Re: [Wikimedia-l] Be the change you want to see (was: WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive)

2019-05-15 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Asaf for this thoughtful email!

I just want to respond to this bit - after all, the history is the history:

>
> It is WMF that is not behaving collaboratively here.  And it is within
> WMF's power to change it.  C-levels, the ED, and other managers at WMF
> could all decide to participate more actively in this list; to respond to
> questions or delegate the answering to their subordinates, who are awaiting
> their cue; and indeed, they could themselves make more use of this list as
> a sounding board, a consultation room, and a reserve of experience and
> diverse context.  They can be the change they (and you, and me) would like
> to see.
>
>
I agree it would be great to see more active discussion on this list
including the WMF Board and senior staff. While it's not a perfect forum,
it's currently one of the better forums we have. Who knows, perhaps at some
point there will be other fora or other methods of putting things on 'the
WMF's' agenda. [Obligatory Movement Strategy reminder: Who knows, perhaps
the WMF is going to take a very different form in 3 years' time!]

But in the meantime I would like to think about what we can all ('WMF' and
'non-WMF') do to encourage this kind of culture change at the WMF.

Thinking about what this list looks like from inside the WMF (a place I
have never been, literally or figuratively), I imagine people find the
following reasons to hesitate before participating:
* The list covers a broad range of topics, some of which are very
high-level in nature and it's not clear who, if anyone, *should* respond. I
expect some people are worried about interfering with other peoples'
responsibilities, or that someone else always has a better understanding?
How can we make people feel empowered to respond to these broad issues?
* Emailing lists is timeconsuming and engaging with further replies that
are angry/dissatisfied/demanding more details is even more demanding of
time and emotion than that. I imagine people are concerned that starting a
dialogue can end up as a huge time sink and emotional drain. How can we
make sure this is a 'safe space' for staff to contribute without certain
people picking up pitchforks? How can we make it clear that contributions
are valued?
* This list is not reflective of the breadth of the movement. If a staff
member wants to engage with community members they may wonder whether this
is this the right place to do so. How can we address that, even if only in
part?

These problems are probably easier to overcome than they look or feel. But
how can we, collectively, overcome them?

(It's also worth noting that these problems will apply to almost every
other potential channel of community engagement, so if it's possible to
make progress on having productive dialogue on this list, there may be
learning points that we can apply to other fora)

What do people think?

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Board WMNL

2019-05-10 Thread Chris Keating
>
> (new) Jan Bart de Vreede, community health
>
>
I'm not sure "new" is quite the right word, possibly "recycled" ;)

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Gerard,


> So lets focus on what *you* consider the big
> difficult questions making this rebranding issue not so relevant..
>

Well, there is a list of about 90 scoping questions from the movement
strategy process. Many of these questions in fact overlap or are
alternative ways of asking the same thing, but still there are plenty! :)

In particular, your questions about avoiding Anglo-American bias relates to
questions 3, 4 and 5 from the Diversity working group (1), and question 9
from Roles and Responsibilities. There doesn't seem to be anything from
Product & Technology along similar lines (though one could ask why not)

It would be absolutely great if there was as much thoughtful discussion of
these really broad issues as there has been about the proposal to basically
change one letter in the Wikimedia Foundation's name. The reason there
hasn't been is because big, broad issues are difficult to engage with,
while specific issues are easier to engage with. That's not a criticism,
more an invitation for more people to invest the time and energy to engage
with the big issue questions as well.

Chris

(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Diversity
(2)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities



> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 10:53, Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
> > conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
> > questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
> > questions.
> >
> > (Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group
> email
> > lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
> > because that's where we're at)
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman,  wrote:
> >
> > > I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> > > and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> > > like to have a more substantive discussion:
> > >
> > > (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> > > requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> > > all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> > > or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
> > >
> > > (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> > > involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> > > at length for additional participation (e.g.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=23m and
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=30m et seq.) To be
> > > honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> > > working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> > > meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> > > there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> > > people use off-list emails instead?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] branding is bikeshedding, how about CTO criteria or working group lists instead?

2019-04-16 Thread Chris Keating
In many ways yes - not that branding isnt important, but these two
conversations are a great example of people engaging with the narrow
questions that are easy to have a view on, and not the big, difficult
questions.

(Though also, there is nothing more interesting on the working group email
lists - the summaries are high level and the documents are high level
because that's where we're at)

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019, 21:09 James Salsman,  wrote:

> I withdraw any opinions and suggestions about the branding discussion,
> and don't intend to continue participating in it. Instead, I would
> like to have a more substantive discussion:
>
> (1) I ask that the CTO search team please publish their search and
> requirement criteria, including the CTO job description and any and
> all goals for the CTO position whether in current planning documents
> or unpublished drafts of planning materials.
>
> (2) Why are the Strategy Working Group lists not on
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo ? I recall several people
> involved with the strategy process as saying it is "open" and asking
> at length for additional participation (e.g.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=23m and
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxCFzA3PEaQ=30m et seq.) To be
> honest, there doesn't seem to be much community engagement from
> working groups or strategy process facilitators on meta, and the
> meeting summaries are very abstract and difficult to understand. If
> there is a need for private strategy working group communications, can
> people use off-list emails instead?
>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-09 Thread Chris Keating
> At the occasion, we should also reconsider the expressions "chapter"
> and "user group".
> "Chapter" is more suitable for local divisions of a national
> association. And "user group" sounds just like some group. We also
> already have "user group" as a technical term in MediaWiki.
>

You may be aware that the movement strategy process is thinking about this
issue, albeit at a broader level :)

For instance one of the questions the Roles and Responsibilities group is
looking at is "What governance and organizational structures do we need to
support the delivery of the strategic direction?"(1)

You will notice that there is no mention of chapters, user groups or indeed
the WMF in this question. That's because there is no presumption that any
of those bodies (or types of bodies) will continue to exist in their
current form - the changes from the strategy process may well be much more
profound than finessing the names of categories of entity that currently
exist.

Thanks,

Chris



(1)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/2019_Community_Conversations/Roles_%26_Responsibilities#Scoping_questions
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Affiliate Selected Board Seats - Resolution finalized. Next steps.

2019-04-06 Thread Chris Keating
Thank you, facilitators, for your hard work on this process!

Chris
(ASBS facilitator the last two times around)

On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 11:12 AM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Election Facilitators met on Friday, April 5. We finalized the
> resolution, which is now frozen.[1] The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia
> Foundation will be asked to approve the resolution.
>
> We have made two small changes to be more inclusive. We extended the date
> for compliance with AffCom reporting and being in good standing to May 8 to
> allow time for as many Affiliates as possible to be current with these
> requirements. The Election Facilitators adjusted the language in case a
> quorum is not met during the election.
>
> On the talk page of the resolution one issue was raised. The issue looks
> like to be about a possible candidate. Affiliates will have ample time to
> discuss the merits of candidates during nomination time, screening time,
> and they can cast their votes on candidates. The Election Facilitators
> didn't see the necessity for this change, and left the resolution on this
> point unchanged.
>
> The Election Facilitators will be Abhinav Srivastava, Lane Rasberry,
> Jeffrey Keefer, Ad Huikeshoven, Neal McBurnett and Alessandro Marchetti. We
> will welcome more volunteers to assist us in this process, to reach out to
> the diversity in language and gender in our communities, and do so in an
> advisory role.
>
> The nomination period opens op April 15. We are going to prepare nomination
> pages on meta. You can expect a call for nominations. There is a draft
> call, including a candidates' profile section with non-binding guidelines
> about experience and characteristics for nominees.[2] You are welcome to
> add your insights, or discuss on the talk page.
>
> Erica Litrenta (WMF staff) supports us in this process. She will reach out
> to all affiliates through mail and other channels to make sure we are up to
> date with (user)name and contact details of your primary contact.
>
> On behalf of the Election Facilitators,
>
> Ad Huikeshoven
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
> [2]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Call_for_Candidates#Candidates%27_profiles
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [strategy process] Fwd: I decided to leave the working group

2019-03-28 Thread Chris Keating
Hello,

I just want to chime in here. Like Itzik I'm a working group member with a
community and chapter background, unlike him I am not resigning  :)

I certainly identify with many of the frustrations he shares. Everything in
the process is slow and that is very frustrating for those of us who just
want to get on with the work.

Some of that is because the scope and breadth of what the process is trying
to achieve. Some is because of the amount of the governance equivalent of
"technical debt" the movement has accumulated as decision after decision
has been put off and ultimately swept into this process to resolve. Some of
the slowness is due to the particular way the process is being aporoached
and the supporting resources that are available (it seems while WMF can
spend immense amounts of money on this process, it can't make any quick
decisions on how to spend that money because of an ossiffied procurement
process... *shrugs*). I won't say any more about the process now because I
expect there to be many discussions at the WMSummit about how it works from
here.

In spite of these frustrations, I think it's likely that the outcomes of
the process will be a significant, lasting, positive  change for the
movement.

Chris


On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, 17:09 Paulo Santos Perneta, 
wrote:

> I subscribe what Yaroslav wrote, line by line.
>
> My personal impression is that for the people who are at the onwiki
> communities, in which I include myself till 2018, this whole Strategy 2030
> thing looks indeed like something happening in a distant galaxy, led by
> people with very little notion of what is actually happening in the
> projects. And there is also this notion that sometime in the near/mid
> future vogons would came in to impose whatever they had decided there, and
> that they will have to be chased off.
>
> I attended Iberoconf 2019[1] early this year in Santiago, where Strategy
> 2030 was supposed to be very much in focus, and I was hoping to have a
> better idea of what it was over there. However, we ended up never talking
> about it (at least that I can remember), so the idea I got was that it is
> something of no importance or of very little importance, but on which, for
> some reason, huge amounts of WMF funding is being thrown in.
>
> I do not care about the money - it's their money, they do whatever they
> want with it. But it kind of annoys me that Strategy 2030, while being
> apparently useless, tends to pervade all Wikimedia events and spaces. It
> kind of stays there, doing nothing and occupying space that could be better
> used for more practical stuff.
>
> Nothing against the people that is on the Working Groups, I'm sure most of
> them are doing their best, as Itzik, but this whole thing at this point is
> really looking as some failed experiment, and it would probably be better
> to salvage what is possible from this and the other past "strategy"
> experiments, look at what failed and start something new and better
> thought.
>
> [1] -https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Conference/WMCL/Iberoconf_2019
>
> Best,
> Paulo (DarwIn)
>
>
> Yaroslav Blanter  escreveu no dia quinta, 28/03/2019
> à(s)
> 15:38:
>
> > Hello Itzik,
> >
> > thanks for sharing this.
> >
> > I actually did not want to react, because I presumably sound too critical
> > on this list in the last couple of years. However, 24h passed, and nobody
> > reacted, and It would be unfortunate if we let this go.
> >
> > My own experience brought me to the same conclusions, even though I have
> a
> > very different background. I am a project contributor, highly active on
> > several WMF projects and having some advanced permissions there. I belong
> > to the category which became common to refer to as "unorganized
> volunteers"
> > (which we actually read as a derogatory name). I participated in the 2010
> > strategy consultation, which was pretty much community driven, and I
> liked
> > that one. My name is on the final document. However, I did not like the
> > current process from the very beginning. In the first stage, facilitators
> > were hired, and some of them genuinely wanted to do things but did not
> know
> > how to activate the communities, and others did not even make an effort.
> As
> > I already shared on this list, on one of the projects I am active in we
> > took the challenge seriously and formulated quite a few of strategic
> > directions - just to be told by the facilitator that this is not what we
> > were expected to do. The final document had no trace of our suggestions.
> I
> > was one of those who opposed the final document and signed for this on
> Meta
> > - about 70 people signed and were duly ignored. I was not looking forward
> > to the second round, but when I saw a call, I though "ok, I was
> criticizing
> > the process a lot, but did I do enough to fix it", and I applied. My
> > application was rejected, and a couple of days later there was a second
> > call stating that the first one did not get enough 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Foundation events team

2019-03-05 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks for the update Maggie and welcome Joel and Isabel!

I just wanted to ask about this bit of your email:


> this new Events
> Team, which will be focused on convenorship -- a critical part of our
> outreach and growth dynamic.


I haven't heard the word "convenorship" before, could someone explain what
it means in our context?

Thanks!

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Roles & Responsibilities working group - Short update

2019-02-28 Thread Chris Keating
Dear all,

I just wanted to share that the Role & Responsibilities Strategy Working
Group has just published a summary of perspectives on existing movement
governance and structures:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/Interviews_Insights_Summary

This document is based on c.25 in-depth interviews we in the working group
have performed with people with varied roles in and perspectives on the
movement as it stands. The aim has been for us as a group to understand
what different people in different parts of the movement think and feel
about movement structures as they stand. Just to be clear, we have not
weighted / prioritised the issues raised at present, just described them. :)

Your comments and views are very welcome on the Talk page - especially if
you have a view or perspective that you do not see represented in the
document. We will certainly read all those comments and incorporate them in
our thinking. However there will also be much more news and consultation
coming from the movement strategy core team in coming weeks, in the lead-up
to the Wikimedia summit.

Thank you to everyone who helped us by agreeing to share their views in
this process to date, and happy reading!

Yours,

Chris Keating
on behalf of the Roles & Responsibilities Working Group
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing stress and friction in interactions between WMF, affiliates, and community

2019-02-23 Thread Chris Keating
On this note, here's an essay I wrote along similar lines in 2016. I think
things have improved significantly since then, but most of the observations
are still true...

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Why_do_They_always_do_It_wrong

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:01 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Recent events have brought to mind the recurring challenges of stress and
> friction in the Wikiverse that can happen in interactions, or lack of
> interactions, between WMF, affiliates, and community members.
>
> I realize that some friction is inevitable, but the feeling that I get is
> that the levels of stress regarding these interactions are, on average,
> fairly high.
>
> This stress can happen on both sides. My understanding is that some staff
> are afraid to communicate in public because they worry about making people
> angry for unpredictable reasons. Affiliates and community people may feel
> frustrated or ignored.
>
> For me, this situation is painful and frustrating, and I'm currently
> feeling worn by the friction of our groups.
>
> The Wikiverse will probably always have a some friction, and some of that
> friction may lead to insightful conversations and good refinement of ideas,
> but the average level of WMF-affiliate-community friction feels high.
>
> I'm not saying that there should be no conflicts or no difficult
> conversations. Sometimes I think that being frank is the best thing to do,
> and a high level of stress is difficult to avoid in certain situations.
> However, I would like for the average level of stress and friction in our
> interactions to be more moderate. I would like for staff to feel generally
> okay regarding communicating in public, and I would like for affiliates and
> community members (in which I include myself) to feel less pain.
>
> I think that the mission to share verifiable and reliable knowledge with
> the world is amazing, and I'm grateful that we do this. However, the stress
> level regarding WMF-affiliate-community interactions feels high in a way
> that I think that this is a problem. Maybe a question to ask about our
> interactions is, "How can improve the quality of our interactions in a way
> that is generally beneficial for all groups and beneficial for our common
> goals?"
>
> Would anyone like to make suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changed plus next steps

2019-02-21 Thread Chris Keating
The way I'm making sense of the timeline is:

Last summer the Board remembered that the ASBS was coming up (in among all
their conversations about the strategy). Probably in July they discussed it
for the first time and they asked AffCom to look at a way of including User
Groups. At the November meeting they looked at AffCom's recommendation and
decided not to accept it 'as is' but to leave the door open to other
solutions. They then started the formal community consultation. At the
January meeting they adopted the still very open proposals they'd consulted
on.

Personally I would have preferred the Board to consult in public back in
July rather than just consulting AffCom at that point, then we might be 3
months in advance. And I expressed my reservations about this change, so
did many other people. But it's the job of any board to make decisions, and
in this case it seems they felt there were good reasons for going ahead in
spite of the objections raised - and to be fair the voices on the Meta page
were a relatively narrow slice of the overall Wikimedia community.

To those who still have concerns, there is plenty of space to still design
a process that meets them.

And if this issue makes people have wider thoughts about the role of
affiliates and the WMF, please hold onto them, because there is much more
movement strategy thinking coming up in the run up to the Wikimedia Summit,
and the strategy process is probably going to work on a scale that makes
this issue seem insignificant.

Thanks,

Chris

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 8:05 PM Strainu  wrote:

> În joi, 21 feb. 2019 la 16:59, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
>  a scris:
> >
> > No, you aren't missing anything. The timeline is strange.
> >
> > As Antanana wrote, *"The conversation about how User Groups may
> participate
> > in this process has been on for years, it is not a new topic [4]." *
> > So if it isn't a new proposal, why the board jumped to do this change so
> > close to the election instead of a year or so before?
> > On the other hand, if this issue is old enough, so why do the change now,
> > instead of holding the elections and then conduct (without pressure) a
> REAL
> > discussion and DEEP thinking about how to involve UGs while maintaining
> > equal elections.
>
> Actually, the timeline (give or take a couple of weeks) seems quite
> well chosen to force a timely discussion. Realistically speaking, if a
> wiki-discussion has lagged for years, it would have also lagged until
> the next round of elections, in 3 years. Also, having a solution in
> place for the current election does not prevent another round of
> discussions afterwards, based on the then-existing experience.
>
> I understand that the chapters have concerns regarding their ability
> to have a say in the board, but the fact that there has been a lack in
> new chapters in recent years has given them an unfair advantage over
> other organizations in the ecosystem. Most of the objections on the
> talk page focused on how the UGs will double vote, skew the elections
> etc. without considering that many user groups have established
> internal policies and decision-taking procedures on par with smaller
> chapters. I urge all of the chapter representatives to give up the
> fearmongering and work with the interested parties to make this
> dialogue a showcase of openness and collaboration "à la Wikimedia".
>
> Strainu (for himself)
>
> >
> >
> >
> > *Itzik Edri*
> > Chairperson
> > it...@wikimedia.org.il
> > +972-54-5878078
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:01 PM effe iets anders <
> effeietsand...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As for process.. While I appreciate that this time, the change was at
> least
> > > announced before the vote, and that some board members at least
> engaged in
> > > some conversation - I have yet to see how this was taken into
> consideration
> > > by the board as a whole. It feels like the board already made up its
> mind.
> > >
> > > What is surprising me most, is that it took a month for this
> announcement
> > > to be made - especially considering a time sensitive process being
> impacted
> > > by this decision. Or did I miss a more timely announcement elsewhere?
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Lodewijk
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:19 AM Santiago Navarro <
> > > santiagonava...@wikimedia.es> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In fact, I did not participate in the discussion page on meta about
> > > > that, because I guessed that my opinion would not be taken in
> account,
> > > > neither discussed, and now it seems that, sadly, I was right in that
> > > > thought.
> > > >
> > > > El 2019-02-19 17:25, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel escribió:
> > > > > Antanana and the board,
> > > > >
> > > > > I find it sad and disappointing that after such a long
> conversation on
> > > > > the
> > > > > talk page, there wasn't any comment on the talk page or in this
> > > > > statement
> > > > > about the problem of double voting by many UG's members. Did the
> board
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Inisghts from a meeting with NGO representatives

2019-02-19 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Micru,

How about documenting your insights on here. I know a number of people in
the Roles & Responsibilities group have been reading with interest, thank
you very much for sharing.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Roles_%26_Responsibilities

Chris


On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 4:23 PM David Cuenca Tudela 
wrote:

> @Benjamin: It is already there, as answer to Farkhad.
>
> @Ziko: I have no idea where to store this. If you find a suitable place,
> please go ahead and let me know.
>
> Regards,
> Micru
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:11 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:
>
> > Hello, maybe there is a suitable place on Meta Wiki to conserve this?
> Later
> > it will be a little bit difficult to find it again on a mailinglist.
> > I myself find this point of view of "outsiders" very interesting and
> worth
> > to notice e.g. in strategic discussions.
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> > Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 11:41 Uhr schrieb David Cuenca Tudela <
> > dacu...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Bodhisattwa,
> > >
> > >
> > > *Governance recommendation *
> > > I assisted to a session on sociocracy organized by the Transition
> Network
> > > that basically blew my mind. The speaker explained how for her it has
> > been
> > > always difficult to participate in decision-making because she feels
> that
> > > she is a very vocal person, and she felt that with democracy it was
> > mostly
> > > about taking sides and wining or losing, which was quite disappointing
> > for
> > > her. Then she started to explain the sociocratic principles of decision
> > by
> > > consent, and what does that mean.
> > >
> > > What is interesting about sociocracy itself, is not the process or the
> > > method, but how it challenges the participants to truly understand the
> > > meaning of a decision, and their own relationship with it. Objections
> are
> > > seen as a gift that will help improve the proposal, once they have been
> > > properly understood. Normally it takes effort from the participants to
> > > address their own personal issues as well, because they have an impact
> on
> > > how the group can operate.
> > >
> > > Trust can be built during in person sessions, and it is necessary for
> the
> > > group to operate smoothly. Sociocracy is not for people who like to
> > > accumulate power, or are not able to share power with others, and that
> > can
> > > drive people away. On the other hand, those who stay feel more included
> > and
> > > supported by the organisation. There is also an element of celebration,
> > > which sometimes we forget. Taking decisions is hard work, and we should
> > > celebrate when we reach one.
> > >
> > > Sociocracy it is easy to grasp, but difficult to master. The members of
> > the
> > > Transition Network had to undergo a training during a long time at the
> > > Université de Nous, to become proficient in this method. There is also
> a
> > > software that assists self-organization: https://www.holaspirit.com/
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Micru
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:45 AM Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> > > bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Micru,
> > > >
> > > > I am interested about your thoughts about governance recommendation
> for
> > > the
> > > > movement and community model of affiliates.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Bodhisattwa
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019, 12:14 Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
> > > > f...@yandex.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Micru,
> > > > > I would be interested to learn about "External perception of the
> > > > > movement".part of your insights.
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > from Russia with love,
> > > > > farhad
> > > > > https://ru.wikimedia.org/wiki/Smart_region
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Farhad Fatkullin - Фархад Фаткуллин http://sikzn.ru/
> > Тел.+79274158066
> > > /
> > > > > skype:frhdkazan / Wikipedia:frhdkazan / WMRU:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 18.02.2019, 02:35, "David Cuenca Tudela" :
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people
> > > from
> > > > > > different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
> > > > > > democratic, and diverse organisations. I was one of four speakers
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > > "world cafe" format (basically a circle where participants can
> > > > > > interact with the speaker). I represented the Wikimedia movement
> in
> > > > > > general, with the intention that participants would learn from
> our
> > > > > > movement, and so that I would learn from them. There were also
> Open
> > > > > > Space sessions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If there is interest, I can share with you my insights on any of
> > > these
> > > > > topics:
> > > > > > - External perception of the movement
> > > > > > - Recommendations to the WMF
> > > > > > - Governance recommendations for the movement
> > > > > > - Community model for affiliates
> > > > > > - How to increase diversity
> > > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposed changes to the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws

2019-02-07 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Maria,

I wondered if there was any news about whether the Board had, in the end,
adopted any of these proposals.

I see that the ASBS process is now on the agenda for the Wikimedia Summit
in late March. There is now not much time to figure out who is going to run
this process and what the process will look like!

Many thanks,

Chris




On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 3:46 PM María Sefidari 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is considering amending the
> Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws. Nataliia Tymkiv, Chair of the Board Governance
> Committee, is leading this process. She has posted the proposed changes on
> Meta for discussion
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/December_2018_-_Affiliate-selected_trustees,_term_limits,_and_diversity
> >
> prior to our vote on them during the Board meeting scheduled for January
> 23, 2019. We invite you to comment on the proposal's talk page. As usual in
> these cases, two weeks are provided for community comment, from December 7
> to December 21.
>
> By making the proposed changes to the Bylaws, the Board intends to achieve
> three goals:
>
> *1. Include User Groups in the trustee selection process*
>
> Though User Groups have existed as a model of affiliation within the
> Wikimedia movement for a number of years, they have not been included
> together with Chapters and Thematic Organizations as participants in
> selecting Wikimedia Foundation trustees. There are now over 100 recognized
> User Groups, many of which represent emerging communities within the
> Wikimedia movement. The Board believes that the perspectives of User Groups
> combined with those of Chapters and Thematic Organizations will lead to the
> selection of the best trustee candidates.
>
> The Board acknowledges that the ongoing Wikimedia movement strategy process
> may result in changes to many aspects of the Wikimedia movement, including
> the structure of movement affiliates. As a result, any changes we make now
> to the Foundation Bylaws regarding the role of affiliates in the trustee
> selection process may need to be modified again in the future, in turn
> requiring additional amendments to the Bylaws. However, the Board did not
> want to delay providing User Groups with a voice in the upcoming 2019
> trustee selection process.
>
> *2. Raise term limits for trustees from two to three consecutive terms*
>
> Term limits for trustees were added to the Bylaws in 2015. At the time,
> there was a desire on the Board to bring in new voices and specific
> skill-sets needed for the growth and development of Wikimedia projects. The
> changes made at that time have resulted in some notable successes in that
> regard. The Board remains committed to seeking out new voices, and
> providing the community with ample opportunities to promote such voices as
> candidates for the Board.
>
> As the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation think forward
> further to the future, the Board will need to oversee the Foundation in
> setting, following through on, and achieving longer-term goals. The Board
> believes it will be better able to fulfill its role if it allows for the
> potential of a longer time on the Board for individual trustees who bring
> essential expertise and insight to the Board. The possibility of serving
> one additional term on the Board also reduces the amount of time the Board
> and Foundation staff spend on trustee recruitment and onboarding. Raising
> the maximum number of consecutive terms a trustee may serve from two to
> three terms achieves these goals, and is also consistent with the practice
> of many other boards. Raising the maximum number of terms that can be
> served consecutively does not change the fact that the community, including
> affiliates, will continue to be able to determine every three years whether
> or not to re-elect currently serving trustees or whether to elect new
> candidates - just as is the case now.
>
> *3. Reaffirm the Board’s commitment to diversity*
>
> The Wikimedia movement is global, built on a vision of reaching every
> single human being and working toward a strategic goal of knowledge equity
> for all. The Board believes that it can best serve the Wikimedia Foundation
> and the movement by reflecting a wide range of human experiences. We want
> to underscore and codify this belief in the Bylaws by adding express
> language affirming our commitment to diversity and inclusion of all voices,
> throughout our communities - new, older and emerging.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> María Sefidari
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Board
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Questions about proposed new Chapter agreement for Wikimedia Portugal

2019-01-28 Thread Chris Keating
Hi  Gonçalo,

Looks to me like someone in the WMF has decided that, given the recent
challenges with WMPT, it's a good idea to create a chapter agreement that's
somewhat more restrictive in terms of trademark usage and reporting as a
way of mitigating any future problems the chapter might encounter.

Of course, I may be misinterpreting this (which is easy to do). But if
you're someone in the WMF whose job it is to worry about the risks of
various courses of action, including signing chapter agreements, then this
would probably look like a sensible thing to do.

From a broader perspective... well, it does look like we're creating a new
kind of chapter with slightly fewer rights as a result of the chapter
encountering governance issues. This is a new way of approaching this kind
of issue (many chapters and the WMF have all had significant governance
issues at some point, without anyone wanting to renegotiate the founding
agreements between them), and I am not sure it's healthy, at least not
without being embedded in a broader framework.

Pretty much the only thing you can do in the circumstances is go back to
the WMF with queries and/or a counter-proposal. This is what is normally
what happens in contract negotiations, including within the Wikimedia
movement, and generally speaking these proposals are usually open to
negotiation.

It's already clear from the WMPT situation (and others) that how the
movement deals with 'difficult situations' involving affiliates is pretty
unclear. I think there are questions to ask about the right balance between
investigation, development support, conflict resolution, and risk
mitigation/disciplinary measures. There are also questions about whose job
it is to do all of these things. And it's not helped by the fact that there
is no clear definition of what a chapter (or any affiliate) is for, and
what the expectations of the affiliate/WMF relationship should be.

Chris



On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:58 AM GoEthe.wiki  wrote:

> (sorry for cross-posting, but since this is a time sensitive issue, I would
> like to get as many comments as possible)
>
> Dear all,
>
> Last 30 October, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) decided it needed more time
> to evaluate the case of Wikimedia Portugal, it extended the suspension of
> Wikimedia Portugal, and said that they must use the time that would
> otherwise be the termination period for the Chapter Agreement between
> Wikimedia Portugal and the Wikimedia Foundation, therefore giving notice of
> termination of the Chapter Agreement. WMF also said that if Wikimedia
> Portugal fully and completely resolved the issues described above and
> otherwise remained compliant with its obligations as a chapter - which
> happened, and the suspension was lifted - then WMF would sign a new chapter
> agreement with Wikimedia Portugal. The current chapter agreement therefore
> terminates this 31 January. On 25 January WMF sent us a new proposal of
> Chapter Agreement for Wikimedia Portugal to sign. It can be seen here, side
> by side with the current Chapter Agreement Wikimedia Portugal has with the
> WMF:
>
> https://pt.wikimedia.org/wiki/Utilizador:Alchimista/Chapter_Agreement
>
> This new proposal differs in many ways from the Chapter Agreement currently
> in place, and from the ones other chapters have signed (at least the ones
> that are public) and we have several questions about it, so we would like
> to ask the Wikimedia Portugal associates, other affiliates and the
> Wikimedia community in general to help us by clarifying some of these
> questions and weigh in on the advantages and disadvantages of continuing
> being a WMF affiliate under these changed conditions.
>
> We have also accordingly asked from the WMF a two month extension of the
> current Chapter Agreement, to allow for proper discussion of their
> proposal.
>
>
> Main concerns:
>
> These are some of the main differences we found that are concerning us
> (first in italic the current agreement, second in bold the new proposal)
>
>-
>
>“This Chapter is authorized to cover the geographic region of the
>Portugal. The Foundation will not seek to create or authorize the
> creation
>of any additional chapter within this geographic region. The Foundation
>will not engage with other local organizations without consulting with
> the
>chapter.” (Current CA) disappears entirely, and becomes “WMF hereby
>recognizes Chapter as part of the Wikimedia movement supporting its
> Focus
>Area.” (i.e. Portugal)
>-
>
>Chapter shall do business as “Wikimedia Portugal, an independent
>organization for Wikimedia volunteers in Portugal”, irrespective of its
>locally incorporated name. - this seems unique among chapters, and in
>our view conflicts  with the possibility of affiliates including both
>volunteers and professionals, as well as both Wikimedians and people
>otherwise engaged and interested in programs, such as teachers,
> librarians
>and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposed changes to the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws

2018-12-08 Thread Chris Keating
Same here!

TL:DR – This might not be a great idea, because it’s not what User Groups were 
designed for. And shouldn’t the WMF Board be thinking more broadly than this 
sort of fiddling round the edges?

Chris

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Lane Rasberry
Sent: 07 December 2018 17:13
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposed changes to the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws

Hello,

I posted some comments and questions to the talk page.
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/December_2018_-_Affiliate-selected_trustees,_term_limits,_and_diversity
>

I would appreciate anyone else jumping in to comment, fill in information
gaps, or advance the conversation in any way.

Thanks -


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 10:46 AM María Sefidari 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is considering amending the
> Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws. Nataliia Tymkiv, Chair of the Board Governance
> Committee, is leading this process. She has posted the proposed changes on
> Meta for discussion
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws/December_2018_-_Affiliate-selected_trustees,_term_limits,_and_diversity
> >
> prior to our vote on them during the Board meeting scheduled for January
> 23, 2019. We invite you to comment on the proposal's talk page. As usual in
> these cases, two weeks are provided for community comment, from December 7
> to December 21.
>
> By making the proposed changes to the Bylaws, the Board intends to achieve
> three goals:
>
> *1. Include User Groups in the trustee selection process*
>
> Though User Groups have existed as a model of affiliation within the
> Wikimedia movement for a number of years, they have not been included
> together with Chapters and Thematic Organizations as participants in
> selecting Wikimedia Foundation trustees. There are now over 100 recognized
> User Groups, many of which represent emerging communities within the
> Wikimedia movement. The Board believes that the perspectives of User Groups
> combined with those of Chapters and Thematic Organizations will lead to the
> selection of the best trustee candidates.
>
> The Board acknowledges that the ongoing Wikimedia movement strategy process
> may result in changes to many aspects of the Wikimedia movement, including
> the structure of movement affiliates. As a result, any changes we make now
> to the Foundation Bylaws regarding the role of affiliates in the trustee
> selection process may need to be modified again in the future, in turn
> requiring additional amendments to the Bylaws. However, the Board did not
> want to delay providing User Groups with a voice in the upcoming 2019
> trustee selection process.
>
> *2. Raise term limits for trustees from two to three consecutive terms*
>
> Term limits for trustees were added to the Bylaws in 2015. At the time,
> there was a desire on the Board to bring in new voices and specific
> skill-sets needed for the growth and development of Wikimedia projects. The
> changes made at that time have resulted in some notable successes in that
> regard. The Board remains committed to seeking out new voices, and
> providing the community with ample opportunities to promote such voices as
> candidates for the Board.
>
> As the Wikimedia movement and the Wikimedia Foundation think forward
> further to the future, the Board will need to oversee the Foundation in
> setting, following through on, and achieving longer-term goals. The Board
> believes it will be better able to fulfill its role if it allows for the
> potential of a longer time on the Board for individual trustees who bring
> essential expertise and insight to the Board. The possibility of serving
> one additional term on the Board also reduces the amount of time the Board
> and Foundation staff spend on trustee recruitment and onboarding. Raising
> the maximum number of consecutive terms a trustee may serve from two to
> three terms achieves these goals, and is also consistent with the practice
> of many other boards. Raising the maximum number of terms that can be
> served consecutively does not change the fact that the community, including
> affiliates, will continue to be able to determine every three years whether
> or not to re-elect currently serving trustees or whether to elect new
> candidates - just as is the case now.
>
> *3. Reaffirm the Board’s commitment to diversity*
>
> The Wikimedia movement is global, built on a vision of reaching every
> single human being and working toward a strategic goal of knowledge equity
> for all. The Board believes that it can best serve the Wikimedia Foundation
> and the movement by reflecting a wide range of human experiences. We want
> to underscore and codify this belief in the Bylaws by adding express
> language affirming our commitment to diversity and inclusion of all voices,
> throughout our communities - new, older and emerging.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Contents of annual reports from Wikimedia affiliate organizations

2018-11-29 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Pine,

Standardising reporting across affiliates is an attractive-sounding
idea in theory but turns out to be very difficult in practice.

A few issues that spring to mind:
- User Groups are meant to be a low-barrier-to-entry, lightweight form
of affiliation. Basically you need 10 people and a good idea. Creating
in-depth expectations around reporting by User Groups would defeat the
object of having them. [Of course there are plenty of User Groups
these days that are incorporated entities with five or maybe
six-figure budgets, full-time staff, and so on... but that's because
the WMF Board decided that User Groups were the only option available
for new affiliates.]
- Where an affiliate has significant programmes and is incorporated,
there are a whole bunch of expectations on them that depend on how
they register. The way a UK-registered charity has to prepare its
annual accounts is different to how a nonprofit anywhere in the world
has to. Dual-reporting everything according to local laws and the
WMF's expectations already creates issues and extra work, gold-playing
the WMF's expectations would significantly increase this.
- There is no consensus around what metrics actually matter. Global
Metrics were only ever presented as a first draft of an answer, and
for many projects they are simply poor metrics. The movement's focus
for the last 3-4 years has been on movement entities developing their
own metrics that are relevant to their own activities. Standardising
on naive metrics would be a step backwards.
- Also, we are still very much in the middle of the movement strategy
process. What you've suggested is very much a "This is what WMF should
require affiliates to do" approach, hopefully on the other side of the
strategy process we will not be in a situation where we solve problems
in the movement by the WMF telling people what to do. (I mean, in
practice the WMF doesn't do much issuing diktats any more, but
hopefully we will end up with some more formal creative solutions...)

Chris


On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:11 AM Pine W  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email is mainly addressed to Affcom and WMF but I would like to hear
> others' comments also.
>
> Some background information regarding the context for this email: the
> recently published annual reports from user groups reminded me of some
> issues that I first considered a few years ago. I believe that user group
> annual reports are currently not standardized, and I think that the public
> and WMF might like to have standardized quantitative and comparable ways to
> understand affiliates' work, including use of volunteer hours and
> per-program benefits, while minimizing the burden on volunteers for
> administrative tasks.
>
> I would like to suggest that Affcom and WMF require that all affiliates'
> annual reports include:
>
> 1. A list of programs which the affiliate supported in the past year. For
> each program the affiliate should state the financial costs to the
> affiliate including overhead costs and overhead person-hours attributable
> to the program, how much time the organizers and participants spent on the
> program, the Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results of each program, and
> results for any custom-defined measures of success. Auditable performance
> information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
> on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
> regarding their participation.
>
> 2. A financial summary for the year that states all sources of income and
> amounts from each source, how funds were spent, funds payable, funds
> receivable, debts, reserves, assets, etc.
>
> 3. Total annual organizer and participant person-hours and a summary of how
> those hours were used, for both programmatic and non-programmatic
> activities.
>
> 4. Total annual Wikimetrics/Global Metrics results for the year, and total
> annual results for any custom-defined metrics. Again, auditable performance
> information can be made public and/or shared privately with WMF, depending
> on privacy rules and the willingness of participants to share information
> regarding their participation.
>
> This information is important enough that I would support reasonable staff
> or contractor expenses to produce reports with these details. I am mindful
> of how precious volunteer time is, and I do not want to burden already
> generous volunteers with administrative work that could be done by
> contractors or staff. Some cooperation and support for reporting from
> volunteer organizers may be necessary, such as when gathering information
> from participants at individual events. Some affiliates may have such
> generous volunteers that they can do all of the reporting with volunteer
> time. But for many affiliates I would support reasonable expenses for
> producing standardized quantitative information in annual reports while
> minimizing the administrative burden on volunteers.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
>
> Pine
> ( 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board of Trustees July 2018 meeting minutes

2018-10-17 Thread Chris Keating
An interesting read! Thank you Charles (and indeed the Board) for a
significantly more substantive set of minutes than has been the
practice in the past - I don't know how recent that change is but it's
very welcome

Chris
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:36 PM Chuck Roslof  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has approved and published minutes 
> from its meeting on July 18-19, 2018:
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-07-18,19
>
> The minutes from the June 12 meeting are also available, which I believe I 
> neglected to announce to this list previously:
> https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes/2018-06-12
>
>  - Chuck
>
> ==
> Charles M. Roslof
> Legal Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation
> cros...@wikimedia.org
> (415) 839-6885
>
> NOTICE: This message might have confidential or legally privileged 
> information in it. If you have received this message by accident, please 
> delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia 
> Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve 
> as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their 
> personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal 
> disclaimer.
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately 
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. 
> For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Plea from Wikimedia Portugal

2018-10-11 Thread Chris Keating
I think there's a question to think about, about how the movement
handles this kind of situation where there are evidently serious
governance problems affecting an affiliate.

There are some clear-cut situations (e.g. total inactivity) where the
current de-recognition process can simply be followed by Affcom. And
there are some situations where there is a large and prominent
affiliate that has plenty of activity, but serious governance issues,
where the WMF Grantmaking and/or Legal teams can get involved in some
depth (thinking about  Wikimedia UK in 2012 and Wikimedia France in
2017).

