[Foundation-l] Please add Things You Cannot Do and Definitions in Foundation Trademark Policy
Sorry if you feel that I am repeating myself with trifles not worth to bother the foundation list, but... It seems that people have difficulties understanding the meaning of distribute unchanged Wikimedia content, including appropriate attribution at [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Things You Can Do, a Summary]] (1). So I suggest to add a new paragraph, called [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Things You Cannot Do]], with: * Anything that is not included in [[#Things You Can Do, a Summary]], including: * Distribute any unfree WMF logo under a free license. * Create adaptations or derivative works, which combine any unfree WMF logo with a share-alike-free license, because it violates the terms of that license : see You may not offer or impose any terms on the Adaptation that restrict the terms of the Applicable License in article 4-b of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode . Besides, I have the feeling, that distribute unchanged Wikimedia content, including appropriate attribution at [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Things You Can Do, a Summary]] may require an explanation why this does not contradict your website may not copy the exact look and feel of any Wikimedia website at [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Services Related to Wikimedia Projects]] (2). That apparent contradiction between unchanged and not copy would be best solved by adding the following at [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Things You Can Do, a Summary]] or at a new paragraph called [[:foundation:Trademark Policy#Definitions]] : *Wikimedia content : A) the central part of a collaborative wiki website page, including text, images and other media files, excluding the margin with the logo, the footer and any unfree header. B) any free file available from an internal download link on a File page. Or we could replace the wording Wikimedia content by Free contents contributed by or uploaded by Wikimedia users, including bots. (1) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#Things_You_Can_Do.2C_a_Summary (2) http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#Services_Related_to_Wikimedia_Projects ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Sue Gardner's Speech at TedxDuba
Dear Wikipedians, On December 4, 2010, Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation spoke with the audience at TedxDubai. She focused her talk around why Wikipedia works the commitment of the volunteers in the Wikimedia movement and the notion encyclopedias are meant to be radical. Link: http://vimeo.com/19532861 I hope you enjoy, James T. Owen James Owen Executive Assistant Board Liaison Wikimedia Foundation Office +1.415.839.6885 x 6604 Mobile +1.415.509.5444 Fax +1.415.882.0495 Email- jo...@wikimedia.org Website- www.wikimediafoundation.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
Max, Thanks for raising all these good and important questions. I think that we really should wait until Philippe gets back. He is leading this. The couple of other staffers capable of dealing with these questions are busy with other work. And anyways, it would be better not to have the discussion without Philippe. Zack On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:16 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Christine Moellenberndt wrote: I understand the frustration here, but Board policy says that those with access to non-public data must ID to the Foundation... Will local administrators be next? Surely they have access to deleted content, which is non-public data. We are working with the OTRS volunteers to find the safest way to do so, that will comply with the Board but will also provide safety and security to the community. How does collecting unverified personal information provide safety and security to the community? MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Zack Exley Chief Community Officer Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] R: Changes to the identification policies and procedures
Ok Max But you say that all volunteers need to give ID before 2011/03/02. Is also this term suspended because we have a lot of work and discussions to do? Riccardo (Abisys) -Messaggio originale- Da: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Zack Exley Inviato: venerdì 4 febbraio 2011 17:41 A: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures Max, Thanks for raising all these good and important questions. I think that we really should wait until Philippe gets back. He is leading this. The couple of other staffers capable of dealing with these questions are busy with other work. And anyways, it would be better not to have the discussion without Philippe. Zack ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] R: Changes to the identification policies and procedures
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Riccardo Burdisso ricca...@abisys.itwrote: Ok Max But you say that all volunteers need to give ID before 2011/03/02. Is also this term suspended because we have a lot of work and discussions to do? If it's necessary, I'm sure Philippe will be flexible with any deadlines when he is back. Riccardo (Abisys) -Messaggio originale- Da: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Zack Exley Inviato: venerdì 4 febbraio 2011 17:41 A: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures Max, Thanks for raising all these good and important questions. I think that we really should wait until Philippe gets back. He is leading this. The couple of other staffers capable of dealing with these questions are busy with other work. And anyways, it would be better not to have the discussion without Philippe. Zack ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Zack Exley Chief Community Officer Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Data Summit Streaming
