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

2016-02-24 Thread Anthony Cole
I think we agree on the important points. There's a huge potential in Wikidata, and it looks like it's in good hands. Commons could be so much better than it is. Anthony Cole On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Nice that you prove my

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

2016-02-24 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, Nice that you prove my point. My point was that when proper attention would be given to Commons, it would stand proud. Important achievements have been made, because of Commons and its community we have GLAM (just as an example). When it was possible to find images in Commons, it would no

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

2016-02-24 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, You are wrong. The English Wikipedia is only brutally big. Wikidata is slowly but surely becoming one of the most important resources for data on the Internet. Commons is the biggest dysfunctional repository of freely licensed material. Wikisource is where for many languages much of the books

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

2016-02-24 Thread Anthony Cole
True, Gerard. I'm pretty sure the encyclopaedia is the only successful Wikimedia project though, isn't it? I suppose Wikidata will be a success one day but, for the moment, it's the encyclopaedia that the world loves, it's the encyclopaedia that raises the income, it's the encyclopaedia that is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread Keegan Peterzell
Yeah, so, my ultimate point remains: we're talking about hundreds of Wikimedia projects and how they interact with paid editors, and not just how a few handle it. LIke everything, it's complicated beyond local instances ;) -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Dan Andreescu > wrote: > >> I'm very new to this concept of paid editing. But from what I understood >> paid editing is allowed, as long as the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread GorillaWarfare
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > ​Different wikis have different policies on paid editing, most have no > policy. There ​is no global policy. > > That's not exactly true. All Wikimedia projects are beholden to

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

2016-02-24 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, We are not an encyclopaedia. It is only one of our products. It is only one way whereby we provide content. By insisting on being focused on that part of what we do, we do an injustice to everything else. Thanks, GerardM On 25 February 2016 at 04:01, Anthony Cole

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Dan Andreescu wrote: > I'm very new to this concept of paid editing. But from what I understood > paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid > by on their talk page or in edit summaries. I understood

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

2016-02-24 Thread Sam Klein
Craig Franklin writes: > any action that would injure the movement would also > injure the Foundation by definition. Denny is quite correct that trustees > have a legal obligation to put the Foundation before anything else, however > there's usually a fair bit of

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

2016-02-24 Thread James Alexander
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote: > I disagree very much with Dariusz on this topic (as he knows). I must say I also disagree with you ;). That is not to say that a community council or membership structure of some sort might not be good (I

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

2016-02-24 Thread Anthony Cole
Risker, regarding "why are all of these proposals so focused on people who click the edit button": because people who click the edit button on Wikipedia are the people who make this thing our readers love, the people responsible for the rivers of gold flowing into the WMF's bank account. It's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread Dan Andreescu
I'm very new to this concept of paid editing. But from what I understood paid editing is allowed, as long as the editors disclose who they are paid by on their talk page or in edit summaries. I understood this to be roughly the idea of the Wikipedian in Residence title. I didn't look this up on

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

2016-02-24 Thread MZMcBride
Denny Vrandecic wrote: >- the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - >not to the movement. If there is a decision to be made where there is a >conflict between the Movement or one of the Communities with the >Foundation, the Board members have to decide in favor of the

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

2016-02-24 Thread Risker
Out of curiosity, why are all of these proposals so focused on people who click the edit button. The overwhelming percentage of our users (half a billion a month, if I recall correctly) never click that button. The vast majority of our donors never click that button. The massive majority of

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

2016-02-24 Thread George Herbert
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: > > George, the WMF, particularly under the Sue/Erik regime - but as best as I > can tell from its very beginning - has had a propensity to privilege its > view of what's best over the community's view. Superprotect.

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

2016-02-24 Thread Anthony Cole
Hi Keegan. If the volunteers who make the encyclopaedia shifted their work, en masse, to servers hosted elsewhere, I would hope the WMF would do the right thing with the money they have accumulated - let's face it shall we - either directly via Wikipedia banners or indirectly via the goodwill the

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

2016-02-24 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Hopefully we > ​ ​ > could publicly shame them into handing it over. > ​I believe that public shaming as a tool went out of vogue in most civil societies quite a bit ago. I think it should be out of vogue on this list

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

2016-02-24 Thread David Goodman
the movement is always going to be broader and more diverse both in backgrounds and interests than any possible board; the foundationis ls going to have more diverse concerns than the roles of almost any of us in the movement. I do not se the fundamental goal of the movement is to create an

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

2016-02-24 Thread Anthony Cole
Sorry, the above post is initially addressing Sarah. Anthony Cole On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational > institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the > road.