This is the only case that's "in the middle" that I am aware of - are
there more that have been made public? Of course, it's possible that
there may be other cases where a small/medium affiliate has been
helped to have their governance problems resolved by one process or
another (derecognition or something else) but it's happened silently
in the background.

Chris
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:29 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> Just a quick message to clarify that the only conflict that ever existed in
> Wikimedia Portugal, as far as I know, was with João Vasconcelos himself.
>
> Paulo
>
> Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l 
> escreveu no dia quinta, 11/10/2018 à(s) 15:38:
>
> >  The pro forma statement bout what a chapter is is valuable, but I think
> > many of us kinda got the idea that the problem was not the starting point
> > (otherwise why electing him?) but came later. It's possible that someone
> > else with more community experience would have never behaved such way, but
> > that's speculation.
> >
> > Statistically, in this scenario this lack of community view probably did
> > not help. Whatever his skills in "management and conflict resolution" were,
> > even assuming they were correctly stated based on previous expertise in
> > other fields, they were not the best ones to handle the conflicts that
> > later emerged. Also, considering the resolution we see now, which is not a
> > great resolution.
> > The point is that in all these disputes (I think about Brazil few months
> > ago) it looks like the AffCom position sounds like "you are both wrong".
> > Now, this is never a healthy long-term strategy. If it occurs again, it
> > gives more and more the idea that whoever is in the less correct position
> > can hold still because if the matter arrives to the AffCom everybody pays
> > equally. I am sure the situation is more multifaceted, but let's try to
> > grasp the general vibe here.
> >
> >  This is not wise. King Solomon solved the issue bluffing and spotting the
> > real mother, he never actually cut the baby in two halves ... But wisdom
> > comes also with experience.
> >Il giovedì 11 ottobre 2018, 15:43:01 CEST, GoEthe.wiki <
> > goethe.w...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> >  Hi Illario,
> >
> > Apologies, I probably explained myself poorly. I never said that a chapter
> > is a representative of the Wikimedia community, rather I was trying to
> > explain that João’s claimed experience (emphasis on claimed) in management
> > and conflict resolution was a major factor in him being elected to the
> > Board. At the time, WMPT thought that that could be very valuable to the
> > chapter. So, we agree, a heterogeneous board is absolutely an advantage,
> > but in this case the issue was not one of diversity, but rather of
> > competence and alignment to the movement goals and principles.
> >
> > In practice, he did not contribute to the management of the chapter, and he
> > was not prepared to an increase of the chapter activities. He very quickly
> > started demonstrating uneasiness with any procedural decision he did not
> > personally vet (which are imperative in volunteer-based, collaborative
> > projects), and soon after, without any previous warning, started sending
> > legal threats going as far as using a lawyer to intimidate one of our most
> > active members on behalf of WMPT (without discussing it with anyone
> > beforehand), and resigned.
> >
> > We have no intention to expose João even more in this public mailing list,
> > so we will not provide a comprehensive list of the problems we found with
> > his term on the board. But to make it clear, when this whole issue began to
> > be addressed, even though we did not ask him to stay on the Board, we did
> > invite him to continue on the chapter, working with us, as AffCom can
> > confirm. Just not in any role with legal responsibilities.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Gonçalo Themudo
> >
> > *Presidente*
> > *Wikimedia Portugal*
> > *Email: *goethe.w...@gmail.com
> > *Website: *http://pt.wikimedia.org 
> > *Imagine um mundo onde cada ser humano pode partilhar livremente a soma de
> > todo o conhecimento, na sua própria língua.*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 

[Wikimedia-l] Movement strategy - some thoughts on issues to address

2018-10-06 Thread Chris Keating
Hello,

I've just written a short essay on Meta about issues I think the
Movement Strategy working groups ought to be thinking about.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Tensions_facing_movement_strategy

tl:dr: Firstly,  '''accountability''' and '''equality''' are both
complicated concepts in the context we work in. And secondly, there is
inherently a tension between those two things and '''independence and
opportunity''', which is another key value we hold. That's not to say
there is a zero-sum choice to be made between these things, but there
may inevitably ''some'' choices to be made between them. I believe
that acknowledging the existence of these tensions is the best way to
achieve the best outcomes from the whole process.

Comments and criticism very welcome, I hope this is useful for people
on the Working Groups trying to grapple with these issues!

Chris

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Proposals to Host Wikimania in 2020

2018-09-29 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Andrew,

I think your conclusions are largely the same as the points I'm trying
to make, so all is good! Don't get me wrong, I do think Wikimania has
an important impact, and don't actually want to stop having it every
year, I'm just curious about the silence that has followed that WMF
consultation.

I do think though that of everything that happens in the movement,
Wikimania is (usually, largely) the thing where there is the least
clarity about goals and the least thinking about impact. There are
grant proposals to the WMF for much less expensive (and indeed, less
*important*) things that have gone into significantly more detail
about expected impact and ways of measuring it than Wikimania ever
has. In this way, Wikimania is usually very much an outlier from the
process of learning and evaluation that the rest of the 'organised
part' of the movement is taking part in. So far as I can tell, there
are some good reasons contributing to this (the desire to keep things
flexible for whoever is volunteering to organise it in the host
country, and the relatively short planning cycle for such a massive
event) as well as some not so good.

I was very pleased to see David talking about the impact of Wikimania
at the metrics meeting, and hear about some interesting ideas about
looking at its impact on South Africa - which is great, and
significantly more than Wikimedia UK managed after Wikimania 2014
(another story there) - and it would be wonderful to see some kind of
reflection about how we can measure the impact of Wikimania on the
global Wikimedia community.

Equally, I can't say that I have a clear understanding of who is
responsible for what regarding Wikimania. The last thing I heard from
the Wikimania Committee was the idea of a three-year rotation between
North America, Europe and Everywhere Else, which now seems to have
been quietly abandoned (like... has it?)

Thank you for engaging in this conversation,

Chris
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 4:28 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 4:31 AM Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lodewijk,
> >
> > If Wikimania was an entity rather than an event, it would be in the
> > top 5 entities in the movement - a smaller budget than WMF, Wikimedia
> > Deutschland and the Wiki Education Foundation but larger than anything
> > else...
> >
>
> Chris, you seem to have a particular angle determined through fitting
> particular data to your conclusion. A point by point breakdown will be
> mired down in bickering, so let me address some misconceptions while also
> embracing and agreeing with some of your feedback.
>
> Since I've been to every single Wikimania and serve on the steering
> committee, obviously I don't share your existential doubt about Wikimania's
> role in our movement. But read on for things I do agree with you on
> regarding the future of the conference. Again: I'm not speaking on behalf
> of the commitee. This is just me.
>
> - "If Wikimania was an entity rather than an event" - But it's not. The
> goals, format and audience is completely different and makes for a
> problematic financial comparison. But even if you get past that, I would
> argue that annual Wikimania is indeed one of the "top 5" occurrences in our
> community each year, even if it's not universally accessible to all
> volunteers. It's where ideas and experiences are exchanged and the only
> systematic way WMF openly interacts with the community in a face to face
> format. Recall - WMCON/Wikimedia Summit is casting off the "learning and
> capacity-building" and will be capped at 200 participants. This makes
> Wikimania even more crucial in this role.
>
> Important initiatives of our movement started at Wikimania. You state in
> your user page you took part in one of the first GLAM engagement with the
> British Museum in 2010 with the Hoxne Challenge. Did you know that the GLAM
> movement had its genesis with Wikimania 2008 in Alexandria, Egypt, when
> Liam Wyatt and the Wikimania organizers had the first "backstage pass" and
> meeting with their staff? [1] [2]
>
> - "it doesn't have any objectives" - But it does if you read the Wikimania
> page, even if it is not down to the level of detail of an academic
> conference or a board retreat. Wikimania is intentionally wiki-like in this
> aspect, which may be what is perceived as a lack of objective. By design,
> the ability of each team to run with a new concept is part of dynamic. One
> of Wikipedia's pillars is "we're here to build an encyclopedia," and people
> fill it with meaning. Similarly, the goal of Wikimania as "an annual
> gathering of the Wikimedia community" is filled differently with meaning
> from year to year with a BE BOLD ethos with different visions and
> parameters of the org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Proposals to Host Wikimania in 2020

2018-09-29 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Lodewijk,

If Wikimania was an entity rather than an event, it would be in the
top 5 entities in the movement - a smaller budget than WMF, Wikimedia
Deutschland and the Wiki Education Foundation but larger than anything
else...

And yet it doesn't have any objectives (or at least, not consistent
ones), the governance of it is that there's one staff member, a
committee with an ill-defined role that you can only get appointed to
by organising a Wikimania, and the only serious discussion about what
it's for was one online discussion that reached a conclusion that
no-one appears willing to support. And there is very little formal
followup and attempting to build on the results (something WMCON, for
instance, has been very good at).

This isn't to criticise everyone involved in making Wikimania happen,
I know it's a huge amount of effort and responsibility and often not
very well-supported. And I know there *are* innovations aimed at
making the conference more effective (for instance, this year we
finally had poster sessions, which are a great idea for sharing
thoughts and making connections, because you can fit a lot more into
one room and an hour than if you have someone giving an hour-long
presentation...) - but I can't help but feel that there would be more
things like that happening if there was a clearer idea of purpose and
objectives.

In a different thread I'm being quite critical of the direction
WMCON/Wikimedia Summit is taking. But that's only possible because
there *is* a direction, and therefore it's possible to think about
whether it's the right direction or not.

Chris
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:55 PM effe iets anders
 wrote:
>
> Perhaps stating the obvious, but please remember there were some
> significant flaws with the consultation by the WMF that you refer to
> (especially with regards to the way questions were phrased and options were
> limited beforehand, if I recall correctly).
>
> Wikimania's purpose is mostly pluriform and suits different needs for
> different people. That makes it particularly hard to evaluate - I grant you
> that. But given the diverse directions that we're trying to bring together,
> ranging from individuals to highly professionalized 100+ employee
> organizations, this is to be expected. To reduce costs, we have squashed
> more and more activities into this one annual event. That further
> reinforces the pluriform nature of the event(s). At this point it's hard to
> see Wikimania as an event, and it has more become like a piece of
> infrastructure that is being used by many events - including the main
> conference, but also tons of meetups, preconferences, committee meetings,
> strategy processes, consultations and side conferences.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:36 AM Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > > > So it seems that the main rationale for an annual Wikimania brought up
> > in
> > > > the 2016 meeting was that Wikimania was vital for movement governance
> > and
> > > > accountability. Which wasn't particularly stressed in the WMF's
> > > > consultation, but I can see why that kind of issue was very fresh in
> > > > peoples' minds in 2016.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As the facilitator of the 2016 session discussing Wikimania, I don't
> > recall
> > > the "main rationale" of the discussion being about "governance and
> > > accountability" and instead remember many more issues that stood out.
> > >
> > > For example, the prominent phrases from the first part of the meeting
> > > include the following, with most of the notes echoing these themes:
> > > - inspiring, and connecting
> > > - opportunity for different communities to meet
> > > - important to use opportunity to do outreach
> > > - empower important volunteers
> >
> > Sorry, previous email sent half-finished.
> >
> > Sorry, don't think I expressed myself particularly well. Yes, those
> > themes appear to have been present in the meeting, but they were also
> > very much present in the WMF's consultation, which concluded that they
> > could probably be fulfilled just as well by moving to a
> > one-year-in-two rotation between Wikimanias and other regional
> > gatherings.
> >
> > The thing that was present in the in-person meeting, but not from the
> > consultation exercise, was the statement from all the chapter chairs
> > saying that Wikimania was vital for movement governance and
> > accountability.
> >
> > Then of course there was a lot of enthusiasm about the idea of
> > continuing Wikimania from people attending Wikimania who have attended
> > many previous Wikimanias. Putting a load of people present at an event

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Proposals to Host Wikimania in 2020

2018-09-28 Thread Chris Keating
> > So it seems that the main rationale for an annual Wikimania brought up in
> > the 2016 meeting was that Wikimania was vital for movement governance and
> > accountability. Which wasn't particularly stressed in the WMF's
> > consultation, but I can see why that kind of issue was very fresh in
> > peoples' minds in 2016.
> >
>
> As the facilitator of the 2016 session discussing Wikimania, I don't recall
> the "main rationale" of the discussion being about "governance and
> accountability" and instead remember many more issues that stood out.
>
> For example, the prominent phrases from the first part of the meeting
> include the following, with most of the notes echoing these themes:
> - inspiring, and connecting
> - opportunity for different communities to meet
> - important to use opportunity to do outreach
> - empower important volunteers

Sorry, previous email sent half-finished.

Sorry, don't think I expressed myself particularly well. Yes, those
themes appear to have been present in the meeting, but they were also
very much present in the WMF's consultation, which concluded that they
could probably be fulfilled just as well by moving to a
one-year-in-two rotation between Wikimanias and other regional
gatherings.

The thing that was present in the in-person meeting, but not from the
consultation exercise, was the statement from all the chapter chairs
saying that Wikimania was vital for movement governance and
accountability.

Then of course there was a lot of enthusiasm about the idea of
continuing Wikimania from people attending Wikimania who have attended
many previous Wikimanias. Putting a load of people present at an event
in a room and saying "should this event continue to happen?" is not
great for rigorous decision-making.

(BTW, I'm not saying I favour the other option - the regional
conferences seem to be happening anyway)

> 2. The Wikimedia Conference (WMCON) has pivoted to become the Wikimedia
> Summit. In the process, they announced "learning and capacity-building will
> not be part of the program." [2] Therefore I'd argue that the onus is even
> *more* on conferences like Wikimania to facilitate this.

That would be good! But it kind of returns to the point that
Wikimania's purpose is still fairly ill-defined. Personally I would
really welcome Wikimania becoming explicitly focused on learning and
capacity-building, because currently its focus changes every year and
often when a focus is articulated it's not necessarily followed
through.

Chris

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Proposals to Host Wikimania in 2020

2018-09-28 Thread Chris Keating
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:10 PM Andrew Lih  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:40 AM Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > So it seems that the main rationale for an annual Wikimania brought up in
> > the 2016 meeting was that Wikimania was vital for movement governance and
> > accountability. Which wasn't particularly stressed in the WMF's
> > consultation, but I can see why that kind of issue was very fresh in
> > peoples' minds in 2016.
> >
>
> As the facilitator of the 2016 session discussing Wikimania, I don't recall
> the "main rationale" of the discussion being about "governance and
> accountability" and instead remember many more issues that stood out.
>
> For example, the prominent phrases from the first part of the meeting
> include the following, with most of the notes echoing these themes:
> - inspiring, and connecting
> - opportunity for different communities to meet
> - important to use opportunity to do outreach
> - empower important volunteers

Sorry, don't think I expressed myself particularly well. Yes, those
themes appear to have been present in the meeting, but they were also
very much present in the WMF's consultation, which concluded that they
could probably be fulfilled just as well by moving to a
one-year-in-two rotation between Wikimanias and other regional
gatherings.


> > Now the Wikimedia Conference / Summit looks set to assume this role, what
> > is the continued rationale for having Wikimania every year?
>
> Given the above, I think the basis of the question is not sufficiently
> established.
>
> In fact, two recent reports or decisions reinforce Wikimania's role even
> more:
>
> 1. From the Community Engagement Insights 2018 Report - "Discovery of new
> projects and ideas is best at Wikimania: While all conferences had a high
> proportion of participants that reported discovering new projects or ideas
> as the most important outcome, Wikimania had the highest proportion of them
> all." - The Community Engagement Insights 2018 Report [1] [2]
>
> 2. The Wikimedia Conference (WMCON) has pivoted to become the Wikimedia
> Summit. In the process, they announced "learning and capacity-building will
> not be part of the program." [2] Therefore I'd argue that the onus is even
> *more* on conferences like Wikimania to facilitate this.
>
> -Andrew
>
>  [1] -
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report#Community_Resources_team:_Local_and_regional_events_show_more_learning_and_building_skills_as_major_outcomes_than_larger_global_conferences,_while_Wikimania_excels_in_discovery_of_the_new
>
> [2] -
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-September/091062.html
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Proposals to Host Wikimania in 2020

2018-09-27 Thread Chris Keating
So it seems that the main rationale for an annual Wikimania brought up in
the 2016 meeting was that Wikimania was vital for movement governance and
accountability. Which wasn't particularly stressed in the WMF's
consultation, but I can see why that kind of issue was very fresh in
peoples' minds in 2016.

Now the Wikimedia Conference / Summit looks set to assume this role, what
is the continued rationale for having Wikimania every year?

Chris

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, 16:29 Andrew Lih,  wrote:

> Full disclosure: I’m a member of the Wikimania Committee but I am not
> speaking on behalf of that body in this mail.
>
> The current custom is that Wikimania happens every year and that while the
> selection is made by the Wikimania Committee, the WMF has final approval
> over the selection and the operational parameters around its execution.
>
> There was a consultation and discussion in 2015 about the future of
> Wikimania, and subsequent followup with in-person discussions at Wikimania
> 2016, Esino Lario, where there was overwhelming support for continuing the
> yearly model.
>
> You can read more about the consultation and followups in these links.
> Thanks.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania
>
> https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discussions/The_future_of_Wikimania
> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Wikimania2016-discussion7b
>
> -Andrew
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:07 AM Philip Kopetzky <
> philip.kopet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ellie,
> >
> > is there an official statement by the WMF that explains why Wikimania
> 2020
> > is happening and that the funding for this event is secured? Wikimania
> does
> > cost quite a lot of money and I was under the impression that it was
> > unclear as to if, how and why Wikimania should take place 2020. But maybe
> > I'm also mistaken on that point.
> >
> > Best,
> > Philip
> >
> > On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 18:53, Ellie Young  wrote:
> >
> > > No.   We are looking more at rotating regions if we can, and excellent
> > > proposals/teams.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:31 AM Joseph Seddon 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Ellie,
> > > >
> > > > Is Wikimania still on its programme of "1 EU/US Wikimania" followed
> by
> > an
> > > > "Away Wikimania"?
> > > >
> > > > Seddon
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:44 PM Ellie Young 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Wikimania Steering Committee and Wikimedia Foundation are
> seeking
> > > > > expressions of interest from interested parties for
> > > > >  hosting
> > > > > Wikimani
> > > > > a 2020.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see the following for more information:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2020
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are interested in discussing the possibilities and working
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > WMF Events Manager in preparing a proposal to host and organize
> > > Wikimania
> > > > > 20
> > > > > 20
> > > > > , please contact eyoung at wikimedia.org
> > > > >  by
> > October
> > > > > 15th.  Also, if you
> > > > > know of an individual or group that we should approach about
> hosting,
> > > we
> > > > > encourage  nominations as well. The Steering Committee and WMF
> expect
> > > to
> > > > > make a decision by early
> > > > > 2019.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Ellie
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ellie Young
> > > Events Manager
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > eyo...@wikimedia.org
> > > c. 510 701 8649
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2019: New name, new concept, eligbility criteria

2018-09-26 Thread Chris Keating
I have so many questions.

Is anything concrete planned to replace the learning and capacity-building
work that used to happen at WMCON? (Or has the identification of capacity
building as a strategic priority just resulted in  the abandonment of
the main capacity building event?)

And why after two "strategy focused" conferences, do we need another one?
What will it achieve except acres more flipchart? How many conferences do
we expect to need before the strategic direction starts to become a reality?