Once again, I get the joys of bringing you all fun video streams! Today's stream(s) comes from the Data Summit [1] at O'Reilly HQ. Unlike my last set of feeds (WCWC11/WikiX), this one should be basically all presentations and hopefully a little more interesting (though we don't have a good pull for the projections, sorry). As usual, the stream only need VLC [2]. The URL for the stream is: http://transcode1.wikimedia.org:8080 - All you need to do is launch VLC Media Open Network Stream. I give you the standard there is no warranty. I'm going to (hopefully) add a second stream later in the day and I'll send out an update when that happens. If you've got questions/comments - email me directly or message me on irc.freenode.net/#wikimedia (Username is in my signature) Thanks- -Jon [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_summit_2011 [2] http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ -- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] / KJ6FNQ http://snowulf.com/ http://ipv6wiki.net/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Data Summit Streaming
The setup is hacky, but we're talking about what we can do to get a better (and portable) setup. I think everyone wants to do streams more regularly, but we need a few very important pieces first (better camera, wireless mic's, etc). -Jon On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 09:44, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: Sweet! Thank you Jon. -- phoebe On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com wrote: Once again, I get the joys of bringing you all fun video streams! Today's stream(s) comes from the Data Summit [1] at O'Reilly HQ. Unlike my last set of feeds (WCWC11/WikiX), this one should be basically all presentations and hopefully a little more interesting (though we don't have a good pull for the projections, sorry). As usual, the stream only need VLC [2]. The URL for the stream is: http://transcode1.wikimedia.org:8080 - All you need to do is launch VLC Media Open Network Stream. I give you the standard there is no warranty. I'm going to (hopefully) add a second stream later in the day and I'll send out an update when that happens. If you've got questions/comments - email me directly or message me on irc.freenode.net/#wikimedia (Username is in my signature) Thanks- -Jon [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_summit_2011 [2] http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ -- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] / KJ6FNQ http://snowulf.com/ http://ipv6wiki.net/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers at gmail.com * ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Jon [[User:ShakataGaNai]] / KJ6FNQ http://snowulf.com/ http://ipv6wiki.net/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
Why is it such a transgression to bring the discussion to foundation-l? The change was discussed on meta, announced on the otrs lists, etc... I'm not clear on what was left to decide in the discussion on OTRS, or why that discussion couldn't happen on a list with broader participation. The Foundation's position on identification affects not only OTRS volunteers, but also stewards, checkusers and ombuds committee members, among others, and anyone who is considering volunteering for those roles. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
phoebe ayers wrote: It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what would be announced. In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people have tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as but Wikimedia is allowed to do this and the non-public data access policy is determined by staff. I don't disagree. My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a courtesy heads-up (we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers need to identify) would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue, it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least why there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it intentional? Was it simply an oversight? Nobody is saying anyone was outside their remit to implement these changes (and to an extent, these changes are sensible, in as much as they make the pointless procedure a little less pointless), but the Community Department doesn't seem particularly keen on involving (or even notifying) the community. That's the larger issue, as I see it. Some of the comments in this thread have read like oh, but we were going to announce this as soon as we had decided everything privately. That doesn't seem to fit in with Wikimedia's governance model and more often than not, it leads to situations where the announced implementation of decisions like these have to be re-worked and re-released because adequate discussion and thought weren't given the first time. Again, the discussion on the OTRS mailing list is pretty clear evidence of this. The original announcement did affect only a limited number of volunteers, and there was no implication that it would be extended to admins, etc. Of course, broader discussion of the issue of identification and access to non-private data (and who should have it) in general is great, and if people have thoughts they should weigh in. People do have thoughts and have tried to weigh in, but they're being chastised for doing so on this list (not by you, to be clear). I don't see how it's fair to contributors to encourage discussion and debate in some posts while condemning open discussion and debate in other posts (referring here primarily to Steven's posts). MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