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

2016-02-24 Thread Anthony Cole
WMF is a technology company. We are an encyclopaedia, an educational institution. We need them like I need a mechanic to keep my car on the road. That they have control of the encyclopaedia's budget is an absurdity. The donors want to donate to (and think they are donating to) the builders of an

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

2016-02-24 Thread George Herbert
In an organization where the purpose and Bylaws explicitly (Article II) call for it to be supporting the movement, the Board should be balancing that aspect anyways. Yes, the Board cares for the Foundation, but the Foundation cares for the Movement, and if it stops doing that it's off

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread Risker
On 24 February 2016 at 21:16, Risker wrote: > Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with > anything that would surprise me. I was wrong, And I'll say that if I was > going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to >

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

2016-02-24 Thread Anthony Cole
Sarah, I'd prefer to see the "keeping the servers running" role completely separate from the community. As an organised community, if we become dissatisfied with the service being provided by the WMF, we could just sack them (or not renew their contract) and take on a new infrastructure contractor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread Risker
Well, Sarah, after all of these years I didn't think you'd come up with anything that would surprise me. I was wrong, And I'll say that if I was going to favour paying anyone, it would be paying qualified translators to support smaller projects, and Wikisourcers, and people who may have the

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

2016-02-24 Thread Craig Franklin
One could argue that any action that would injure the movement would also injure the Foundation by definition. Denny is quite correct that trustees have a legal obligation to put the Foundation before anything else, however there's usually a fair bit of latitude in how that obligation is

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

2016-02-24 Thread SarahSV
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional > representative body that had the community's trust and respect, that would, > to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and the

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

2016-02-24 Thread Anthony Cole
Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional representative body that had the community's trust and respect, that would, to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and the WMF. Our only rights in relation to them are to fork or leave. While we are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread SarahSV
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > > And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool > of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects. > > If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of > monthly active

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

2016-02-24 Thread SarahSV
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote: > To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will > be true now matter how much you reorganize it: > > - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not > to the

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

2016-02-24 Thread Denny Vrandecic
I disagree very much with Dariusz on this topic (as he knows). I think that a body that is able to speak for the movement as a whole would be extremely beneficial in order to relieve the current Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation from that role. It simply cannot - and indeed, legally

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

2016-02-24 Thread Denny Vrandecic
Thank you for the diverse input. A few points to Razmy's proposal. I have trouble with suggestions that state "we can ensure diversity by creating regional seats". First, why these regions? What does each region seat represent? Potential readers? Actual readers? Human population at large? Why not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-24 Thread phoebe ayers
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:20 PM, pajz wrote: > Well, we all know about the problems of giving monetary compensation to > editors. Just thinking aloud here, but I guess if you want to reward > editors in some way, but don't want to pay them directly, there's some > middle

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Yuri Astrakhan
Guillaume, the idea may come from anywhere, shouldn't we post the process on meta? Or is this WMF specific, e.g. "I want my favorite cereal in the cafeteria" proposal? :) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Yuri Astrakhan
Oliver, that's a fair point, but my idea can be expanded to non-products. The only difference here is that everyone becomes group #2 - having to convince others via social means. If the idea is not very visual, it has to be painted with words, so maybe our amazing community liaisons or other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Guillaume Paumier
Le mercredi 24 février 2016 14:52:45, j'ai écrit : > Hey Yuri, > > [Responding offlist because I'm linking to officewiki] Obviously, I failed to change the To: line. My apologies to everyone who can't access those documents. -- Guillaume Paumier

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Oliver Keyes
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > Oliver, thanks! > >> In other words, the litmus test for me is: what happens when the socially > and politically weakest person in the organisation has an idea? > > If we speak of a "product" idea, we have two

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Guillaume Paumier
Hey Yuri, [Responding offlist because I'm linking to officewiki] Le jeudi 25 février 2016, 01:38:31 Yuri Astrakhan a écrit : > > In a sense, the barrier of entry for the person in the "weakest position" > would not be as high for the "doer" as for the "inspirer". So I think the > real challenge

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Yuri Astrakhan
Oliver, thanks! > In other words, the litmus test for me is: what happens when the socially and politically weakest person in the organisation has an idea? If we speak of a "product" idea, we have two groups of people - those who can implement the idea, and those who would need to convince

