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
Really strange because the title of president and that of
vice-president belong to the board.
Do you know that the board should not have any conflict of interests
and should do the benefit of the overall foundation?
If the titles of President or Vice-President is in charge of an
executive
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
On 1 February 2012 11:59, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
Really strange because the title of president and that of
vice-president belong to the board.
The title President is sometimes used by the chair of the board, but
Vice President is usually an executive, non-board, position.
I have the same problem when I've translated Erik mail about the new
Android app for WMFr members list. Because in France, a Vice President is
member of board in most of foundations or charities, and almost always it's
a volunteer position.
So to avoid confusion, I have translated as Directeur
I am speaking about a company environment.
In my company (Swiss based) the CEO has dismissed his role and now
it's VP because he is in the board.
This role has the aim to moderate the board's meeting when the
President is not present or to sign contracts instead of the
President.
Ilario
On
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
Elsevier is emblematic of an abusive publishing industry. The
government pays me and other scientists to produce work, and we give it
away to private entities, says Brett S. Abrahams, an assistant professor
of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Then they charge
us to read it. Mr.
Another article:
http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/
Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act
(HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of
Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely
Not surprisingly, the executive and board positions of the WMF follow U.S.
convention. It's not super typical to mix the executive director
nomenclature with president / vice president, but its common to have vice
presidents reporting to a chief executive (who will often take the title of
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
I don't know if it's the case,
but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation
support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott,
of course).
But universal access to universal knowledge is pretty Open Access to me,
and this think is taking momentum,
hopefully will be
Looks like a braindead law.
Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess?
- Original Message -
From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Hi Andrea,
could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit
from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to
know)
Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any
support by Wikimedia for a boycott, people would assume
If I understand the suggestion properly, the idea was not to stop
linking to articles in closed journals, but to find some meaningful
way to support the efforts of the researchers who are boycotting
closed journals (i.e. they are not publishing in them).
--
David Richfield
[[:en:User:Slashme]]
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM, David Richfield
davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand the suggestion properly, the idea was not to stop
linking to articles in closed journals, but to find some meaningful
way to support the efforts of the researchers who are boycotting
closed
Many organizations have dozens or hundreds of vice presidents, like Vice
President of Vending Machines and Vice President of Pencil Sharpeners.
It's not really analogous to President and Vice President of the U.S.
for example, which are exclusive positions. Of course I agree that job
titles
This procedure is unfair for some candidates and is sowing suspiciousness
against chapters.
Last elections I nominated a candidate and also sent questions to be passed
to all candidates.
The situation was absolutely crazy. Some candidates had access to chapters
wiki and could have feedback from
Someday, I can only aspire to be a Vice President of Pencil Sharpeners :)
Sidenote: indeed, on our board we use the terminology Chair
Vice-Chair, not president.
cheers,
phoebe
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Many organizations have dozens or
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Many organizations have dozens or hundreds of vice presidents, like Vice
President of Vending Machines and Vice President of Pencil Sharpeners.
Heh. I've certainly been in the VP of Odds and Ends role before. :)
A
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to give some advance notice about IRC office hours with the
localization team [1] at the Wikimedia Foundation, which will be aptly held
on International Mother Language Day.[2]
Date: 2011-02-21
Time: 18.00 UTC
Venue: #wikimedia-office
As usual, more logistical info
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
This procedure is unfair for some candidates and is sowing suspiciousness
against chapters.
Please read
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_IV_-_THE_BOARD_OF_TRUSTEES
section 3D
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
Please read
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_IV_-_THE_BOARD_OF_TRUSTEES
section 3D
Chapter-selected Trustees. Two Trustees will be selected by chapters
in even-numbered years
On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Nathan wrote:
This is the way things are is not an effective response to here's how I
think things should be.
+1
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 19:17, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
The situation was absolutely crazy. Some candidates had access to chapters
wiki and could have feedback from the answers of other candidates while
others like the one I nominated didn't. One candidate, Phoebe, published
her
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
On 1 February 2012 17:12, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit
from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to
know)
Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any
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
2012/2/1 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
Hi Andrea,
could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit
from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to
know)
Hi Lodewijk,
thanks for the engaging question ;-)
Boycotting non-OA journals is
*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 01, 2012 at 12:53:23PM -0500, Gwern Branwen wrote:
Of course, this proposal has the problem that to work, it would
require editors to add a lot of content, rather than delete it. But it
shows that we have a lot of options besides the simple-minded 'ban
Elsevier citations' option.
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
On 1 February 2012 20:14, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Coulw we start a WikiJournal of some sort?
Been floated from time to time thus not going to happen
(Akin to WikiNews in
operation, perhaps?)
No. If were actually going to launch a journal we would do it in a
conventional
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
I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a valid option, though
encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is.
One way to achieve that could be by highlighting the OA-ness of
cited references, as is now common practice in the Research section of
the Signpost (most recent example:
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
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen
daniel.mietc...@googlemail.comwrote:
I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a valid option, though
encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is.
One way to achieve
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Chess Pie derby_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Looks like a braindead law.
Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess?
The WMF as an entity doesn't have a specific position/policy, though
in general we are squarely in the camp of OA supporters; but as
A Wikimedian has just started a Facebook page Stop pornography on
Wikipedia
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745
following an earlier post by her to [[User talk:Jimbo Wales]] in Wikipedia:
On 2 February 2012 08:35, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
A Wikimedian has just started a Facebook page Stop pornography on
Wikipedia
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745
And we are supposed to care about Facebook pages, why?
following an earlier
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:35:10 +, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com
wrote:
A Wikimedian has just started a Facebook page Stop pornography on
Wikipedia
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-pornography-on-Wikipedia/307245972661745
If I read it correct, she opened a Facebook group since, as she
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ruwrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:35:10 +, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com
wrote:
A Wikimedian has just started a Facebook page Stop pornography on
Wikipedia
81 matches
Mail list logo