Wait, so the policy change is about to be implemented, the discussion on private list has been going on for a while. Some peoples already submitted their IDs and the deadline for ID submission is in a few weeks...and asking about it here is being called presumptuous. How is it a good-faith interpretation for not announcing the changes since they've already started implementing it ? they even decided on a deadline already. I don't follow. On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:29 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: phoebe ayers wrote: It seems to me that a good-faith interpretation is that not announcing changes right this second was the right thing to do -- since there was so much controversy among OTRS agents the staff may choose to change or modify the original plan, in which case it's not clear to me what would be announced. In my discussions with people about these recent decisions, some people have tried to pivot the conversation with statements such as but Wikimedia is allowed to do this and the non-public data access policy is determined by staff. I don't disagree. My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a courtesy heads-up (we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers need to identify) would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue, it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least why there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it intentional? Was it simply an oversight? Nobody is saying anyone was outside their remit to implement these changes (and to an extent, these changes are sensible, in as much as they make the pointless procedure a little less pointless), but the Community Department doesn't seem particularly keen on involving (or even notifying) the community. That's the larger issue, as I see it. Some of the comments in this thread have read like oh, but we were going to announce this as soon as we had decided everything privately. That doesn't seem to fit in with Wikimedia's governance model and more often than not, it leads to situations where the announced implementation of decisions like these have to be re-worked and re-released because adequate discussion and thought weren't given the first time. Again, the discussion on the OTRS mailing list is pretty clear evidence of this. The original announcement did affect only a limited number of volunteers, and there was no implication that it would be extended to admins, etc. Of course, broader discussion of the issue of identification and access to non-private data (and who should have it) in general is great, and if people have thoughts they should weigh in. People do have thoughts and have tried to weigh in, but they're being chastised for doing so on this list (not by you, to be clear). I don't see how it's fair to contributors to encourage discussion and debate in some posts while condemning open discussion and debate in other posts (referring here primarily to Steven's posts). MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Bartol Flint Student Erasmus University Rotterdam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
This is the first I've heard about this, as an OTRS volunteer for an English language non-info-en queue. I do not have the luxury of being subscribed to the OTRS mailing list, as it's restricted to those with access to the info-en queue. That subset of OTRS members is not equal to all of them. Therefore I was not been privy to the aforementioned discussion, which involves procedures that theoretically would affect me. I do see that there is discussion of it on the OTRS wiki. -- Adrignola ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
- Original Message From: Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures snip Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment. I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not object to someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being spread here. I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to do; thank you. The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is not because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend of responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral questions leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of seeking information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other. Of course, gossiping is most effective of all. But I for one, care enough about the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to integrate newcomers as to prefer ignorance. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 11:59 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: My issue is that this was presumably discussed for weeks prior to the announcement to the OTRS list, without any community notification. Even a courtesy heads-up (we're currently re-evaluating whether certain volunteers need to identify) would have been good, especially as it brings forth a lot of questions from the community that Wikimedia apparently had not considered. (This is pretty clearly evident from the discussion on the OTRS mailing list.) When these decisions are issued by fiat and out of the blue, it raises suspicion about why the discussions weren't public or at least why there weren't any notifications that discussions were taking place. Was it intentional? Was it simply an oversight? I've had off-hand conversations with many fellow agents over the past couple years that were glancing discussions about the privacy policy and OTRS. Many were concerned about applying because of their transparency in ID not to the WMF, but other volunteers. Trust is a valuable thing and it is very hard to build in an online medium. As a subscriber to both otrs-en-l and otrs-admins-l, I can assure you and the community that there was no closed door conversation with a dozen people on a private mailing list responsible. It's the WMF's call, and one that I happen to support. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