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Dan Andreescu
Now, I agree with Oliver's points but I disagree they apply to the entire organization, and I have proof. I also objectively think there's much more reason for optimism than pessimism. I'm open to being proven wrong or told that I have an Authority Voice and I just don't understand, I really am,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Michał Buczyński
Dnia 24 lutego 2016 18:47 Milos Rancic napisał(a): > Good to know that I am not the only not abducted one. > > Maybe Lydia is not abducted because she is not subscribed on this list? > > We should make the plan now how to search for others. Any idea? > > Milos I am not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation report, July-September 2015

2016-02-24 Thread Gregory Varnum
Hi Nathan, These reports are indeed still being released. However, I do want to note that Communications is taking the lead this time, and Tilman has provided a lot of helpful guidance to support that transition. Generally, we are aiming to release them about a month after the quarterly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread വിശ്വപ്രഭ
Think of those lame sheep like me, who just lurk and watch without making adding a noise of themselves at all. It makes us too feel eerie when the list suddenly goes mute... -Viswam On 25 February 2016 at 02:53, David Gerard wrote: > I've just been standing back at a safe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread David Gerard
I've just been standing back at a safe distance and watching the current disaster with an "ooh, ouch" expression on my face. Still, editing Wikipedia is less triggering than editing RationalWiki. I was only actually shocked at Oliver's resignation. - d.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Austin Hair
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > OK. There are seven of us (six in this thread and Kevin in the other one). > > We need just the rest ~1000 to find. > > I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we > could find the names of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-24 Thread David Gerard
On 22 February 2016 at 03:49, Risker wrote: > I can think of Echo/Notifications which, despite some rather minor > grumblings and need for a few tweaks at the beginning, has been fully > embraced by the community. It's not entirely perfect for all use cases, > but it is so

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation report, July-September 2015

2016-02-24 Thread Nathan
Tilman, are these quarterly reports no longer being released? On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote: > Hi all, > > please find the Wikimedia Foundation's report for the first quarter of > this fiscal year at > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
Anthony, I see in this discussion we're conflating two things which, in my view are entirely different (though they have common themes). I should have made this distinction clearer from the outset: 1. A general debrief of the factors that led to the current crisis. This is what I think you are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread alexhinojo
· · · – – – · · · Mobile sent El 24 febr 2016, a les 20:52, Thyge va escriure: > I think the rest is on FB. > > Thyge > > 2016-02-24 20:10 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon : > >> I got distracted by a passing sheep. >> >> Seddon >> >> On Wed, Feb 24,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Anna Stillwell
+1 to Jake. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Jake Orlowitz wrote: > Oliver wrote: > > "The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat > structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like > this one, because I don't believe reporting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Andrew Bogott
Thanks for this email, Oliver, it's fantastic! Since I'm one of the people who says 'flat' and 'flatter' a lot, I feel compelled to respond, though I run the risk of painting an already-perfect lily. One of the first essays we read in the Flat Org group was 'The Tyranny of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] One Last Ride

2016-02-24 Thread Gordon Joly
On 24/02/16 01:32, James Forrester wrote: > > It's been a while > since > we first met in person. I even followed you across the world to work in San > Francisco! Don't think you can get away from our friendship that easily! I remember

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Thyge
I think the rest is on FB. Thyge 2016-02-24 20:10 GMT+01:00 Joseph Seddon : > I got distracted by a passing sheep. > > Seddon > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Richard Symonds < > richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > > > I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread phoebe ayers
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: . What I was thinking about was how we pay attention to > organisational hiring, to how we promote, to how we treat people, what > empathy we have and how we value empathy. > > I have consistently found the Foundation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Jake Orlowitz wrote: > Oliver wrote: > > "The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat > structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like > this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or

[Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Jake Orlowitz
Oliver wrote: "The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or titles have as much of an impact on dynamics as we think they do. What *does* have an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Brion Vibber
I just want to call out Oliver's post here as extremely valuable, and this bears repeating: A "flat" org structure is not a panacea when you don't have a level playing field, and the playing field's never as level as we like to think it is. Google up some discussions on the subject of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Joseph Seddon
I got distracted by a passing sheep. Seddon On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Richard Symonds < richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet using my wife's laptop. > > Richard Symonds > Wikimedia UK > 0207 065 0992 > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread George Herbert
I am nöt at WMF HQ but häve line öf sight to töp of building ånd nö UFÖ there nöw nösiree. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 24, 2016, at 10:55 AM, George Herbert wrote: > > > There åre nö pröblems in Sän Fränciscö. > > We äre åll fine. > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > o/ > ​I'm actually still here in both a personal and a professional capacity. Do I count as two? Yes I do.​ -- ~Keegan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan This is my personal email address.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Keegan Peterzell
o/ -- Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Product Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread George Herbert
There åre nö pröblems in Sän Fränciscö. We äre åll fine. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 24, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Richard Symonds > wrote: > > I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet using my wife's laptop. > > Richard Symonds > Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Richard Symonds
I'm not actually here, I'm a sockpuppet using my wife's laptop. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Oliver Keyes
I would like to clarify a fairly major premise of this conversation: namely, the comment I made that Yuri quoted in the very first message. When I say that the hierarchical organisation of the Foundation is something that is preventing us from doing better, I was not thinking of how we develop

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Thehelpfulone
On 24 February 2016 at 18:18, Milos Rancic wrote: > I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we > could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin? > TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)? > *waves*, it's actually closer to ~1500, so a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Milos Rancic
OK. There are seven of us (six in this thread and Kevin in the other one). We need just the rest ~1000 to find. I think we should find first at least one of the list admins, so we could find the names of the persons we are searching. Austin? TheHelpfulOne? Richard (from Australia)? On Wed, Feb

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Joseph Fox
Y'know, maybe it's a good thing when this list is quiet. Saves my inbox some. On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 at 18:11 Lydia Pintscher wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:44 PM Yaroslav M. Blanter > wrote: > > > On 2016-02-24 18:39, Milos Rancic wrote: > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Denny Vrandecic
That's exactly what an abducted and then either brainwashed or replaced Lydia would say. This is just getting increasingly suspicious by the minute. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Lydia Pintscher < lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:44 PM Yaroslav M. Blanter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Lydia Pintscher
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:44 PM Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > On 2016-02-24 18:39, Milos Rancic wrote: > > 8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last > > Wikimedian not abducted by aliens? > > No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Leila Zia
I'm still free and alive. :) On Feb 24, 2016 9:40 AM, "Milos Rancic" wrote: > 8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last > Wikimedian not abducted by aliens? > > -- > Milos > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Context around the KE

2016-02-24 Thread Kevin Smith
For what it's worth, In early October 2015, the Discovery department was very clearly told by Wes (who I believe was not yet a c-level) that the mysterious term "Knowledge Engine" was being deprecated, and that the Discovery team was not working on any huge product-like initiative. The team was to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 2016-02-24 18:47, Milos Rancic wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last message on the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago. (May be she is abducted by the aliens though, I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Milos Rancic
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last message on > the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago. > > (May be she is abducted by the aliens though, I do not know). Good to know that I am

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 2016-02-24 18:39, Milos Rancic wrote: 8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last Wikimedian not abducted by aliens? No, there are other lists which are active. For example, the last message on the wikidata-l by Lydia was several minutes ago. (May be she is abducted by

[Wikimedia-l] Anybody alive?

2016-02-24 Thread Milos Rancic
8 (eight) hours have passed without any email. Am I the last Wikimedian not abducted by aliens? -- Milos ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:

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

2016-02-24 Thread Ramzy Muliawan
> > This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated > Board, nor is a developing world-dominated. > "Nor is a developed world-dominated." Sorry, my bad. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

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

2016-02-24 Thread Ramzy Muliawan
Salam Thank you for your feedback, Josh. This proposal did not attempt to create a developing world-dominated Board, nor is a developing world-dominated. A lack of diversity in current Board composition is of course a discomforting reality while we have a immensely growing and unimaginably

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

2016-02-24 Thread Andrea Zanni
I don't really want to generate yet-another-thread, but it seems to me that many people in this conversation don't really understand the need of chapter-elected seats, which to me feels like "I don't understand the need for chapters". I have mixed feeling about this. Of course, I've been in a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Pau Giner
> > If I remember correctly, I think that's how the Content Translation project > started -- it was someone's personal project, which got more people and > attention because it's a great idea and showed real success. That is not accurate. I think Content Translation is a good example of

[Wikimedia-l] German Federal Press Conferences as a model for WMF communication?

2016-02-24 Thread Estermann Beat
Dear Fellow-Wikipedians/Wikimedians, Could the German Federal Press Conferences serve as a model to improve communications between WMF officials/bodies and the community (and the public at large)? Unlike in other countries, where governments face the press at their own will, choosing topics