertise seats
and the appointed seats is subtle but important.
My sense is that the WMF Board
On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the
chapter
On 1 February 2012 17:22, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
the
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Risker wrote:
it gives the impression that the current three
elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
the movement It
concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter
members seem to not be considered
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2012 16:44, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll give my personal view on the question, and invite others on the board
to jump in. I think the difference between the specific expertise seats
and the
On 1 February 2012 22:36, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more
effective or helpful
On 1 February 2012 22:38, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
In the 2011 community board election, less than 3400 users voted.[1]
In the 2012 chapter board election, 39 chapters consisting of more
than 4000 identified people will be voting.[2]
Those 4000 people won't be voting, though.
(personal opinion); no, 39 chapter people voted. Hands up everyone who
voted for their chapter's trustees because they trusted their judgment in
appointing members of the WMF Board?
The rhetoric is most certainly not like that in the UK. Trustee elections
tend to be scoped as and this is what
On 1 February 2012 17:38, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Risker wrote:
it gives the impression that the current three
elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
the movement It
concerns me a lot that the 97% of active
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more
effective or
No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the
process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open
to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager,
selected because of their opinions on wider movement governance.
(personal
On 1 February 2012 18:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
basis in fact to say
Yo are right but those figures tell us that chapters are in a very strong
position if they where able to mobilize their 4000 affiliates in the
community board elections. I wonder how many of the 3400 participants in
the community elections were also affiliated to some chapter.
*
*
*John
that is a bit OT but...
*It is difficult to get involved in chapters when, like me, you live in
Africa, and the only approved chapter for the entire continent is 8,000
kilometres away.*
Create one in your country! :D That is basicaly what we are doing in
IberoCoop - help groups from all over
Risker, there are SEVERAL documents in meta with the guidelines used to
elect the Chapter seats. Say that nobody knows is a bit offensive.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The appointed members of the Board are chosen for their specific expertise
and skill-set. The Board does publicly identify the slots it is trying to
fill when looking for appointees, and the qualifications that they
require.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the
process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open
to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager,
You're misunderstanding; I'm saying the Board of Trustees nominations
happening on the chapters wiki is open merely to the representatives of
chapters, not to the thousands of members apparently taking part. Please do
list those chapters who have an internal vote of the membership before
voting on
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
No; it's open to several chapters. If you're planning on holding the
process in private, it's in no way open to thousands of members - it's open
to representatives of thousands of members who were not, I would wager,
Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010
elections. I know WMFR, WMUK and WMAR do the same, and the list can go on...
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao
Oh, agreed. But what I'm interested in is not should be, but whether the
rhetoric in internal chapter elections is usually dominated by, or even
includes, mention of the wider governance issues.
I think chapters have a crucial role to play in movement governance, and
that trustees of each chapter
And how will that work this year if, as I am understanding it, virtually
all the information about the candidates will be hidden?
On 1 February 2012 23:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010
elections. I know WMFR, WMUK
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Oh, agreed. But what I'm interested in is not should be, but whether the
rhetoric in internal chapter elections is usually dominated by, or even
includes, mention of the wider governance issues.
I think chapters have a
On 1 February 2012 23:44, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010
elections. I know WMFR, WMUK and WMAR do the same, and the list can go on...
Really? If I had known WMPT had breached confidentiality like that at
the time, I
2012/2/2 Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org:
Oh, agreed. But what I'm interested in is not should be, but whether the
rhetoric in internal chapter elections is usually dominated by, or even
includes, mention of the wider governance issues.
I think chapters have a crucial role to play in
On 2 February 2012 00:06, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, from the results of the least chapter and community seats
election my opinion is that the former are *wyyy* more
en.wiki-centered than the first.
Really? How do you work that out? The current occupants of
See 1st message in this thread MZ.
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1
2012/2/1 Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com
that is a bit OT but...
Not at all, it is a statement of fact. The continent of Africa is scarcely
represented in terms of Chapters, despite being the world's largest
geographically and second most populous geographically.
*It is difficult to get
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2 February 2012 00:06, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyway, from the results of the least chapter and community seats
election my opinion is that the former are *wyyy* more
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:42 AM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/1 Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com
that is a bit OT but...
Not at all, it is a statement of fact. The continent of Africa is scarcely
represented in terms of Chapters, despite being
Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read the 50 mails yet, but how should the
candidate be chosen? By community vote? By chapter's members ? (do you
need registering ?). Will the WMF chose among them? Sorry if I missed
the relevant docs, I'm new to this.
Also, can I present myself as a candidate? Can
On 2 February 2012 01:53, cyrano cyrano.faw...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read the 50 mails yet, but how should the
candidate be chosen? By community vote? By chapter's members ? (do you
need registering ?). Will the WMF chose among them? Sorry if I missed
the relevant
Cross posting
_
*Béria Lima*
http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 31 January 2012 22:05, Béria
The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the
Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July
2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future
direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project are
Thanks for letting us all know about this, Beria.
So...a few questions.
Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?
Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
community to see?
Hi Risker. let's go by question.
*Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?
*
Everthing that is in Chapters wiki is replicated in meta. All the links in
the Call for Candidates (CfC) are from meta.
Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups.
On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Risker. let's go by question.
*Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
place where all Wikimedians can at least read the
71 matches
Mail list logo