I agree with Brigitte completely. Phoebe, love you for trying to answer this but I don't completely agree with your assumptions. This seems to be going on more and more recently with the staff. There seems to be a huge communication gap here IMHO. it's not like we can mail a staff person and ask them directly, we already have OTRS for that. ;-) Thanks for giving volunteers the privilege to serve. Though I am surprised to see a fellow defending a staff decision and calling himself a staff person earlier, does that mean the other 5-6-whatever fellows are staff too? The staff can answer or ignore like Brigitte said or even better, as the Chief Community officer said we really should wait until Philippe gets back... for answers. Elizabeth On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message From: Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thu, February 3, 2011 10:03:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures snip Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment. I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not object to someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being spread here. I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to do; thank you. The main reason foundation-l is less useful than it could be is because is not because people are *capable* of accusing WMF of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone on an open list. It is because they are *encouraged* to do so by the trend of responses from those connected with WMF. Asking reasonably neutral questions leads to silence or being shut down completely, while accusations of wrongdoing in an aggressive tone provokes snide answers. One of these methods of seeking information on foundation-l turns out to be more effective than the other. Of course, gossiping is most effective of all. But I for one, care enough about the long-term health of the Wikimedia community and it's ability to integrate newcomers as to prefer ignorance. Birgitte SB ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
On 2/4/2011 11:19 AM, Birgitte SB wrote: I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to do; thank you. I agree with much of Birgitte's analysis. I would add that it is not fundamentally wrong to try to surface issues from the gossip network to a more public discussion. (The gossip network is as closed and opaque a forum for discussion as any private mailing list; I'd call for it to be more open, but that would be denying human nature.) Among other things, surfacing these discussions can do the foundation a service by informing it about what matters are being discussed there. However, it does require a great deal of care to surface things in a way that is productive and informative, rather than simply poisoning the public discourse. You can see some of this in how the respectable media approach news that is thrust upon them by tabloids or internet chatter. They go to considerable lengths not to defame and try to avoid unfairly maligning or adding their own insinuations and speculation. I think the pattern of inquiries here has improved, though it could still stand further improvement. On the foundation side, meanwhile, I believe more work ought to be done to minimize the need for the gossip network as an information channel. I've repeatedly pushed for creation of a staff position specifically dedicated to communications with the community. As the current communications staff, Jay and Moka are wonderful but much more external-facing, and have their hands plenty full with just that. I've been expecting that one of the Community department positions outlined in the annual plan would cover this, and if things follow the schedule I would hope to see such a position relatively soon. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered. To answer Elizabeth: I am listed on the staff page at wikimediafoundation.org. My fellowship is for a year and I work at the offices here in San Francisco. Fellowships are all different in length and who they work with, and that diversity is intentional, since they're project-based and different projects have different needs. On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote: On 2/4/2011 11:19 AM, Birgitte SB wrote: I imagine MZMcBride's inquiries have so often been slanted as though they had originated from a hardened negative opinion, because he gets his information from the gossip network rather than the WMF. I think I am so often ignorant because I do the opposite. It seems to me, that MZMcBride has been taking pains for sometime to change the tone of his messages. I personally have noticed a continual incremental improvement on his part. It bothers me that despite what I would rate as his success in crafting a neutral and reasonable message, he is still characterized as demanding answers and chided for bringing up the issue altogether. Whatever anyone else thinks MZMcBride, I have noticed your efforts and I appreciate them a great deal. Introspection and change are hard things to do; thank you. I agree with much of Birgitte's analysis. I would add that it is not fundamentally wrong to try to surface issues from the gossip network to a more public discussion. (The gossip network is as closed and opaque a forum for discussion as any private mailing list; I'd call for it to be more open, but that