Chris

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, 20:34 Cornelius Kibelka, <
cornelius.kibe...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As Nicole Ebber already wrote a couple of weeks ago, we would like to give
> you some further information about the next Wikimedia Conference, that will
> take place from March 29–31, 2019 in Berlin, Germany.
>
> The next conference will focus on the Movement Strategy process and
> movement governance for the organized part of the movement in general. The
> program will be designed according to the status and needs of the ongoing
> Movement Strategy process and its working groups. We are hoping to see a
> diverse group of participants next year, and look forward to creating three
> days of working, discussing, and thinking together. The event is made
> possible through the generous financial support of the Wikimedia
> Foundation.
>
> Thus, to make it clearer that learning and capacity-building will not be
> part of the program and cut laces to the previous conference, we will
> change the name to “Wikimedia Summit” (#wmsummit).
>
> The change of the purpose of the event is accompanied by a change in the
> composition of the audience. The event will be a more focused one, and
> therefore we aim to scale down the audience to around 200 participants. As
> it is this still the Wikimedia affiliates conference, every _eligible_
> affiliate can send one (1) delegate. Furthermore, we will invite
> participants from the Wikimedia Affiliate EDs (~10), WMF Board of Trustees
> (10), WMF staff (~10), the committees (~15 from FDC, AffCom and Simple APG)
> and additional members of the Movement Strategy working groups, that do not
> come in another role (~20). You can find more information regarding this on
> Meta.[1]
>
> Registration for the Wikimedia Summit will open on November 2 and end on
> December 17, 2018. We urge participants that need a visa to register no
> later than November 19, so we can support them as best as possible to get a
> visa for the event.
>
> We will keep you updated in the further weeks and months via the usual
> communication channels. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
> to contact us, preferably via wmsum...@wikimedia.de.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Daniela Gentner & Cornelius Kibelka
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Summit_2019/Eligibility_Criteria
>
> --
> Cornelius Kibelka
> Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
> for the Wikimedia Conference
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: First round of Working Group members

2018-07-23 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Paolo,

In my experience Wikimedia staff are always just as committed and
enthusiastic as volunteers - it's not a job anyone takes if all they
care about is collecting their paycheque. :)

But where I share some of your concern is with the balance of some of
the working groups. Staff and board members of large organisations are
much more represented in some WGs than others.

Roles and Responsibilities has 8 members, including three Chapter EDs,
two staff and one board member from the WMF, and two volunteers drawn
from FDC and AffCom.

Resource Allocation has 11 members presently, of whom 9 are from the
WMF, from large chapters, or from the existing FDC.

Are these groups really going to be considering significant changes to
the way things happen at the moment?

By contrast the Diversity WG is wonderfully volunteer-led and diverse,
but then I suspect the Diversity Working Group isn't going to be the
one making important governance recommendations.

Chris


On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 2:20 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> "*Given the extensive time commitment required for participation in the
> WGs, I think that it's reasonable to  expect that a significant percentage
> of the members will be staff who are  paid to participate because the time
> commitment is probably too heavy for many volunteers *" (
>
> 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
>
> Pine W )
>
> Isn't that a problem of "bias by design"? If the design of the groups
> favors the participation of staffers, who are paid by the chapters to look
> after their interests, isn't this an obvious conflict of interest? Why
> would a staffer of Wikimedia Antarctida, whose relation to the Movement is
> mainly defined by the salary (s)he gets at the end of the month, paid by
> his/her chapter, be interested in participating in strategy discussions for
> other reason than to advance the points and interests of Wikimedia
> Antarctida? Even assuming those interests do not conflict with those of the
> Wikimedia Movement (which is not granted), the expected input would still
> be very limited in scope.
>
> All the best,
>
> Paulo
>
>
>
> 2018-07-23 0:04 GMT+01:00
>
> Pine W :
>
> > Speaking in general terms about diversity of the WGs, this is a challenging
> > topic even for people who have the best of intentions. What do we mean by
> > "diversity" and "bias" in regards to the composition of the WGs? That
> > discussion alone could be extensive and there might not be consensus on the
> > definitions.
> >
> > If the goal in general is maximum diversity on as many factors as possible,
> > that is a difficult goal to achieve. Given the extensive time commitment
> > required for participation in the WGs, I think that it's reasonable to
> > expect that a significant percentage of the members will be staff who are
> > paid to participate because the time commitment is probably too heavy for
> > many volunteers, and our existing volunteers already have plenty of
> > important activities to do.
> >
> > There are other ways that this phase of the strategy development process
> > could be run that would be less burdensome for volunteers - and I
> > personally would advocate for such an approach - but the downsides that I
> > could foresee are that (1) the staff involved would likely also not be
> > sufficiently diverse for the aspirations of many of us, and (2) the culture
> > and mindset of staff can be very different from those of the volunteers, so
> > there would almost inevitably be some loss in terms of the richness of the
> > conversations.
> >
> > What I'm trying to do here is to encourage us to have realistic
> > expectations.
> >
> > I lack the knowledge to comment on why particular individuals or groups
> > were or weren't included in the WGs and I hope that Nicole and Kaarel can
> > respond to the concerns that people raise here, perhaps in private
> > communications.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

2018-07-21 Thread Chris Keating
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:23 AM Shlomi Fish  wrote:
>
> Hi Itzik,
>
>
> I do not oppose the LGBT movement, but please explain how an official support
> of that falls under the global Wikimedia project's mission, and does not
> dilute our policy of avoiding having a stance on issues that are unrelated to
> it?

I mean... yeah.

As an LGBT Wikimedian I entirely support changing this law, and I can
completely understand staff members wanting to take part in the
demonstrations, and the organisation wanting to support them in doing
that.

But I really don't see why Wikimedia Israel should formally involve
itself in a general social-policy issue that's nothing specifically to
do with our mission. We need to be careful not to try to be a
general-purpose progressive movement.

Regards,

Chris

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustees participation in the Movement Strategy Process

2018-07-19 Thread Chris Keating
Hi SJ,

I think everyone who is taking part in this stage of the strategy process
already knows about it.

There was of course an open call for members of the working groups a few
weeks ago, and the working groups will have some unspecified method of
involving the broader community in these conversations, though I expect the
only substantive conversations will happen among working group members -
just as to date the only substantive conversations about movement strategy
have happened at the Wikimedia Conference.

I genuinely don't know whether anyone including WMF thinks the WMF advisory
board still exists.

Chris

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, 17:07 Samuel Klein,  wrote:

> >
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:48 PM Craig Newmark 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Maria, thanks, much appreciated!
> >
>
> Hear, hear!  It has been good to see the updates all year.
>
>
> > > Which group focuses on information quality and accuracy?
> >
>
> And which group focuses on information breadth and coverage?
> If these are cross-cutting issues touching on many groups, where should
> relevant input go?
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 5:54 PM Chris Keating 
> wrote:
>
> > No-one seems to be particularly sure if the Advisory Board is still a
> > thing or not.
> >
>
> Let's fix that :)   This seems like something advisors are particularly
> suited to.
>
> SJ
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustees participation in the Movement Strategy Process

2018-07-19 Thread Chris Keating
No-one seems to be particularly sure if the Advisory Board is still a
thing or not.

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Board is marked as
historical and possibly inaccurate, and it hasn't been edited for
about 7 years!

Chris
User:The Land
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 4:48 PM Craig Newmark  wrote:
>
> Maria, thanks, much appreciated!
>
> Which group focuses on information quality and accuracy?
>
> What's the role of the Advisory Board?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Craig Newmark
> founder craigslist
> craignewmarkphilanthropies.org
> On July 19, 2018 9:43:21 AM María Sefidari  wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > In 2017, the Wikimedia movement began a collaborative process to define
> > what we want to build or achieve together by 2030. After eight months of
> > discussion, across languages, geographies, and contexts, the outcome
> > was a Strategic
> > Direction
> > 
> > focused on knowledge as a service and knowledge equity:
> >
> > “By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
> > ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
> > to join us.[1]”
> >
> > Now our task as a movement is to apply the Strategic Direction to our own
> > work. We need to answer questions that define our path forward: What kind
> > of structures are ideal for achieving our strategic direction? What
> > resources and capacities do we need to develop? How do we relate to each
> > other and make decisions as a movement? How do we manage change in a
> > healthy, sustainable way?
> >
> > Over the next year, the Wikimedia movement will engage in a structured,
> > distributed process to answer these questions. The process will be
> > structured around Working Groups who will develop guidance in key Thematic
> > Areas.[2]
> >
> > The Board of Trustees is committed to the Movement Strategy process and
> > each of us will join one of the Working Groups:
> >
> >
> >   -
> >
> >   Roles & Responsibilities: Nataliia
> >   -
> >
> >   Revenue Streams: Tanya
> >   -
> >
> >   Resource Allocation: María
> >   -
> >
> >   Partnerships: Raju
> >   -
> >
> >   Community Health: James
> >   -
> >
> >   Product & Technology: Christophe
> >   -
> >
> >   Capacity Building: Dariusz
> >   -
> >
> >   Diversity: Esra’a
> >   -
> >
> >   Advocacy: Jimmy
> >
> >
> > We will play two specific roles in this process:
> >
> >   1.
> >
> >   Individually, as members of the Working Groups
> >   2.
> >  1.
> >
> >  participate mindfully in ourtheir individual capacity,
> >  2.
> >
> >  bring our their content expertise and experience to the discussion,
> >  3.
> >
> >  ensure the information flow from the Working Group to the Board,
> >  4.
> >
> >  support an effective, and inclusive process.
> >  3.
> >
> >   Collectively, as the Board of Trustees
> >   4.
> >  1.
> >
> >  review recommendations from each Working Group and provide feedback,
> >  2.
> >
> >  resolve difficult questions as required and adhere to decisions made,
> >  3.
> >
> >  delegate approval of recommendations to an appropriate community
> >  mechanism whenever possible (such as endorsement or consensus),
> >  4.
> >
> >  make decisions when there is no other mechanism to make the decision,
> >  5.
> >
> >  accept the recommendations that are consistent with the movement’s
> >  values, the Strategic Direction as well as law and other compliance
> >  requirements,
> >  6.
> >
> >  direct resources, budgets and capacities for the implementation of
> >  approved recommendations.
> >
> >
> > This statement captures the perspective of the Board of Trustees, and we
> > believe that the process is a unique opportunity for the movement to build
> > and shape our future together. We will participate in strategy
> > conversations and sessions at Wikimania[3], and look forward to
> > contributing throughout the process together with many of you. We encourage
> > those who are attending Wikimania to also join these conversations and all
> > Wikimedians to participate in all the upcoming strategic conversations and
> > consultations.
> >
> > On behalf of the Board,
> >
> > María Sefidari
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
> >
> > [2]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
> >
> > [3] https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_2030#Schedule
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimédia France Governance review

2018-07-09 Thread Chris Keating
Congratulations to Wikimedia France for undertaking this review and
publishing the results.

I believe all of the 3 governance reviews are important reading for
anyone involved with the WMF or any of the affiliates, and all have
important lessons for the movement. It's interesting to note that this
is the first one that touches on the WMF-affiliate relationship in
much detail.

Also - while so far governance reviews have only happened as a result
of a crisis, this doesn't have to be the case! I would urge Wikimedia
affiliates to take external advice on their governance, the
suggestions offered by governance experts who know the laws, norms and
cutlure in which you operate will be very helpful for you.

Chris
(who was Chair of Wikimedia UK at the point we had a governance review...)
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:43 PM Nadine Le Lirzin  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As announced last month on this list[1], the Governance Assessment Report
> by external auditors "Associés en gouvernance" has been published, and we
> want to share it with you.
>
> The auditors did a great work, first in their rather good understanding of
> our movement complexity, and then in the numerous improvement suggestions
> they delivered.
>
> The consultation of our members – to fully associate them to the rebuilding
> – is still in progress. Main changes will be submitted to a vote at next
> General Assembly, by the end of the year.
>
> The document has been translated in English and is now available on
> Commons[2].
>
> May these suggestions be useful not only for Wikimédia France, but also for
> any other chapter or affiliate that would be in need of governance advice
> or ideas.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nadine Le Lirzin
> *Wikimedia France Board Secretary*
>
>
> [1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-June/090413.html
> [2]
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_France_-_Governance_Assessment_Report_-_2018.pdf
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

2018-06-15 Thread Chris Keating
Very diplomatic, Seddon!

But... no. Seriously. Let's not pretend that having the WMF ED send a
bunch of emails to Wikimedia donors about general US public policy
issues is a remotely good idea.

Chris



On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
> Hi James.
>
> Your suggestion is noted but there are lot's of things that we want to do
> with email but only a finite amount of resources in this area with which to
> achieve it so it'll be something for to thinking about in the future.
>
> Many Thanks
> Seddon
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:11 PM James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> Regarding https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273
>>
>> I propose that the Executive Director resume regular periodic
>> correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
>> movement, beyond copyright and internet law advocacy that the
>> Foundation traditionally supports directly and indirectly. In
>> particular, I propose that the Executive Director ask donors to
>> support other organizations which are working for free college,[1-4]
>> single payer universal health care,[5] shorter work weeks,[6-7]
>> payroll subsidies,[8] and two-bracket taxation.[9]
>>
>> I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
>> wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
>> is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
>> survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
>> urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Jim Salsman
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html
>>
>> [2]
>> https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf
>>
>> [3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf
>>
>> [4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf
>>
>> [5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689
>>
>> [6]
>> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/
>>
>> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length
>>
>> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit
>>
>> [9]
>> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c31542b6.pdf
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>
>
>
> --
> Seddon
>
> *Community and Audience Engagement Associate*
> *Advancement (Fundraising), Wikimedia Foundation*
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update #4: Upcoming call for participation in Working Groups

2018-06-07 Thread Chris Keating
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:31 PM, James Salsman  wrote:
> Oh, it's this discussion again. This is my favorite discussion.
> Movement roles discussion is how we got the UK chapter recognized as a
> charity capable of political lobbying. That was satisfying.
>
> Maybe we can get the letter to donors back.
> https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273
>
> Don't forget to edit the matrix:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles/Roles_Matrix#Roles_matrix
>

I don't think the Movement Roles discussion had any impact on
Wikimedia UK achieving charity status (which in any case happened
before the movement roles conversation concluded), and in any case
Wikimedia UK does virtually no lobbying

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update #4: Upcoming call for participation in Working Groups

2018-06-07 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Katherine!

Thanks for the update and look forward to the call for working groups.

I don't know if anyone has considered where the boundary will lie
between the different groups. For instance, "roles and
responsibilities" strikes me as potentially having a big overlap with
"resources" - given that the biggest single part of governance is
governance of funds.

Also, what is the process beyond the reports from the working groups?
What happens if, for instance, there are tensions between the outputs
of different working groups, or downright contradictions?

Thanks,

Chris

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Katherine Maher  wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It’s been a while since I sent out the last movement strategy update. A lot
> has happened in the meantime, and I wanted to give you a heads-up regarding
> an upcoming call for participation!
>
> But first things first:
>
> 1. The report from the Wikimedia Conference Movement Strategy Track
> 
> has been published[1]. It captures all the conversations, insights and
> outputs from three days of intense strategy work, so it’s a (quite) long
> but very interesting read. It is meant to document the state of the process
> and to allow for a deep dive into it. It should be especially valuable for
> those of you who did not have a chance to participate in the conference or
> attended another conference track.
>
> 2. Based on WMCON outputs (and various conversations we’ve been having in
> our movement for years), the core strategy team has mapped eight key
> thematic areas
> 
> [2] -- and some initial guiding questions -- that should to be answered to
> enable us to advance towards our strategic direction. These areas include:
>
>- Roles & Responsibilities
>- Resource Allocation & Revenue Streams
>- Diversity
>- Partnerships
>- Capacity Building
>- Community Health
>- Technology
>- Advocacy
>
> 3. The core team will be supporting the creation of Working Groups to take
> on these critical conversations. These working groups will be asked to
> assess the current situation of the thematic area, and obstacles and
> opportunities. They’ll have access to all the relevant information already
> collected, and the chance to do further research if needed. They’ll be
> asked to identify the changes needed in movement structures and develop
> concrete recommendations for the movement on how to ratify and implement
> them.[3] An open call for working group members will go out to the movement
> this week -- please stay tuned for an update from Nicole!
>
> I also had the chance to present more about these plans at last week’s
> Metrics Meeting. Please do take a look, either look it all up on the
> Meta[3] or watch the video![4]
>
> Cheers,
> Katherine
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups#What_are_the_key_thematic_areas%3F
>
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups
> [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOaiU-v7PbE (from minute 24:25)
>
>
> --
> Katherine Maher
>
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
> San Francisco, CA 94104
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
> https://annual.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [WMCON18] WMCON18: Movement Strategy Track report has been published

2018-05-18 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Nicole and Cornelius. Great to see such clear documentation -
it must have been a big challenge to synthesise such a lot of
conversation. Also good to see some clear next steps on the
implementation of the strategy, I was concerned it'd been going slowly
over the winter.

Chris

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Nicole Ebber  wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks to the excellent work of Cornelius and the facilitators’ team, and
> all the WMCON participants who contributed to the Movement Strategy Track,
> the Movement Strategy Core Team can now work on the next steps of the
> Movement Strategy Process. The main outcome of the Strategy Track is the
> groundwork for the key thematic areas  and the Working Groups that will be
> an essential structure during Phase 2. The future Working Groups will
> develop recommendations for the Wikimedia Movement within the defined key
> thematic areas.
>
> Based on the outcomes from the WMCON Strategy Track and the previous
> conversations from Phase I and beyond, we are now consolidating and
> clarifying the descriptions of the key thematic areas as well as the
> suggested Working Groups. In the last week of May, we will publish an open
> call for Working Group members, including information about:
>
> * Key thematic areas with guiding questions
> * Clear criteria and necessary competencies for membership
> * Process for decision making on membership
> * Set-up of the groups’ working structures
> * Overall movement strategy process description and timeline
>
> The call will be open for two weeks. We expect the Working Groups to be
> assembled, onboarded and ready to start working by end of June. This gives
> them at least a couple of weeks to prepare the first outputs for
> conversations at the Wikimania strategy space and sessions.
>
> The report provides a first glimpse into the upcoming conversations and
> processes, and we recommend reading and digesting it in preparation of the
> call for working group members.
>
> To have all questions regarding the report and the next steps in one place,
> please leave them on the Meta page of the report[1] or of the 2018-2020
> process.[2]
>
> On behalf of the Movement Strategy Core Team,
> Nicole
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
> On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 10:05, Cornelius Kibelka via Wmcon18 <
> wmco...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
>> Dear participants of the Wikimedia Conference,
>
>> Dear Wikimedians,
>
>
>> I am happy to announce that we have just published the report for the
> Movement Strategy Track at WMCON.
>
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2018/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track
>
>
>> The documentation for the other tracks will be coming up within the next
> two weeks, and I am currently working with all speakers and hosts to
> finalize their session reports.
>
>
>> The report is pretty extensive and if you’d print it, over 100 pages
> long. This is mostly due to the vast quantity of data the participants of
> the Strategy Track have produced together, and of course also due to the
> excellent work of our facilitators and harvesters Bhav, Luis, Rob, Olha and
> Anna Lena and the unique photos taken by Jason.
>
>
>> **The summary at the beginning will help you find your way through the
> report, and through each single session of the track.**
>
>
>> The Strategy Core Team will provide an update on the coming steps in the
> process following this email, so stay tuned!
>
>
>> Happy reading, and please feel invited to leave any feedback and
> questions on the talk page.
>
>
>> Best,
>
>> Cornelius
>
>> --
>> Cornelius Kibelka
>> Program and Engagement Coordinator (PEC)
>> for the Wikimedia Conference
>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
>> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
>> http://wikimedia.de
>
>> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
>> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207
>
>
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Wikimedia Movement Strategy Process Lead
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspension of FDC grantmaking

2018-04-26 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Delphine!