would be denying human nature.) Among other things, surfacing these discussions can do the foundation a service by informing it about what matters are being discussed there. However, it does require a great deal of care to surface things in a way that is productive and informative, rather than simply poisoning the public discourse. You can see some of this in how the respectable media approach news that is thrust upon them by tabloids or internet chatter. They go to considerable lengths not to defame and try to avoid unfairly maligning or adding their own insinuations and speculation. I think the pattern of inquiries here has improved, though it could still stand further improvement. On the foundation side, meanwhile, I believe more work ought to be done to minimize the need for the gossip network as an information channel. I've repeatedly pushed for creation of a staff position specifically dedicated to communications with the community. As the current communications staff, Jay and Moka are wonderful but much more external-facing, and have their hands plenty full with just that. I've been expecting that one of the Community department positions outlined in the annual plan would cover this, and if things follow the schedule I would hope to see such a position relatively soon. --Michael Snow ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM, whothis whoth...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Brigitte completely. Phoebe, love you for trying to answer this but I don't completely agree with your assumptions. This seems to be going on more and more recently with the staff. There seems to be a huge communication gap here IMHO. it's not like we can mail a staff person and ask them directly, we already have OTRS for that. ;-) Thanks for giving volunteers the privilege to serve. I'm not trying to answer anything... rather, envisioning a perfect world. Call it aspirational. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com Demanding answers on Foundation-l is a lot different than the news about an upcoming change trickling out into the community prior to an official announcement. The latter does no harm. The former can derail a productive discussion about a delicate issue before it's ready for public comment. I could not disagree more strongly. The thing that derails productive discussions and inflames delicate issues is gossip trickling about variably and the distortions that are inevitable when third hand information is being repeated. Not an open discussion on Foundation-l. If it at all seems otherwise, it is only because the more common practice among Wikimedians is to only bring discussions to Foundation-l *after* they have been well-worked over by the gossip network. I take issue with the implication that you would not object to someone spreading this news over IRC, but find it objectionable to it being spread here. Personally, I can't say that I care much about new OTRS requirements—WMF obviously has all the information it could possibly want from me, and what's apparently being proposed doesn't offend me in the slightest. I have to say, though, that Birgitte put this very well. Favoring gossip over straight answers doesn't sit well with me, even if it works better for the staff schedule. And yes, others have been right to point out that while otrs-en-l may be the de facto list for OTRS discussion, it's still limited to the info-en crowd and not really a fair forum for policy decisions. Speaking only for myself, Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
Steven Walling wrote: I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered. From what I've read here and elsewhere, you're about the only person expressing moral outrage and indignation over these recent decisions being discussed in a public forum. I'm not sure this is particularly surprising given where you've been working the past few months, however, so I don't hold it against you. Given that this was discussed for weeks and then announced, I don't think waiting for anyone to return from vacation is necessary for a discussion, especially if there's a broader discussion being held about the virtue of the entire identification process. (For anyone who missed it, please read Risker's post in this topic.) This is all to say nothing of the fact that no single person in an organization should be so critical that their absence creates these types of issues. As I said in my opening post, these questions can wait for Philippe's return if they can't be addressed by others in the meantime, though as you've taken it upon yourself to jump in here, if you have a free minute, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate some real content here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Identification_questions_and_answers And slightly tangential to the topic at hand, please don't top-post. I'm not sure about others, but I read the public mailing list archives occasionally and it makes a complete mess when people don't post inline (even if Gmail and some other web clients collapse the content neatly). Further reading: * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Staff_characteristics * https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] R: Changes to the identification policies and procedures