Yes that makes sense. For the last couple of years it's felt like 80%+ of
FDC grants have been basically been renewals of similar amounts to stable,
effective organisations. So the process is arguably over-engineered for
that, and a simple renewal process will largely reach the same outcomes.

Presumably there will still be some steps WMF can take in the event of
serious management/governance problems in a grantee organisation.

Chris


On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, 10:08 Delphine Ménard, <dmen...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> Thanks for your question. We have been planning to share an update of what
> will happen within the FDC process as part of next year's annual plan and
> your question came before that announcement. I'm sorry about that. Before
> sharing information with everyone, our team wanted to discuss the approach
> with FDC-APG grantees--those who would be most affected by changes to
> annual plan grants next year.
>
> The members of the Funds Dissemination Committee, our team (Community
> Resources) and the APG grantee organizations are an integral part of
> implementing the strategic direction. We want to make sure that everyone
> has the time and resources to dedicate to this work. As a result, we are
> proposing some changes to the FDC process followed in previous years.
>
> The Foundation budget for APG grants will remain stable for the coming
> fiscal year. This will give each APG recipient the opportunity to resubmit
> at their current level of funding. This should lighten the demands on
> recipients by enabling them to submit a summary of their existing program
> plans and budgets, with no additional proposal required. Since this would
> work more like a grant renewal, there will be no FDC deliberations, and no
> staff assessment.
>
> Instead, we'll use the time and resources to work with the grantee
> organizations on developing their program plans during the year, by having
> FDC members and staff participate in report reviews or strategic
> discussions. The FDC has also been talking about reviewing and assessing
> their role and the role of unrestricted annual plan grants in disseminating
> movement funds. These conversations will happen hand in hand with the
> ongoing movement strategy process.
>
>  We will be sharing more information and updates on this mailing list and
> on Meta and I look forward to your contribution to this process. In the
> meantime, I hope that we can count on you for reviewing this current round
> of FDC proposals
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2017-2018_round_2>.
>
> Best,
>
> Delphine
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I read in a Facebook discussion about the Wikimedia Conference that
> > the Annual Plan Grants are being paused (or stopped or suspended or
> > something) shortly, presumably after the end of the Round 2
> > deliberations that are going on.
> >
> > Can't see any information about this on the list, or the Grantmaking team
> > pages.
> >
> > Is this right? If so I wondered what the rationale might be?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Delphine Ménard
> Program Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Delphine_(WMF) <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Delphine_(WMF)>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Suspension of FDC grantmaking

2018-04-25 Thread Chris Keating
Hello,

I read in a Facebook discussion about the Wikimedia Conference that
the Annual Plan Grants are being paused (or stopped or suspended or
something) shortly, presumably after the end of the Round 2
deliberations that are going on.

Can't see any information about this on the list, or the Grantmaking team pages.

Is this right? If so I wondered what the rationale might be?

Thanks!

Chris

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ?

2018-03-07 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Zubin,

> As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of
> the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the
> primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is
> organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition and
> the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily
> found and take a lot of digging to get out.

It's interesting you mention this. I was discussing Wikipedia the
other week with participants in another online learning community, and
it really struck me just how much of a focus Wikipedia has on very
dense rules about content, and how little a focus we have on community
and positive interactions.

There are an immense number of guidelines and policies, but discourse
on-wiki is often mainly a string of references to these policies and
guidelines - which is baffling for anyone unfamiliar with them, and
doubtless a big turnoff for anyone who *isn't* familiar with them who
wants to take part (even if you can navigate the technical aspects of
talking to people.) By contrast, praise, thanks and encouragement are
fairly scarce.

Regards,

Chris

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] First content made for Wikipedia in space!

2017-11-29 Thread Chris Keating
Glad to see that the final frontier is falling to Wikipedia! Lovely blog post 
Andy.

This reminds me that (entirely separately) there was an initiative to send 
copies of Wikipedia into space, does anyone know if that every happened?

Chris

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Andy Mabbett
Sent: 29 November 2017 15:58
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] First content made for Wikipedia in space!

As some of you may have seen on social media already, the first ever
content made specifically for Wikipedia, in space, was uploaded to
Commons today, and is now in use on Wikipedia articles.

ESA astronaut Paolo Nespoli made recordings of his speaking voice in
English and his native Italian, as part of the 'Voice Intro Project'.

I wrote a blog post about how this came to happen, for the WMF blog:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/11/29/astronaut-spoken-voice/

If you have a social media account, you might like to retweet me:

   https://twitter.com/pigsonthewing/status/935871619247104000

and/ or this thread:

   https://twitter.com/Wikipedia/status/935844854260813824

or share the Wikipedia Facebook page's post:

   https://www.facebook.com/wikipedia/

or of course post in your own words, with the hashtag #WikiVIP

And remember, please, to ask other people who have Wikipedia
biographies, or an item on Wikidata, to record their voice, as
described at:

   https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Voice_intro_project

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] FDC Recommendations, Round 1 2017-18

2017-11-20 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks FDC for your hard work on the recommendations, and It's great to see
so many applicants earning full funding this time!

Chris

On 20 Nov 2017 5:43 pm, "Bishakha Datta"  wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) meets twice a year to make
> recommendations about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve
> the Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy.  This is now the
> 11th round of allocations made by the FDC, and we met in person from
> November 17-20, 2017 in Madrid to deliberate on 9 proposals submitted this
> round. Wikimedia Deutschland's annual plan will be reviewed separately.
>
>
> We would like to thank all of the participating organizations for the hard
> work they put into this round’s proposals.
>
> Our recommendations for Round 1 2017-2018 on the annual plan grants to the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have now been posted on Meta.[1] The
> Board will review our deliberations and make a decision by December 31,
> 2017.
>
> We received grant requests for approximately USD 2,766,000 this round.
> Before we met, committee members reviewed all of the proposals and
> documents submitted.  We were assisted in this review with input from the
> FDC staff assessments which included analysis on impact, finances, and
> programs, as well as community comments on the proposals.
>
> As you may know, there is a formal process to submit complaints or appeals
> about these recommendations. Here are the steps for both:
>
> Any organization that would like to submit an appeal on the FDC’s
> recommendation should submit it to the Board representatives to the FDC by
> 23:59 UTC on 8 December 2017 in accord with the appeal process outlined in
> the FDC Framework [2]. A formal appeal to challenge the FDC’s
> recommendation should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary
> directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives to the FDC,
> Nataliia Tymkiv and Dariusz Jemielniak. The appeal should be submitted
> on-wiki, and must be submitted by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking
> applicant. The Wikimedia Foundation Board will publish its decision on this
> and all recommendations by December 31, 2017.
>
> Anyone can file a complaint about the FDC process [3] with the Ombudsperson
> at any time. The complaint should be submitted on wiki, as well. The
> Ombudsperson will publicly document the complaint, and investigate as
> needed.
>
> On behalf of the FDC,
>
> Bishakha Datta
> FDC Chair
>
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2017-2018_
> Round_1
>
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/
> Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC
>
>
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Complaints_
> about_the_FDC_process
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] New Affiliations Committee appointments

2017-11-08 Thread Chris Keating
Congrats to Jack and Olushola! I am sure you will do a great job.

Kirill – I know this last round of recruitment started some time ago (in June?) 
– do you expect the next round to run any more quickly?

Regards,

 Chris

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Kirill Lokshin
Sent: 08 November 2017 17:03
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Wikimedia Movement Affiliates discussion list
Subject: [Affiliates] New Affiliations Committee appointments

Hi everyone,

A bit delayed, but we are happy to share that Olaniyan Olushola and Jack Farah 
Mustaklem have appointed to the Affiliations Committee as new members.  In 
addition, three incumbent members (Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, Tanweer Morshed 
and Salvador Alcantar) have been re-appointed for an additional term.

Here are Olushola and Farah, or Jack, in their own words:

Jack Farah Mustaklem:

I'm a Palestinian volunteer editor on Wikipedia from Jerusalem, and Founding 
member and  treasurer of Wikimedians of the Levant User Group, and the 
representative in Palestine. I have been a Wikimedian since 2005, editing both 
the English and Arabic Wikipedias. I have a passion for the free dissemination 
of knowledge. Most recently, I have been coordinating activities of the 
Wikipedia Education Program in Palestine, at both the high school and 
university levels. Outside of the movement, Jack is an advocate of free 
knowledge, a software engineer, and a father of three.

Olaniyan Olushola:

My name is Olaniyan Olushola, an accountant by profession, founding member and 
president of Wikimedia User Group Nigeria.[1] I am an active Wikimedian and 
member of the community with various contributions to Wikimedia projects. I 
have organized several Wikimedia project in the last few years. I organized 
Wiki Loves Africa 2015 and 2016 in Nigeria. I participated in Wiki Indaba 2014 
and WikiAfrica/OpenAfrica15,[2] a conference for Wikipedians In Residence, 
organized by WikiAfrica in Johannesburg, South Africa. I coordinated Wikipedia 
15 in Nigeria[3] and Wiki loves Nigeria Writing Contest, organized as part of 
Wikipedia @15 celebration in Nigeria.[4] I coordinated Wiki Loves Women in 
Nigeria and my work was extensively covered by multiple newspapers in 
Nigeria.[5] I coordinated Wiki Photo Tour in Nigeria through a Wikimedia 
Foundation grant support in 2016.[6] I conceptualized a media partnership 
between Wikimedia UG Nigeria and Blackface Media,[7] a radio program that runs 
every Wednesday called Time-Out with Wikipedia. I am the lead presenter on 
Wikimedia Radio and TV program. I established Wikimedia Fan Club at Lagos State 
University, University of Ibadan and Wikimedia Hub, Nigerian Institute of 
Journalism (NIJ). I am also the project coordinator for "She Can with ICT", a 
project that focus on training Nigerian female students on how to contribute to 
Wikimedia project. We are currently mentoring over twenty five potential 
editors, through Wikimedia Outreach dashboard this project. [8]

I led Wikimedia UG Nigeria to sign a partnership agreement with Goge Africa,[9] 
with the aim of improving African based articles on Wikipedia with volume of 
free images.  Presently, we have finalized a new partnership agreement with a 
WFM 91.7  [10] to broadcast Wiki Loves Women on radio  and also to create 
awareness about Wikimedia projects.

If I am not on Wikipedia, I work as consultant in the area of Software 
Deployment and Asset Management. I am married with two lovely kids. 

We anticipate starting the next round of committee appointments in December, 
and hope that everyone interested in working with Wikimedia affiliates will 
consider applying!

Regards,

Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

Edward Galvez
Staff Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Group_Nigeria
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiAfrica/OpenAfrica15
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Nigeria/Writing_Contest
[4] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Wikimedia_Nigeria_User_Group/Wikipedia_at_15_Celebration_in_Nigeria/Report
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Loves_Women/Nigeria
[6] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/WIkimedia_User_Group_Nigeria/Wiki_Photo_Tours/Report
[7] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_User_Group_Nigeria/Wikimedia_Radio_and_TV_Program
[8] 
https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/she_can_with_ict__nigeria/programs%7C
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goge_Africa
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFM_91.7

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

2017-10-25 Thread Chris Keating
So will there be a broader discussion about the future of the
Wikimedia Conference that's open to people who are not attending?

I could certainly see a group of people in a conference hotel for a
weekend deciding that they are a vital forum for important decisions
about the future of the movement, but that wouldn't mean that it's a
good idea to take that at face value without input from the 10,000 or
so people who weren't invited to the conference. :)

Chris

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Cornelius Kibelka
 wrote:
> Hi Lodewijk,
>
> One of the goals for the 2018 conference will be to come to an agreement
> upon the ultimate goal, structure and set-up for the Wikimedia Conference
> in the longer future. The outcomes of these conversations will also depend
> on the agreements we achieve during phase 2 of the strategy process, for
> example in terms of roles and responsibilities of movement organizations.
> By slightly adjusting the 2018 participation criteria (we're talking about
> 10 people), we do not mean to change the overall nature of the conference
> for the future. It's just a quick fix for the symptoms, not a solution to
> the overall.
>
> Best regards
> Cornelius
>
> On 24 October 2017 at 18:29, Lodewijk  wrote:
>
>> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
>> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
>> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
>> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
>> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
>>
>> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
>> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
>> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
>> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
>> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
>> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
>> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
>> community.
>>
>> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
>> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
>>
>> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
>> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
>> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
>> cutting it yet.
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
>> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
>> > the affiliate model has become very different.
>> >
>> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
>> > topics to varying degrees.
>> >
>> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
>> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative in
>> an
>> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
>> > representative.
>> >
>> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
>> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
>> and
>> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
>> >
>> > Seddon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
>> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
>> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
>> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
>> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
>> > >
>> > > Michael
>> > >
>> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
>> > chapters
>> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
>> > > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or
>> user
>> > > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
>> > > > representatives if they must be represented.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Isaac.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
>> > always
>> > > :)
>> > > >
>> > > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
>> > > organized
>> > > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2018: Program themes, eligibility criteria and reporting deadlines

2017-10-24 Thread Chris Keating
I just want to add my 2p on this.

I raised my eyebrows last year when so many people were invited to WMCON
but I could see the rationale for one-off face-to-face strategy
conversations.

However I am concerned by the idea that WMCON is now turning into a large,
standing, deliberative/representative body and losing focus on supporting
affiliates' impact.

WMCON can never be a representative group for the movement, let's not try.

Chris

On 24 Oct 2017 17:30, "Lodewijk"  wrote:

> While it is true that there are now for *some* languages also organizations
> that have it as their specific goal to support those (Amical has been doing
> that for Catalan for a long time, though), this is not the case for most
> major languages. In the whole field of affiliates, including user groups,
> most are tied to a geography, rather than other factors.
>
> Even in an outreach, engagement, communication perspective, we have always
> held off on calling the affiliates 'representative'. In this context it
> would even go a step further: it would make them *politically*
> representative. This could be particularly painful when an editing
> community does not feel represented (for example, because the user group
> that has their language as focus, if any, is the subset of users that likes
> to focus on a subset of topics that is not the focus of most of the
> community.
>
> While lines between focus areas blur, and our movement diversifies, this
> does not necessarily mean the roles changed that much.
>
> If your goal really is to make it representative, then you either have to
> make affiliates more representative, or you have to invite other people.
>
> I'm looking forward to Cornelius' response on what the underlying goal is
> for this change, because I suspect his proposed change of wording is not
> cutting it yet.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > The conference was born from the old affiliate model but that is not
> > representative of where we are now and for all its flaws and advantages,
> > the affiliate model has become very different.
> >
> > Affiliates in some cases really do represent, projects, languages and
> > topics to varying degrees.
> >
> > In some cases maybe affiliates really should be their local language
> > representatives. There is a difference though between representative in
> an
> > outreach, engagement or communication role with that of legal
> > representative.
> >
> > The line blurs with each passing year and particularly as affiliates gain
> > in their experience. Maybe the conference should reflect the new roles
> and
> > responsibilities being carved out by the evolving affiliate model.
> >
> > Seddon
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Michael Maggs 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. This would change the conference significantly. Its purpose has
> > > always been to discuss matters of common interest to movement
> > > *organisations*.  Organisations attend on their own behalf and not as
> > > representatives for any wider groups such as speakers of a specific
> > > language, or editors of any particular Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > > On 23 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Isaac Olatunde 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I share Lodewijk's concerns here. My understanding is that local
> > chapters
> > > > have no control/authority over any language community. Unless we want
> > > > language communities to be under the control of local chapters or
> user
> > > > groups,  language communities should be allowed to choose their
> > > > representatives if they must be represented.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Isaac.
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 23, 2017 7:16 PM, "Lodewijk" 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That all depends on the goals that the conference sets itself, as
> > always
> > > :)
> > > >
> > > > As I understood it, the conference is intended for structured and
> > > organized
> > > > groups, rather than to be a representative forum for the whole
> > movement.
> > > In
> > > > 2017, I understood there to be mostly two events taking place in the
> > same
> > > > location - with some overlap in program. In that sense, this was
> quite
> > a
> > > > unique situation because of the strategic process.
> > > >
> > > > The first question would be whether you accept each challenge as a
> > goal.
> > > If
> > > > being representative of the whole movement becomes the goal, the
> > > structure
> > > > probably needs to be overhauled much more, and the default invitation
> > for
> > > > all groups may have to be reconsidered. One representative from the
> > > > Japanese community wouldn't cut it, then (for example).
> > > >
> > > > On the other side, I could also imagine a different goal, which would
> > be
> > > to
> > > > fill certain gaps in input diversity from the participants. This
> could
> > be
> > > > input from 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Results of the 2017Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

2017-10-16 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Joe (and Matanya) for the speedy replies. I’ve added a comment on the 
talk page of the report. 

Chris

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Joe Sutherland
Sent: 16 October 2017 19:25
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Results of the 
2017Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

A great question. And I have an easy answer!

I wrote up the feedback we received into a report that you can read here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Post_mortem/Report

The committee will be working on taking the feedback onboard ahead of the
next election cycle, which is (at the time of writing) the FDC elections in
2019.

Let me know if you have any questions about the report. :)

best,
Joe

--
*Joe Sutherland* (he/him or they/them)
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation
joesutherland.rocks

On 16 October 2017 at 11:14, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello all and particularly the Elections Committee!
>
> I just wondered what is happening in terms of post-mortem on the elections.
> There was a call for comments on Meta - is there any kind of active review
> by the Election Committee happening? I know in previous years the EC has
> often made extensive comments to shape future years!
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> On 21 May 2017 01:33, "matanya moses" <mata...@foss.co.il> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > The certified results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> > election are now available on Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results
> >
> > Congratulations to María Sefidari (User:Raystorm), Dariusz Jemielniak
> > (User:pundit), and James Heilman (User:Doc James) for receiving the most
> > community support. Subject to a standard background check, they will be
> > appointed by the Board at their August meeting at Wikimania.
> >
> > These results have been certified by the elections committee, the
> > Wikimedia Foundation staff advisors to the committee, and the Board of
> > Trustees.
> >
> > There were 5,581 votes cast, with 5,120 of those being valid. The
> 461-vote
> > difference comes from recast ballots, where eligible voters recast
> ballots
> > to change their votes, and struck votes, of which there were 34. (Some of
> > the recast votes were also struck.)
> >
> > Additional information is available on the Wikimedia Blog:
> > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/20/board-of-trustees-elections-2017/
> >
> > More statistics on the elections and a post-mortem from the committee
> will
> > be published in the coming days. In the meantime, we would appreciate
> your
> > input—what went well for you in this election?  What could we do better
> > next time?  These reports are crucial to helping future elections be even
> > more successful, and we hope that you will offer your feedback and ideas:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > elections/2017/Post_mortem
> >
> > The committee would like to thank everyone that participated in this
> > year’s election for helping make it, again, one of the most diverse and
> > representative in the movement’s history.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > – Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
> >
> > ___
> > Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> > directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> > community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ___
> > WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> > wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

2017-10-16 Thread Chris Keating
Hello all and particularly the Elections Committee!

I just wondered what is happening in terms of post-mortem on the elections.
There was a call for comments on Meta - is there any kind of active review
by the Election Committee happening? I know in previous years the EC has
often made extensive comments to shape future years!

Regards,

Chris

On 21 May 2017 01:33, "matanya moses"  wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> The certified results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> election are now available on Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results
>
> Congratulations to María Sefidari (User:Raystorm), Dariusz Jemielniak
> (User:pundit), and James Heilman (User:Doc James) for receiving the most
> community support. Subject to a standard background check, they will be
> appointed by the Board at their August meeting at Wikimania.
>
> These results have been certified by the elections committee, the
> Wikimedia Foundation staff advisors to the committee, and the Board of
> Trustees.
>
> There were 5,581 votes cast, with 5,120 of those being valid. The 461-vote
> difference comes from recast ballots, where eligible voters recast ballots
> to change their votes, and struck votes, of which there were 34. (Some of
> the recast votes were also struck.)
>
> Additional information is available on the Wikimedia Blog:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/20/board-of-trustees-elections-2017/
>
> More statistics on the elections and a post-mortem from the committee will
> be published in the coming days. In the meantime, we would appreciate your
> input—what went well for you in this election?  What could we do better
> next time?  These reports are crucial to helping future elections be even
> more successful, and we hope that you will offer your feedback and ideas:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> elections/2017/Post_mortem
>
> The committee would like to thank everyone that participated in this
> year’s election for helping make it, again, one of the most diverse and
> representative in the movement’s history.
>
> Sincerely,
> – Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] September 28: Strategy update - Final draft of movement direction and endorsement process (#25)

2017-10-10 Thread Chris Keating
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call information from Wikimedia projects a "mush", but I
> think it's a good term for the proprietary amalgamation of information
> and data from many sources, often without any regard for the
> reliability of the source

Is there an award for the most intelligent and insightful contribution
to this list all year? If so I would like to nominate this email.
Thanks Erik!

Regards,

Chris

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] FY1617 Fundraising Report just published

2017-09-30 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Sam! And the whole fundraising team – the report makes very interesting 
reading, and the continued progress in raising more money from less-irritated 
donors is impressive.

Regards,

Chris

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Samuel Patton
Sent: 29 September 2017 20:18
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] FY1617 Fundraising Report just published

Hi all, happy Friday. We are excited to share with you our fundraising
report for fiscal year 2017
.

This full year fundraising overview is always a group project that depends
on the collaboration of many teams at the foundation: fundraising tech, ops
and donor services, major gifts, online fundraising, legal, communications
and more.

Thank you to everyone who contributed. A special thank you to Thea Skaff, a
full-time contractor with the online fundraising team, who shepherded this
project to completion in the midst of our busy first quarter.

I welcome your questions and feedback. We enter our biggest fundraising
season of the year with high morale and deep gratitude for the work of our
colleagues and fellow collaborators in this global community of free
knowledge advocates.

thank you,
sam
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Emerging Communities: a proposed new definition

2017-09-29 Thread Chris Keating
> I would like to thank the Community Resources team for dropping the highly 
> discriminatory division into North and South and for proposing a more nuanced 
> approach.

Indeed - this is a really useful step forward, and much more practical
for the way our movement works.

Plus we can now stop arguing about whether or not to use the term
"global south" which will increase everyone's productivity.

Chris

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] FW: Mon départ

2017-09-02 Thread Chris Keating
So Nathalie Martin has announced her departure as ED of Wikimedia France, in 
this email to WMFR members.

As usual I can only summarise not translate properly, but in short it lists a 
number of her achievements (recruiting a staff team, partnerships, bringing 
management into line with legal requirements, and many individual projects) – 
and particularly raising the profile of open knowledge with politicans and in 
the public eye.

However, she says, the climate in WMFR has deteriorated in recent months. 
Certain people have ceaselessly harassed and libelled her. This situation has 
made her resignation inevitable and she feels she has achieved everything she 
possibly can with the organisation.

(There is no mention of her leaving date or interirm arrangements)

Regards,

Chris

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Nathalie Martin
Sent: 02 September 2017 11:00
To: M. Chris KEATING
Subject: Mon départ

Bonjour à tous,
Je vous écris pour vous faire part de mon départ de la direction de Wikimedia 
France.
En quatre ans, beaucoup de chemin a été parcouru : l’association n’est plus ce 
qu’elle était en 2013, elle a pris une envergure considérable. Du point de vue 
du fonctionnement quotidien, il y a aujourd’hui une équipe salariée structurée, 
des locaux fonctionnels, une organisation des partenariats, une gestion 
conforme à ce qui est attendu par le Commissaire aux Comptes… A tel point que 
nous sommes en passe d’avoir la reconnaissance d’utilité publique. Durant ces 
années, nous avons obtenu de beaux succès tels que les labellisations Ideas et 
Essec, l’identification et la valorisation de notre action par les pouvoirs 
publics (PGO, jury entrepreneur d’intérêt général, différents agréments des 
Ministères…), le développement des groupes locaux et d’actions d’envergure 
nationale (Mooc, Lingua Libre, Ma commune Wikipédia…)
Je suis particulièrement fière de ce qui a été accompli en termes de plaidoyer 
au niveau des politiques mais aussi du grand public pour faire progresser la 
connaissance libre.
Ce bilan positif a été malheureusement entaché par le climat délétère de ces 
derniers mois. Quelques personnes, pour des motivations obscures et peu 
compatibles avec l’intérêt collectif de notre action, n’ont eu de cesse de me 
calomnier et de me harceler. J’ai souhaité défendre le statut de salarié dans 
notre organisation car tout salarié chez Wikimedia France doit, ou dois-je 
dire, devrait, bénéficier des mêmes droits que n’importe quel salarié en France.
Compte tenu de cette situation de violence gratuite et incessante, mon départ 
devenait inévitable. Je vais maintenant pouvoir me consacrer à d’autres projets.
Je veux cependant saluer ici des personnalités aux qualités exceptionnelles. 
J’ai eu l’honneur d’être soutenue par des personnes courageuses et intègres, 
qui alors qu’elles n’avaient aucun intérêt personnel à s’élever contre le 
harcèlement dont je faisais l’objet, n’ont pas hésité à creuser la réalité de 
la situation et des enjeux des uns et des autres et à s’opposer à l’acharnement 
insensé dont je faisais l’objet. Je garderai précieusement en mémoire ce que 
certains membres du CA ou certains salariés ont fait. Il n’est pas utile de les 
citer, ils se reconnaîtront. Ils sont d’autant plus méritants, qu’en faisant ce 
choix, certains se sont fait harceler en retour.
C’est avec la sensation d’avoir accompli tout ce qui était en mon pouvoir, que 
je quitte cette structure et lui souhaite le meilleur pour l’avenir.
Nathalie Martin


WIKIMÉDIA FRANCE 
40 rue de Cléry
75002 Paris
France
www.wikimedia.fr 


Je ne souhaite plus être contacté par Wikimédia France 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Scholarships for people whose visa were declined

2017-08-11 Thread Chris Keating
Sounds very sensible!

Chris

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> Katherine Maher just announced at Wikimania 2017 that all scholarship
> recipients who were unable to obtain a visa, will be automatically
> granted a scholarship for Wikimania 2018.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikimania-l mailing list
> wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-04 Thread Chris Keating
> Interesting but: "The review, commissioned by Wikimedia UK..." exactly who?
> Board, community, general assembly, group of members?
>

By the Board.

The dynamics were different to the current situation with Wikimedia
France, in that the Wikimedia UK Board at the time was not engaged in
a big fight with its community.

Regards,

Chris
(chair of Wikimedia UK at that point in time!)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-04 Thread Chris Keating
A few weeks ago I think I found a copy of WMFR's chapter agreement on
a Wiki somewhere. I had the impression (maybe wrongly) that it renewed
each January, and had to be cancelled by either party 3 months in
advance if they did not wish to renew it.

That puts the WMF's decision point somewhere in late September or early October.

I believe that if there is no change in WMFR's position then the WMF
owes a duty to the wider movement to withdraw the Chapter Agreement at
that point. (And if I were on the WMF Board, which of course I'm not,
this is what I would be saying). I don't know if WMF is officially
thinking along these lines, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have a
plan for a worst case scenario

The special GA is the only opportunity WMFR has to demonstrate it's
changing before the WMF has to make up its mind. So if WMFR Board
manipulates the special GA to prevent criticism or change, then I
imagine that will not be helping their position at all.

Regards,

Chris



On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Gilles Chagnon  wrote:
> I think the two audits the board refers to as those by IDEAS.
>
> However, except of the announcement of the final label, there was no report
> to the community. An audit usually comes with recommendations and a series
> of good points/concerns but as far as I know, no result was shared outside
> of the board/the direction. I can understand that some points may be
> confidential, but I also think that some conclusions could have been shared,
> provided the auditing organism had been told to write their conclusion in a
> suitable way.
>
> G. Chagnon
>
>
> Le 04/08/2017 à 11:45, Ilario Valdelli a écrit :
>>
>> Only an audit can answer. To switch from rumors to facts, this is the most
>> appropriate solution.
>>
>> It seems that Wikimedia France had two audits (but it would be interesting
>> to know if limited only to the financial aspects) and another by the FDC.
>>
>> The General Assembly can have the power to claim for an audit too,
>> defining the auditing entity.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> On 04/08/2017 11:27, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote:
>>>
>>> Assuming of course that a chapter actually follows its bylaws
>>>
>>> 
>>> From: Wikimedia-l  on behalf of
>>> Ilario Valdelli 
>>> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:34:34 AM
>>> To: Wikimedia Mailing List; James Salsman
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France
>>>
>>> The power of WMF, defined in the agreement, is basically limited to
>>> revoke the chapters agreement.
>>>
>>> There is no mention in the Chapters agreement that WMF can take a
>>> control of a chapter and to manage a General Assembly.
>>>
>>> You forget that the legal pilaster of a chapter is the bylaws.
>>>
>>> On 04/08/2017 10:02, James Salsman wrote:

 Rogol,

 What content protected by safe harbor provisions would the Foundation
 be exerting editorial control over by requiring governance standards
 of a Chapter?

 Is there some French law that requires charities to be more
 independent of their international affiliates than would be under such
 a requirement?

 The chapter agreements already contemplate this sort of control,
 because they state, "The Chapter agrees ... to refrain from ...
 engaging in any activity that might negatively impact the work or
 image of the Wikimedia Foundation," and are revocable upon three
 months notice.


 On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Rogol Domedonfors
  wrote:
>
> If the Foundation is seen to be directing the activities of a chapter
> at
> the proposed level of micro-management then it would jeopardise the
> legal
> status both of the Foundation (in terms of their safe harbour status)
> and
> of the chapter (as an independent and charitable body).  The Foundation
> is
> free to fund or not fund, to recognise or derecognise.  But not to
> control.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
 New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ilario Valdelli
>>> Wikimedia CH
>>> Verein zur Förderung 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on Wikimédia France

2017-08-03 Thread Chris Keating
> A few French wkipedians are not happy with the board and some of the
> employees. They are about 25-30% of Wikimedia France members

To be honest, 25-30% of WMFR members is quite a lot. And, don't
forget, include roughly half of the Wikimedia France Board elected at
the last General Assembly.

This isn't the first governance crisis in the Wikimedia movement (WMF
and other chapters have certainly had them) but it is probably the
biggest and most long-drawn-out.

> And those people refuse to acknowledge reality, even when the
> board explains everything, even when lawyers explains what can and cannot be 
> done within a chapter.

To my mind the board's "explanations" are part of the problem. Reading
the statements from WMFR about the FDC process, or their emails to
members or their response to the timeline - it's all about how WMFR
has never been wrong about anything. All the criticism is wrong (and
probably a conspiracy). WMFR's board has been doing the only thing
they could possibly have done. All of this is repeated again and
again.

That is a dysfunctional response to the situation. A significant part
of the French Wikimedia community has lost confidence in WMFR. The
Board should be working to restore that confidence, and the more it
denies the problem is real, the worse the result will be.

Regards,

Chris

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

2017-07-28 Thread Chris Keating
Forwarding on the worryingly sensible discussion of this "copyfraud"
from the wikimediauk-l mailing list.


-- Forwarded message --
From: Deryck Chan 
Date: Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list 


I agree with Lucy's approach here. We should try to raise this issue
directly and privately with the museum involved to let them know
they've made a mistake with the copyright of the object and ask them
to correct it.

My feeling is that Tullie House is a small museum with limited staff,
so they sloppily applied the "no photo because copyright" tag onto the
stands of any borrowed exhibit and simply forgot that this object is
>200 years old and therefore no longer copyrighted. Starting the
message with "copyfraud" catches Wikimedians' attention, but isn't
helpful towards achieving our outcome of actually getting things into
open copyright or making sure public domain things don't get
restricted.

--Deryck

On 28 July 2017 at 15:52, Richard Symonds  wrote:
>
> Trigger warning: sensible suggestions, I know those can be upsetting
>
> Might a friendly email to the museum have helped, just explaining the issue 
> and suggesting a solution?
>
> On 28 Jul 2017 14:32, "Fæ"  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear, this absolutely is a
>> classic example of copyfraud. To say "I see no evidence of copyfraud
>> by the BM" is precisely correct, however this is still copyfraud. It's
>> an example that is very handy for Wikimedia Commons to use to
>> illustrate its own policies with regard to deletions and allowed
>> photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made.
>> Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation
>> were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM
>> institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking
>> positive action to stamp it out.
>>
>> We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is
>> being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of
>> the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for
>> the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British
>> Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this
>> particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get
>> answered.
>>
>> I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not
>> agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related
>> labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having
>> many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several
>> objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other
>> signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from
>> the BM.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>>
>> On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs  wrote:
>> > While the text on the labels is obviously wrong, I see no evidence of
>> > copyfraud by the  BM.
>> >
>> > The labels are most likely placed by the Tullie House Museum in a 
>> > (confused)
>> > effort to comply with a contractual term of the loan, under which the
>> > receiving museum must not allow photography.
>> >
>> > Such terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan, sometimes to
>> > protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need for
>> > such protection.
>> >
>> > A quiet word with
>> > Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see whether
>> > they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second to
>> > explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and
>> > should not be expressed as such.  Enquiry and education, not shaming.
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would
>> > not build bridges for future collaboration.
>> >
>> > On 28 Jul 2017 13:03, "Fæ"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
>> >> from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
>> >> objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
>> >> of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are
>> >> shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that
>> >> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible
>> >> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims
>> >> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a
>> >> money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and
>> >> charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put
>> >> to public use and be freely accessible".
>> >>
>> >> Does 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Please welcome new chair for Wikimedia UK

2017-07-15 Thread Chris Keating
Congratulations Josie! And delighted to see that Wikimedia UK has its
highest ever numbers of members and volunteers. :)

Regards,

Chris
(former Wikimedia UK chair from back deep in the mists of time)

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Michael Maggs  wrote:
> Dear friends
>
> At today's AGM, three trustees (Doug Taylor, Nick Poole and me) were
> re-elected to the board.
>
> I have today retired as chair, and the role has been taken by my colleague
> Josie Fraser. I'll be remaining on the board as an ordinary board member to
> support Josie until my new term expires in two years time.
>
> Our board lineup is now:
>
> Josie Fraser - Chair
> Carol Campbell - Vice-chair
> Greyham Dawes - Treasurer
> Kate West  - HR trustee
> Nancy Bell - Trustee
> Lorna Campbell  - Trustee
> Jordan Landes  - Trustee
> Nick Poole - Trustee
> Doug Taylor - Trustee
> Michael Maggs - Trustee
>
>
> Please join me in welcoming Josie as our new Chair.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimédia France - informations sur la situation actuelle

2017-07-12 Thread Chris Keating
2017-07-12 1:34 GMT+01:00 Natacha Rault :
> So this is the translated part stopping in may 2017 (recent developments not 
> included)

I had a bit of spare time this morning so I've translated part of May (below).

4 May 2017

Explanation of the number of resignations from the Board

Emeric Vallespi writes an email, in the name of the Board, explaining
the resignations and denying any governance problems. He refers
explicitly to the origin of the resignations as "an exceptional threat
to the organisation due to non-respect of the obligations in civil and
criminal law upon the leaders of the association" not as "political
dissension within the Board".

5 May 2017

Explanation from Caroline Becker of her resignation

In response to Emeric's email, @K_rho (Caroline), former member of the
Board, posts her account of her resignation on Twitter, pointing out
that a disagreement on the governance of the association was at the
source. She adds to her tweet a copy of the resignation mail she sent
to the board of directors on February 21.

8 May 2017

Emeric is a candidate in the legislative elections

Emeric is officially announced as a "candidat suppléant" to the French
National Assembly for the En Marche party. Information is not provided
on the general discussion list by management. Mathis, an ordinary
member, will inform the members of this situation on May 25th.

(Translation note: "candidat suppléant" is a kind of 'substitute
candidate' that is not commonplace outside of France. My understanding
is that each party nominates a candidate and a substitute candidate
for each district. If the party wins the seat then the candidate
enters the legislature. If the successful candidate can no longer
serve, e.g. because of death or appointment as a government minister,
the "suppleant" takes over as the legislator for that district.)

11 May 2017

Wave of unsubscriptions from the list

In the afternoon, a large number of members and contractors of the
association are unsubscribed from the discussion list by its
administrator. At the same time, administrator access to the CiviCRM
system is removed from the few "ordinary" members who had access to
it.

11 May 2017

Émeric sends an email on the mailing list accusing 3 of the resigning
board members of putting the association in danger. The resignations,
according to him, are part of a more general conspiracy. In this mail
we learn that an investigation for harassment was opened by the
Wikimedia Foundation on February 16, 2017, which was subsequently
abandoned.

12 May 2017

Views from Wikimedia Argentina

Anna Torres, executive director of Wikimedia Argentina, complains of
the negative implications of the words used by Wikimedia France to
describe the Argentine MOOC within the FDC discussion

"We are very surprised and unhappy by your negative reference to our
work in the discussion of your staff assessment."

The phrases used do not emanate from the WikiMOOC team, but are
potentially harmful to them, while the Argentine MOOC team has shown
its support for the project.

14 May 2017

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) considers the grant
application from Wikimedia France very negatively

Amount requested: 686 000 €
Amount recommended by the FDC: 343 000 €
Amount allocated the previous year: 570 000 €

The FDC considers Wikimedia France's grant application very
negatively. It recommends allocating 50% of the funds requested
because the results are not commensurate with the funds received, as
explained in the two previous recommendations of the FDC. It also
believes that the potential for significant, clear and measurable
results from this year's bid is not sufficient to qualify for the
requested funding. In addition, the FDC is concerned about the recent
developments in the organization of the association and its governance
(many resignations of employees and members of the Board, a two-headed
system at the management level, etc.). The FDC recommends that
Wikimedia France undertake a review of its governance.

In commenting on the FDC's recommendation, Nathalie (the association's
director) says:

"This is not a problem of communication, or mediation ... it is an
organizational dysfunction (of the FDC - Editor's note) but that is
not attributable to Wikimedia France."

She goes on to say:

"When some people realized that the investigation (for harassment -
editor's note) was not credible as initially announced, because it did
not answer to any fair and transparent process. It was abandoned and
replaced by an  an outrageously negative assessment that goes so far
as to worry about the sustainability of Wikimedia France! This
assessment has influenced the FDC's proposal to cut [the grant], since
the figure put forward by the volunteers is based on the study done by
employees of the Foundation."

Note: The FDC is a committee made up of volunteers who are part of the
Wikimedia movement.

Édouard, on behalf of Wikimedia France indicates on the discussion
page 

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimédia France - informations sur la situation actuelle

2017-07-11 Thread Chris Keating
I thought this email from Wikimedia France was worth wider circulation
within the movement.

Topics covered include:
* How WMFr feels community members are "destabilising and denigrating"
the chapter, and how Wikimedia France is responding by expelling some
of those people from the organisation, threatening them with legal
action, and temporarily closing its email discussion list
* Accusations that Christophe Henner has personally manipulated the
FDC process to cut WMFR's funding
* Also, a statement from WMFR that the WMF is also considering
withdrawing WMFr's chapter agreement

I recommend reading the whole email in conjunction with this timeline:
https://www.mathisbenguigui.eu/wikimedia-timeline/

It really is remarkable. I was lost for words on reading it, and I am
sure that you will be as well.

Frankly, unless there is prompt and wide-ranging change of the
leadership of Wikimedia France, I think that withdrawing WMFR's
chapter agreement is probably by far the best thing that the WMF can
do. I hope a better solution can be reached in the meantime.