I'm an OTRS admin I've received my first answer to this issue yesterday with a very good email from Philippe and I think it would be useful to post it here if it's ok for him. I've never seen a real discussion. The main problem, IMHO, is that the new policy is not acceptable for most people in UE because of a different legislation. WMF said that it would be possible proxying the identification process though the local chapters but for example Wikimedia Italia replied that they don't want to participate in this process. We see that WMDE is willing to do this job and we want to investigate if all people, non only German citizens, can be identified by WMDE but it is impossible without a discussion like this. * If a lot of people employed by the WMF criticize the behaviour of MZMcBride it sounds like that the foundation doesn't want to discuss about this issue and I'm sure this is not the case, so I think it would be appropriate from staffers/fellows/interns/... to clarify if they are speaking of behalf of the foundation or not and possibly state clearly their role. * Someone said that the policy is yet not stabilized and still in discussion, while on OTRS wiki was just moved to the Help namespace, so if we have to wait for Philippe to come back to get responses I would expect also the same from the foundation side. Riccardo (Abisys) -Messaggio originale- Da: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] Per conto di Steven Walling Inviato: venerdì 4 febbraio 2011 21:50 A: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered. To answer Elizabeth: I am listed on the staff page at wikimediafoundation.org. My fellowship is for a year and I work at the offices here in San Francisco. Fellowships are all different in length and who they work with, and that diversity is intentional, since they're project-based and different projects have different needs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
- Original Message From: Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 2:50:11 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures I would agree with you Birgitte, except that MZ talked to Christine and Philippe about the issue beforehand and was specifically asked not to post about it here until Philippe is back and any questions can be answered. Meh. It is not as though he is bringing up some pet issue in which the timing is entirely at his discretion. I would imagine the issue is coming forward at this particular time because of the time-frame chosen someone @ WMF. However mere animosity to his timing would not have prompted me to respond. My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you preferred the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the community prior to an official announcement (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l. You just don't get it. Micheal Snow suggested gossip is just human nature. Ni modo. But there is a huge difference between stopping it (which I have never suggested doing) and endorsing it as a more valid channel than foundation-l. That gossip could be endorsed to any degree by someone that has a staff position in the Community department says a great deal that is not at all positive about the level of understanding and/or leadership in that department. Gossip destroys trust. Gossip inhibits transparency. Gossip excludes those that are new. Gossip excludes those who socialize differently (in different languages, tolerate different kinds of humor, at different times, etc.) Gossip deteriorates the quality/accuracy of information. Gossip reduces the quantity/detail of information in circulation. Gossip doesn't scale. Every single one of these values should be a significant concern of the Community department given the current state of things. [1] Gossip is inevitable and won't ever be stopped. But people can personally try to become gossip black-holes and/or work to shift the substance of the gossip to the appropriate channel. And WMF staff can certainly encourage the advertising of issues through more valid (i.e. any other) channels. At the very least, they should refrain from opposing the use of more valid channels in place of gossip. Birgitte SB [1]To be complete I feel I need add in some values where gossip rated positively. Just to prevent anyone who has never given the issue much thought from jumping ahead from what I have said above to Gossip=Evil. Gossip an organic component of human communities (No installation required). Gossip is probably the most grossly inexpensive informational network (If you few resources or the information is rather binary making quality losses insignificant). Gossip very efficient at spreading the information that is more passionately cared about faster and wider than information that people care less strongly about (No need to spend time evaluating information for relevancy before distribution). Gossip is better than nothing in short-term considerations. (Temporary communities will rarely find the drawbacks relevant) Gossip != Evil Gossip can be very good when a crowded theater catches fire. Gossip is simply not an informational network that is compatible with the goals of the Wikimedia movement. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes to the identification policies and procedures
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote: My real, huge, jaw-hitting-the-floor, issue with your response is that you preferred the news about an upcoming change trickl[e] out into the community prior to an official announcement (gossip) over a posting to foundation-l. You just don't get it. I do not mean that gossip should be preferred over public announcements as standard operating procedure. Considering that I've made numerous announcements about my work to this very list (IRC office hours, 10th anniversary organizing etc.) I think that's clear. What I meant is that there is no way to prevent informal discussion about something that has yet to be announced, so there's no reason to fret over it. What I *do *find unhelpful is publicly posting about sensitive topic when you know in advance that people aren't prepared to answer questions about it yet. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