Regards,

Chris



-- Forwarded message --
From: CA Wikimédia France <c...@lists.wikimedia.fr>
Date: 2017-07-11 21:25 GMT+01:00
Subject: Wikimédia France - informations sur la situation actuelle
To: "M. Chris KEATING" <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>


Chers membres de Wikimédia France,



Depuis plusieurs mois et particulièrement ces dernières semaines,
quelques membres de la communauté wikimédienne ont violemment pris à
partie des salariés de l’association et des membres du conseil
d’administration, et ceci d’une façon irrationnelle, irresponsable, et
à certains titres répréhensible par la loi.



Cette action de déstabilisation et de dénigrement non seulement n’a
aucun fondement sérieux ou légitime, mais elle contrevient aux règles
et valeurs du mouvement Wikimédia.



Face aux excès et aux mensonges de ces détracteurs, devant leur refus
du dialogue et leur mépris des règles qui régissent notre gouvernance,
nous avons pris plusieurs résolutions que nous tenions à porter à
votre connaissance.



En premier lieu, nous condamnons très fermement les propos diffamants
qui ont été publiquement diffusés et relayés, notamment sur les
réseaux sociaux, et qui portent atteinte au respect des personnes et à
la dignité humaine, en recourant parfois aux parallèles les plus
douteux. C’est indigne, c’est inexcusable, et cela doit être banni de
notre communauté, sauf à perdre le sens de toute valeur et de tout bon
sens.



La récente consultation menée auprès de l’ensemble de nos membres a
d’ailleurs confirmé l’exaspération et l’incompréhension de beaucoup
d’entre vous quant à ces pratiques de dénigrement qui portent atteinte
à l’image de notre association et de nos projets.



Les violences morales et les dérives de quelques-uns, alors même
qu’ils ont toujours été considérés avec égard, ne sauraient mettre à
mal une œuvre collective dont la bonne marche repose, une fois encore,
sur le respect des personnes et des règles qui encadrent notre
activité.



A quel titre ces quelques personnes auraient-elles le pouvoir
d’inventer une crise de confiance ou de remettre en cause ces règles ?
Aucun. Sont-elles détentrices d’une autorité supérieure sur notre
collectif, que nous veillons à accompagner le mieux possible ? Non !



Notre mission première est d’assurer l’intégrité de notre association
et de nos projets ainsi que la protection des salariés (ce qui est une
obligation légale du conseil d’administration). Aussi, nous dénonçons
avec la même fermeté des actes qui ne sont dictés que par des guerres
d’ego et des aigreurs personnelles, mais se drapent dans des
argumentations morales irrecevables.



C’est pourquoi, dans le respect de nos statuts, nous avons aussi tenu
à prendre des décisions qui s’imposent afin de mettre chacun face à
ses responsabilités :

Fermeture de la liste mail discussions (à laquelle les salariés ont
été désabonnés mercredi 5 juillet par mesure conservatoire). Sa
réouverture sera discutée par le CA dans 10 jours à compter de l’envoi
de ce courrier.

Engagement d’une procédure d’exclusion de l’association des personnes
qui ont ouvertement, par leurs propos diffamants, nui à l’association
et/ou ont été à l’origine d’actes de harcèlement.

Refus de quelques demandes d’adhésions pour les mêmes motifs.



Pendant les 10 jours de fermeture de la liste, les nouvelles demandes
d’adhésion ainsi que les nouvelles questions ne seront pas traitées :
elles le seront à l’issue de cette période.



Durant ce temps, les bénévoles peuvent bien sûr communiquer avec les
salariés dans le cadre normal de leurs missions, mais aucune tentative
d’intimidation contre des salariés ou des membres du CA ne sera plus
tolérée.



C’est pourquoi nous prendrons très rapidement les mesures juridiques
nécessaires contre les personnes qui se livrent à des actions
répréhensibles par la loi à l’encontre de salariés ou de membres du CA
afin qu’

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

2017-07-07 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Robert,


> >
> > Simply highlighting the ~1 page of arguably controversial stuff in a 67
> > page document is also unlikely to be optimal, because it creates a biased
> > and misleading impression of the whole document, and gives the impression
> > (accurately or not) that one's main interest is stirring up controversy.
>
>
> That's very dismissive of legitimate concerns.  If something is of genuine
> worry, how many pages should it take up before we are allowed to raise our
> concerns about it?


Where there's a genuine worry, I think it's much more likely to get a
constructive response if the worry is expressed with understanding of the
context.

"Here are my five concerns about this document" is quite a different thing
to read from "Most of this document seems pretty sensible. However, are
five concerns I have about it, though I think I have only spotted one of
them actually happening at all"

Regards,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

2017-07-07 Thread Chris Keating
Hello Rogol,


> >
> > Whether the staff concerned feel it's a good use of their time to respond
> > in detail on Meta or on this email list, who knows. There is always a
> > judgement call to be made about what it's helpful for staff to spend
> their
> > time replying to. However, if I was in their position, looking at the
> > nature of comments on Wikipedia Weekly, on Meta and in this thread, I
> would
> > probably not be leaping to provide a full and thorough response.
>
>
> In the interests of improving communications between staff and the
> community of volunteers and donors, please indicate how a request might
> have been framed that would have encouraged your colleagues "to provide a
> full and thorough response"?
>
>
Just to be clear they aren't "my colleagues" :)

However I would suggest that the following things make it less likely to be
worth responding:
* Many of the points the WMF could make have already been said by community
members, either on Facebook or on Meta. (For instance, in the words of one
Wikimedian who is normally unafraid to express his criticisms of the WMF,
"Organisation has desire and strategy to maximise positive media coverage.
Shock horror. Film at 11.")
* Despite the issue having been raised in three different fora, the number
of community members who are expressing concerns remains countable on the
fingers of two hands.
* Given that the criticisms are expressed as selective quotes without any
appreciation of context (either from the document or the wider
environment), the staff who would be inclined to respond are probably
concerned that any response they gave would also be selectively quoted to
misconstrue what they were saying
* The whole idea that there was something wrong here started on the
Wikipediocracy forums, which is a hotbed of crackpot Wikiconspiracy

Of course I wouldn't suggest any of these is an absolute counterindication
for WMF staff wishing to spend their time responding to the issue, but it
all adds up...

Regards,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

2017-07-07 Thread Chris Keating
Dear Rogol,

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

>
> 1: Surely the audit is of interest to those with whom the Foundation wishes
> to communicate, which includes the donors, who are paying for it, and the
> volunteers, whose work is being presented to the world at large in ways
> that might not always be consistent with their values and practices.
>

Your mileage may vary, but usually I find that the large majority of donors
and volunteers have little interest in reading a document this detailed.


> 2: If the things that were already going to happen have already happened,
> then presumably somebody made them happen and those people would find it
> quick and easy to explain to the community what those things were (I take
> it from your wording that you are not one of those people).  Explaining to
> the donors what $436K of their money bought would rarely come amiss.
>

Well, hopefully someone at WMF knows what happened as a result and how
things have changed. There is a very brief bit of documentation for 16-17
messaging strategy still marked as a work in progress, so certainly the
outcomes could be better documented on Meta.

Whether the staff concerned feel it's a good use of their time to respond
in detail on Meta or on this email list, who knows. There is always a
judgement call to be made about what it's helpful for staff to spend their
time replying to. However, if I was in their position, looking at the
nature of comments on Wikipedia Weekly, on Meta and in this thread, I would
probably not be leaping to provide a full and thorough response.


> 2': Andreas made the point that "trying to avoid coverage" about a problem
> is not necessarily the best strategy.  Being open about a problem may be
> better, and/or more consistent with community values.  But that is a
> discussion for another location. The point of this thread is to encourage
> participation in that debate.
>

Yes, indeed, there is a legitimate question about how bullish WMF Comms
ought to be about Wikipedia. Generally however I think they get it about
right.


> 3: Quotes are by their nature "selective" since otherwise one would simply
> repeat the entire document, which is unlikely to be optimal.  If you
> believe those quotes are not representative, have the courage to say so –
> you have read the whole document, after all.


Simply highlighting the ~1 page of arguably controversial stuff in a 67
page document is also unlikely to be optimal, because it creates a biased
and misleading impression of the whole document, and gives the impression
(accurately or not) that one's main interest is stirring up controversy.

Regards,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2014–16 audit of the WMF communications strategy

2017-07-06 Thread Chris Keating
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Leila Zia  wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > I found some of the audit's recommendations troubling, and have
> summarised
> > my concerns on the related talk page on Meta.[3]
> >
>
> ​I would love to find some time to go over the audit (67 pages) and your
> comments/thoughts and share mine.


As someone who has in fact read the whole 67 pages (twice now), I am happy
to share my conclusions:

1) The communications audit is only of interest to people with a particular
interest in Wikimedia movement communications and does not have wider
significance.

2) Given that the audit was finished in September 2016 and was greeted by a
marked lack of fanfare, anything that the Foundation was going to do
differently as a result of the audit has probably already happened.

(It's difficult to tell from Meta whether anything has actually changed,
but the report made a number of very sensible recommendations like WMF
Comms working more with chapters, engaging more with non-English language
audiences, and trying to avoid coverage about vandalism - hopefully those
have all been picked up!)

3) If one reads any 67-page document related to the Wikimedia movement
determined to find points of criticism, then it's probably possible to do
so. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that the longer the document, the
easier it is to find selective quotes to support an arbitrary level of
outrage about its contents.

Regards,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New bureau for the Board of Wikimédia France

2017-07-02 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Eduoard,

Thanks for the update.

Can I ask - what steps is the new Board taking to restore confidence in
Wikimedia France's leadership, after the sharp criticism recently expressed
by the FDC and the WMF Board, and also after the resignation of many of
your trustees and leading volunteers?

Regards,

Chris Keating

On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Édouard Hue <edouard@wikimedia.fr>
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> This e-mail to let you know of some changes in the Board of trustees of
> Wikimédia France.
>
> Our Chair, Émeric Vallespi, got elected as deputy Member of Parliament
> during the French legislative elections in June. Although this position
> does not entail an active role in Parliament,  Émeric has accepted a
> full-time position on his MP’s staff. Therefore, in accordance with
> conflict of interests policy at WMFr and in view of his new job, Émeric
> resigned from the chair position. He remains a member of the Board but his
> role in our lobbying activities will be restricted regarding his position
> in politics.
>
> New officers have been elected and our Board is now composed as following:
>
>- Samuel Le Goff - Chair ;
>- Marie-Alice Mathis - Vice-Chair ;
>- Édouard Hue - Secretary ;
>- Guillaume Goursat - Treasurer ;
>- Louise Merzeau ;
>- Florian Pépellin ;
>- Florence Raymond ;
>- Émeric Vallespi.
>
> On behalf of Wikimédia France Board of Trustees,
> With our best regards,
> --
> Édouard Hue
> Secretary of Wikimédia France
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising pilot on Facebook

2017-06-30 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Sam! Very interesting to see the WMF dip its toe into the water of
off-Wikipedia fundraising for small gifts for the first time. :)

Out of interest are you planning to use Facebook's custom audiences tool to
include (or possibly exclude) people who are already WMF donors?

(And, more of a movement strategy question than one aimed at the actual
fundraising team - if this works, will WMF decide it's the only movement
body that is allowed to fundraising on Facebook, in the same way's it
approaches the on-wiki banners? :) )

Regards,

Chris

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Samuel Patton 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm writing to let you know about a project we're trying on the
> Foundation's fundraising team. Thanks to all the help and advice we've
> received from our colleagues in Communications, Legal, and Community
> Engagement.
>
> *I've posted this announcement as an update on Fundraising's Meta Page
> , and would be happy
> to answer questions and keep the discussion up there.*
>
> Over the next three weeks, the Advancement team will be conducting a small
> fundraising pilot on Facebook and Instagram. This will involve sponsored
> posts, served in English to people in the United States, that will direct
> users to donate to the Foundation using our own donation processing pages.
>
> Fundraising is always interested in exploring new ways to reach people who
> find value in Wikipedia and are interested in supporting the Foundation’s
> mission. Advertising across social networks is a proven and popular way for
> nonprofits to find new supporters and build organizational awareness, and
> we’re excited to dip our toes into this.
>
> Like the many tests we run for Fundraising, this pilot will involve
> experiments testing different imagery, copy, and calls to action. We hope
> to answer the question: how well does our on-Wikipedia.org messaging
> perform when presented on another site? It will also examine how our
> appeals perform across demographic and interest groups.
>
> *Where will the ads appear?*
>
> This pilot will use “sponsored posts,” which is what Facebook calls content
> that appears in the news feed of Facebook users.
>
> They will also appear on Instagram as “sponsored stories” that appear
> within the flow of photo and video posts users scroll on that network.
> (Instagram is a Facebook property.)
>
> They will not appear as banners, pop-ups, or display ads that appear
> alongside the news feed. This is a test in what is called “native”
> advertising, meaning it uses the same content display area that users
> expect from Facebook and Instagram.
>
> *How will you target your ads?*
>
> In addition to the broad parameters of language (English) and country
> (U.S.), we have identified a few target audiences that might respond
> particularly well to our appeals: educators, philanthropists, and frequent
> consumers of news. We will build these audiences based off self reported
> information about educational achievement, news readership, and
> philanthropic interest. I've included details on each audience below. In
> addition to these, we have discussed the value of comparing effectiveness
> across other characteristics - age, gender, etc.
>
> A large part of the value in running this experiment is to *learn* whether
> there are any demographic differences in how people respond to our
> messaging. If this experiment does give us compelling info about who is
> more likely to donate, that is exciting! And we'll talk as a group about
> what to do with that knowledge.
>
> *Can users opt out?*
>
> Of course. Users can hide individual ads if they are not of interest to
> them. This is also something we can measure to better understand how to not
> annoy or impose on social media users in future fundraising drives.
>
> *Who is working on this?*
>
> Fundraising is partnering with the social media folks in Communications to
> run this test. The promotion and measurement of ads is being managed by a
> small company called Middle Seat.
>
> *Will you keep us in the loop?*
>
> Absolutely. By July 15 we intend to share an overview of our testing so
> far.
>
> Stay tuned for more updates!
>
> sam
>
> ---
>
> *Possible target audiences:*
>
> *STUDENTS & EDUCATORS*
> *How likely to donate are current students and educators?*
> Age: 18 - 65+
> Target: Current students above high school level and educators based on
> self-reported “job title”
> Reach: 1,000,000+
>
> *PHILANTHROPISTS*
> *How likely to donate are Facebook users interested in both philanthropy
> and donating to charitable causes?*
> Age: 18 - 65+
> Target: Facebook users with self-reported interests in philanthropy and
> donating to charity
> Reach: ~460,000
>
> *NEWS READERS*
> *How likely to donate are Facebook users whose behavior suggests they’re
> daily news consumers?*
> Age: 18 - 65+
> Target: Facebook users with interests and behavior that 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Deutschland: Annual Report 2016

2017-06-06 Thread Chris Keating
> No, it means 15,000 new (paying) members of the association Wikimedia
> Deutschland.
>

Just to be clear - these are basically donors, not volunteers, right?


>
> However, we also try to recruit new authors/editors via banner campaigns
> and are running several of them throughout the year. If you are interested
> in this, consider joining Verena's session at Wikimania about "On-Wiki
> Campaigning to Engage New Editors"[1]


I look forward to hearing about this but won't be at Wikimania -will there
be anything published about it ? :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

2017-05-21 Thread Chris Keating
Congratulations Maria, Dariusz, and James - I am sure you will do a great
job for the movement over the next few years!

I am proud and grateful to have had the support of 2,002 people,
particularly because this is a palindrome. :)

And thank you to all the other candidates, the elections committee and the
staff involved for making the election happen!

Chris

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 1:32 AM, matanya moses  wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> The certified results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
> election are now available on Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results
>
> Congratulations to María Sefidari (User:Raystorm), Dariusz Jemielniak
> (User:pundit), and James Heilman (User:Doc James) for receiving the most
> community support. Subject to a standard background check, they will be
> appointed by the Board at their August meeting at Wikimania.
>
> These results have been certified by the elections committee, the
> Wikimedia Foundation staff advisors to the committee, and the Board of
> Trustees.
>
> There were 5,581 votes cast, with 5,120 of those being valid. The 461-vote
> difference comes from recast ballots, where eligible voters recast ballots
> to change their votes, and struck votes, of which there were 34. (Some of
> the recast votes were also struck.)
>
> Additional information is available on the Wikimedia Blog:
> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/20/board-of-trustees-elections-2017/
>
> More statistics on the elections and a post-mortem from the committee will
> be published in the coming days. In the meantime, we would appreciate your
> input—what went well for you in this election?  What could we do better
> next time?  These reports are crucial to helping future elections be even
> more successful, and we hope that you will offer your feedback and ideas:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> elections/2017/Post_mortem
>
> The committee would like to thank everyone that participated in this
> year’s election for helping make it, again, one of the most diverse and
> representative in the movement’s history.
>
> Sincerely,
> – Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMIL General Assembly meeting and Board elections 2017

2017-05-09 Thread Chris Keating
Yes, congratulations on your successful re-elections :)

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> Congratulations to the new board.
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
> it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Yesterday (8.5.17) Wikimedia Israel (WMIL) held a general assembly
> meeting,
> > during which the members held the elections for members of the Board of
> > WMIL.
> >
> > The results of the elections are as follows:
> >
> > Itzik Edri,(reelected)
> > Deror Lin, (reelected)
> > Ido Ivri, (reelected)
> > Hana Yariv (reelected)
> > Dana Dekel (reelected)
> >
> > Audit committee: Oved Cohen (reelected).
> >
> > The new Board then proceeded to reelect Itzik Edri as the chairperson,
> and
> > to elect Ido Ivri as the Board Secretary
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Itzik
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

2017-04-24 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Amir,

I have a request and/or question. I've got the idea from "Incident report".
> When things don't go as planned in servers, we write an incident report and
> try to learn from lapses happened. Now my question is. Has something
> similar done for chapters that get de-recognized? Do you want to talk to
> volunteers in those chapters and investigate why this happened so other
> chapters can learn and fix mistakes early on?
>

You're right that we ought to learn as much as we can from these situations
so we (as a movement) can support new affiliates better in future.

However in most of these cases the volunteers involved have moved on to
other things. If they aren't responding to contacts from WMF or AffCom
about the likely de-recognition of their chapter they probably also won't
respond to contacts asking for their input into a washup report.

Affcom and some WMF staff might have some insight, but it if that was going
to be documented publically then it would be important to do it in a way
that doesn't look like people are just pointing fingers at individuals.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2017 versus movement strategy

2017-04-06 Thread Chris Keating
Hi Texaner,

I don't think everything that WMCON is meant to be a secret!  I expect/hope
that we'll be hearing more about the WMCON strategy discussions quite soon
- after all, WMF is being very proactive about communicating what's going
on with the strategy.

I can imagine that it takes a little while to take workshop session outputs
and turn them into something that can be usefully emailed around or posted
on Meta.

Regards,

Chris
(User:The Land)

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Hajdu Kálmán  wrote:

>
> Hi, There is a very active campaign for strategic conversation defining
> the future role of Wikimedia in the world. In the last weekend has been
> hold the Wikimedia Conference 2017
> in Berlin. On this conference was a spacial group organized from
> Representatives
> for the Movement Strategy Track. I paid great attention the conference
> program, but unlike the former practice on the conference page on the meta
> was not e bit information about what happened in this section. No Ethernet,
> no abstract of presentation, nothing.
>
> I don't understand the new policy of organizers, that the conference out
> of the ordinary way was hold in totally confidential or secret wise. My
> question this should bee the new Wikimedia strategy?
>
> Texaner
> --
> Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's making you happy this week? (Week of 2 April 2017)

2017-04-04 Thread Chris Keating
>
>
>
> Turned out that buried in my images from an editathon at Birmingham
> Museum Collection Centre in 2015 there was an image of a pair of
> inflated caterpillars.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_pair_of_inflated_
> caterpillars.JPG
>
>
This image (and the article about Inflated Caterpillars that was on the
en.wp mainpage on Saturday) has also made me happy :)

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-03 Thread Chris Keating
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> If the format was compiled before Trump was elected, then this argument is
> either irrelevant or becomes that the foundation must avoid offending
> politicians in power by changing public statements to be uncontroversial at
> the time of publishing.
> Cheers,
> Peter


I've not seen anyone say that these topics (rather than the general
approach) was decided on in October.

Even if they had been, it would be reasonable to review these things to
avoid appearing unnecessarily partisan.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-02 Thread Chris Keating
So my 2p:

The issue for me is the selection of topics more than the presentation of
each topic.

I'm not concerned that the document's written differently and with
different standards of sourcing to a Wikipedia article. That's fairly
natural.

But selecting 2x refugees and climate change in a list of 10 things  (half
of which are internally focused anyway) and those angles on things - that
does read like someone decided that the WMF annual report was the place to
give Donald Trump a slap. Which isn't what that document is there for.

Yes our mission is political in the broad sense - and as Trump doesn’t seem
to believe in the concept of facts or truth, one could argue  our mission
is fundamentally anti-Trump. But that doesn't mean we should aim pot-shots
at him.

Chris
(The Land)



On 2 Mar 2017 21:59, "Tilman Bayer"  wrote:

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:33 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Otherwise, I haven't fact checked the whole thing, but one problem with
the
> second sentence:
>
>
> *Across the world, mobile pageviews to our free knowledge websites
> increased by 170 million .*
> This needs a time element, otherwise it comes across as not really in the
> same league as most stats about Wikipedia. The previous sentence was about
> a whole year's activity and the following one about monthly activity. So
it
> reads like an annual figure or an increase on an annual figure. But the
> stats it links to imply something closer to a weekly figure. From my
> knowledge of the stats I suspect it could be an increase in raw downloads
> of 170m a day or week or unique downloaders of 170m a week. Any of those
> would actually be rather impressive.
>
> I saw this too and was wondering about the same. I think your guess is
plausible that this refers to an increase of 170 million in *weekly* mobile
pageviews (for context, mobile web pageviews on all Wikimedia sites for
December 2016, normalized to 30 days, were 7.4 billion, up 11.6% from
December 2015
).
Even so, there are some details of the calculation that I'm still curious
about, but in any case, the increase in mobile pageviews remains a real and
notable trend worth calling out (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Wikimedia_mobile_pageviews_year-over-year_comparis
on_(since_May_2013).png ).

BTW, the linked report card is deprecated, as one may infer from the fact
the last numbers date from August 2016.  Here is a current pageviews
dashboard maintained by the WMF Analytics team: https://analytics.
wikimedia.org/dashboards/vital-signs/#projects=all/metrics=Pageviews
 (click "Break Down by Site" to restrict to mobile views).

For the definition of pageviews in general, refer to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Page_view .

--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

2017-02-23 Thread Chris Keating
Hi James,

This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential than a large
> proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
>
> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~xshuai/papers/jcdl240-shuai.pdf


I am not sure that is the correct conclusion from the paper you mention.
To quote the conclusion:

"We find that ... the Wikipedia community favors reputable authors and
trending topics. Second... Wikipedia does serve as a collaborative social
filtering system which is able to favor “classical” papers, authors, and
topics, and recommend them to the general public."

Unless I have missed something (and please let me know if I have) it
doesn't compare Wikipedia's influence with that of journal publishing,
merely observes that the same authors and topics are mentioned on Wikipedia
as are heavily mentioned in journals (and thus that the two are reflective
of the same corpus of knowledge)


> my assertion that systemic bias in the English
> Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications...
>
> Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study?
>

I wouldn't place it high up the list of things WMF ought to be worried
about. I remember hearing something vaguely about studies looking at
"left-right" bias among academic economists and in media coverage of
economics. In principle the same techniques could be applied to Wikipedia
articles and that might yield some insights into what could be done better.

Equally, economics isn't a very well covered area and has never attracted
that many editors, so the problems probably woudln't be fixed without a
couple of dozen more strong economics editors able to write about things in
a neutral way.

Regards,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] What is our impact and how do we measure it?

2017-02-22 Thread Chris Keating
Hi all,

For a while now I've been thinking about different ways to define and
measure the Wikimedia movement's impact. This started for me with various
conversations about different iterations of the WMF's Global Metrics and
different rounds of FDC bids, but it turns out to be wider than that.

This is a big and thorny topic and one where we seem to have come up with a
lot of implicit answers without spending much time thinking about in any
detail, so I've written up my thoughts as a meta-essay here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:The_Land/Thinking_about_the_impact_of_the_Wikimedia_movement

I'd be really interested to hear other peoples' views!

Chris

(User:The Land)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Hong Kong

2017-02-08 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks to everyone who's participated in WMHK and in particular everyone
involved in Wikimania 2013! Thank you for your efforts and best wishes to
those aiming to move things forwards again.



On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Wong Rover  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> On behalf of WMHK, I would like to say something.
>
> Some may think it is pity that WMHK has been de-recognized. But the board
> of WMHK has actually already decided to disband the chapter.
>
> Although WMHK will cease to exist, I still hope the other chapters will
> continue to try their best in the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Regards,
> Rover Wong
> the last president of Wikimedia Hong Kong
>
> 2017年2月8日 下午7:10 於 "James Heilman"  寫道:
>
> > Thanks Kirill
> >
> > In my opinion this is reasonable. We need to have criteria for what
> > affiliation with the movement means and what it requires from those
> > affiliated. If the requirements are consistently not met than removing
> > official affiliation until it is is simply common practice.
> >
> > James
> >
> > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017, Kirill Lokshin  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic
> > > organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent
> > > group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the
> Wikimedia
> > > mission. While most affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards
> > set
> > > forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
> > > been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia
> movement
> > > affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued
> > > recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate presents a risk to the
> > > Wikimedia movement.
> > >
> > > On September 9, 2016, Wikimedia Hong Kong was notified of their
> > suspension
> > > as a Wikimedia affiliate due to long standing non-compliance with
> > reporting
> > > requirements, and was provided with an explicit list of tasks and
> > deadlines
> > > in order to return to compliance with their chapter agreement. The
> > chapter
> > > failed to complete these tasks by the deadline of November 1, 2016, and
> > was
> > > consequently notified that they would no longer be recognized as a
> > > Wikimedia chapter after the termination of their Chapter Agreement on
> > > February 1, 2017.
> > >
> > > If you have questions about what this means for the community members
> in
> > > Wikimedia Hong Kong’s geographic area or language scope, we have put
> > > together a very basic FAQ, which may be found at
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_
> > > affiliate_de-recognition_FAQ
> > > .
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kirill Lokshin
> > > Vice-Chair, Affiliations Committee
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

2016-12-22 Thread Chris Keating
Personally I'd argue that WMF should only spend their (and everyone's) time
and energy on consultation when it's a substantive issue.

Chris


On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> Hi Christophe,
>
> I'm afraid that does not answer my question. If it changes absolutely
> nothing, it would be an unnecessary resolution. So surely there is
> *something* that changes (and that doesn't have to be a bad thing), such as
> improved clarity or legal certainty. But probably you're right - and this
> is more symbolic than anything else. And in that sense your response also
> feels more symbolic than anything else.
>
> If your statement 'I fail to see what community input could have brought'
> truly reflects your opinion, that is quite saddening, and what I feared but
> did not want to assume. It would be honest though, because it implies that
> you wouldn't have changed your mind no matter what unimagined facts and
> arguments the community may have come up with.
>
> The argument that the decision makers cannot imagine what the stakeholders
> could bring to the discussion reflects an attitude that you have all the
> facts - a denial that there may be things that you don't know to not know.
>
> I hope this is an unfortunate glitch (which can happen).
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> 2016-12-22 8:13 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner :
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > I feel there might be a misunderstanding here :)
> >
> > Legal team has, for a long time now, always worked with the community on
> > policy updates.
> >
> > I don't see that changing.
> >
> > This is a technical / legal delegation. I fail to see what community
> input
> > could have brought. We needed to be able to make changes to policies more
> > easily, it is now possible.
> >
> > Does this mean it changes everything else, no.
> >
> > Le 21 déc. 2016 11:24 PM, "Lodewijk"  a
> > écrit :
> >
> > Hi Christophe, all,
> >
> > I wonder, was there an urgency to pass this resolution, or did I miss the
> > invitation for community members to give input on this proposal? It
> doesn't
> > look particularly sensitive so that it couldn't be shared in advance. It
> > has potentially direct impact on the functioning of the community. Seems
> > like a typical example where requesting input could be valuable. So I'd
> > like to understand the thinking behind the chosen process a little
> better.
> >
> > Basically I'd have liked the discussion in this thread to have been part
> of
> > the considerations, rather than a response to the resolution.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lodewijk
> >
> > 2016-12-21 4:45 GMT+01:00 Christophe Henner :
> >
> > > Hi Pine,
> > >
> > > If you don't mind I will address your different points separately.
> > >
> > > First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a
> > > board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That
> > > resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more
> efficiently.
> > It
> > > doesn't remove our duty of oversight.
> > >
> > > I feel like you think delegating negates ones ability to provide
> > > supervision, I would tend to think otherwise as delegating free time
> and
> > > energy to focus on the core roles of a board.
> > >
> > > Second, the requirements to answer the community. I'm sorry, here I
> > > answered quite spontaneously, you are right nothing forces us to.
> > >
> > > But, as I've said in my candidacy and in public some time I believe we
> > > have, as WMF board, a leadership duty. And I also believe you lead by
> > > example. I've always believed, in the movement, we are all partners. We
> > > need each other to push forward our mission. You treat partners the way
> > > yourself want to be treated by them. That is why I believe it is
> > important
> > > to communicate. It doesn't mean we have to see eye to eye on everything
> > but
> > > that when a question rise we should answer as much as we can. That's
> > > something I've said to nearly everyone who reached out to me in the
> past
> > > few month privately, my answer perhaps won't be the one you want, but
> at
> > > least there will be an answer and an explanation every time I can. Like
> > > right now actually :D
> > >
> > > Finally, regarding board governance review, Natalia, as chair of the
> BGC,
> > > published minutes of our meetings[1], and that is a key topic we
> address
> > > and not push aside. That being said it will be a board review, not one
> on
> > > that specific event. We will be able to provide more information on
> that
> > > topic soon I think :)
> > >
> > > I hope I answered your questions.
> > >
> > > [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > > Board_Governance_Committee
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Christophe HENNER
> > > Chair of the board of trustees
> > > chen...@wikimedia.org
> > > +33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039>
> > >
> > > twitter *@schiste*skype 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Statement by Wikimedia Board on Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces

2016-12-09 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Christophe and Patrick - it's good to know both that the WMF views
this as a serious issue, and to hear what is actually happening to tackle
it!

Chris

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Patrick Earley 
wrote:

> I want to thank the Board for this letter, and for their focus on this
> problem.
>
> What specific work should we be doing to make progress around this issue?
> Harassment is a complex problem, and there are no easy solutions.  Nor is
> there likely to be a single solution; improvement will have to be made
> through a number of initiatives and coordinated approaches.
>
> Wikimedia volunteers have offered many different approaches to the problem,
> through consultations, workshops, the Inspire campaign, conference
> sessions, and discussion. The Support and Safety team has been collating
> these ideas, exploring the issue in the broader context of online
> communities, and delving into academic research on the topic.
>
> From these conversations and research, we have identified some
> categories/areas for improvement:
>
>- Better blocking tools and detection - the Wikimedia community works
>hard on the front lines keeping our users safe from harassment, through
>monitoring noticeboards and recent changes for problems, investigating
>“sock” accounts used to abuse contributors, and placing blocks on
>problematic users. Improvements to blocking tools, and the ability to
>detect harassing comments sooner can empower contributors to be more
>effective at these tasks.
>
>
>- Reporting and evaluation tools - The current systems for reporting
>harassment are overburdened and can be unclear to users, and there are
>limited tools that admins and stewards can use to evaluate the cases and
>make good decisions. New tools, developed in collaboration with
>functionaries and communities, can improve the experience of reporting,
>investigating and managing harassment cases.
>
>
>- Training for better handling of both in-person and online harassment -
>Better training can give contributors the tools and skills to handle
>harassment situations quickly and empathetically, document cases, and
>provide good advice to targets of harassment.
>
>
>- Policy and enforcement - Wikimedia communities have developed a
>variety of processes, policies, and approaches to dealing with
> behavioural
>problems.  As a movement, we need to identify which are working well,
> and
>share those successes. We also need to identify where our approaches are
>not working well, identify the problems, and try new solutions based on
>research and data.
>
>
>- Coordination with other platforms on harassment approaches and tools,
>and keeping up with current academic research - Our communities are not
> the
>only ones struggling with the problem of online harassment.  We need to
>work more closely with other platforms, researchers, online communities,
>and experts to make sure we are aware of successful techniques, new
>research, and useful tools.
>
> The above areas are not the only areas where improvement can be made -
> right now, contributors are brainstorming other approaches through the
> Community Wishlist process.[1]  We also encourage contributors to reach out
> to the Support and Safety team at c...@wikimedia.org with ideas, or contact
> me privately at pear...@wikimedia.org.
>
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Community_Wishlist_Survey
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Sydney Poore 
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Christophe and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation trustees
> > for dedicating time and thought to this important topic.
> >
> > I'm optimistic that if we collaborate together as a community we can
> > make a difference in the level of harassment on Wikimedia projects and
> > maybe even other parts of the internet.
> >
> > Sydney
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Christophe Henner  >
> > wrote:
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > As many of you know, over the past couple of years the Wikimedia
> > Foundation
> > > has taken a focused look at community health—particularly in regards to
> > > harassment. The Foundation's Board has been monitoring and discussing
> > this
> > > issue over the past year with great interest. We have prepared a
> > statement
> > > offering our thoughts on this topic, and providing a clear mandate for
> > the
> > > Foundation’s leadership to fully engage on this issue.
> > >
> > > Our statement is below and has been posted on Meta-Wiki, where it is
> set
> > up
> > > for translation:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Board_noticeboard/November_2016_-_Statement_on_Healthy_
> Community_Culture,_
> > Inclusivity,_and_Safe_Spaces
> > >
> > > Since the Foundation was established, we have been invested in
> building a
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Store - Important Update

2016-12-08 Thread Chris Keating
>
> Fulfillment partner: We will be migrating to a new fulfillment partner in
> January.


I wish the Wikimedia Store a safe flight and great success in its warm
winter mating grounds!

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

2016-12-02 Thread Chris Keating
Also,



> Speaking for myself, I would hesitate to devote an hour or similar of my
> time to a feedback session run by the WMF. Partly, because I would want to
> be compensated for that time;


Looking at this list and many many other fora there is scarcely a shortage
of free advice from Wikimedians with their thoughts about what the WMF is,
isn't, should or shouldn't be doing. Starting to pay for it is probably not
a great use of donors' funds ;)

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

2016-12-02 Thread Chris Keating
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
>
> However, I think I may not have been clear enough about what I was
> suggesting. (And I should note, I understand this is an unusual kind of
> approach, that might not feel very "wiki-like" to many in our community;
> but if I'm right in my hunch that it would be an *effective* approach, it
> might merit further consideration.)
>
> I used the term "expert" to refer to two different kinds of efforts, which
> I think made my point hard to follow. This is what I suggest:
>
> * Hire a service provider that is *expert at learning from a certain
> important audience*
> * Work with that service provider to properly incentivize and efficiently
> garner insights from those who are *expert about Wikimedia values* and how
> they might apply to the fundraiser.
>
> Speaking for myself, I would hesitate to devote an hour or similar of my
> time to a feedback session run by the WMF. Partly, because I would want to
> be compensated for that time; and partly, because I have some skepticism
> about WMF's ability to run a session that would fully absorb the points I
> might have to make.


Also speaking for myself, I think it's better that WMF staff do this kind
of work themselves wherever possible -  what we gain from direct engagement
between staff and volunteers is quite significant, in terms of
relationships, understanding and building skills - much more important than
what we might lose from poor methodology.

Or another way of putting it, I think Seddon is likely to be better at
consulting community members on the fundraiser than a market research
consultant would be (as well as being cheaper ;) )

Also personally I don't tend to participate in these sessions as I assume
everyone knows my often-repeated views on the importance of recurring
gifts, payment channels that suit the donor's expectations, and
tax-deductibility. ;)

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Agenda for the November 13, 2016 Board Meeting

2016-11-14 Thread Chris Keating
Since the board meeting has just happened, is now the right time to mention
minutes? :)

In the past the idea's been floated that something could be published
shortly after the meeting - be it draft minutes, or informal notes, or some
of the presentations. It would be really helpful to see anything along
those lines that can be shared in the next couple of days.

Chris

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> I personally would not mind publishing draft agendas, if there was a common
> understanding, that they are not final.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Rogol Domedonfors 
> wrote:
>
> > Christophe,
> >
> > Thank you for explaining that there were two meetings involved.
> >
> > I welcome the assurance that the agenda will be published earlier in
> > future.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> __
> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i grupy badawczej NeRDS
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://n wrds.kozminski.edu.pl
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>
> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>
> Recenzje
> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> Pacific Standard:
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
> The Wikipedian:
> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board: Vacant appointed seats and Turnover (Was: Personal Update)

2016-11-06 Thread Chris Keating
 I think I agree with Dariusz's proposed solution.

I also hope that several of Dariusz, Maria, Alice and Guy are willing /
able to be re-appointed or re-elected - the easiest solution to Board
stability is people getting second terms on the Board.

Chris

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 2:31 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> To clarify, the issues facing the WMF preexisted Denny, Dariusz and myself
> joining the board. Our perspectives started the process of addressing
> things. In fact I raised concerns regarding staff turn over a couple of
> weeks before joining the board at Wikimania.
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv 
> wrote:
>
> > Lodewijk, Anders, James, Dariusz, thanks for your input!
> >
> > Re: timing. I absolutely agree. But internal discussions are not
> happening
> > at once as well, before writing this I have waited for people to chime in
> > with the arguments to have my own opinion shaped. I would really love to
> > find a good balance between transparency and efficiency and safe space
> for
> > discussions. But I haven't found it. I had a plan to publish this last
> > week, so there would be at least two weeks for discussing, but
> > unfortunately I had some work and health related issues that prevented me
> > from writing this sooner. Remember, there is no shared understanding on
> the
> > desired level of transparency, and how to achieve that transparency [1]
> >
> > Re: onboarding. An interesting idea. I was also thinking of having some
> > kind of "a letter" from one outgoing Board member to the incoming Board
> > member, but it (probably) should be not personal, rather officer wise
> (the
> > chair of the Audit committee to the next chair of the Audit committee).
> >
> > Re: extended terms. Aye, Lodewijk, I can see reasoning behind "6 months
> to
> > make entry points fit together better". Though I can also understand that
> > this is not the time to lose expertise.
> >
> > Anders, I also agree. Three year time sounds better, as it is really
> > difficult to become a part of the team in a shorter period of time: we
> have
> > a few in-person meetings and it is not that we interact with each other
> too
> > much (well, at this point I would rather say even "enough" rather than
> too
> > much).
> >
> > James, yes, the challenges were really big. The issue is to learn from
> the
> > crisis. And just to clarify, you said that "New perspective can be
> > critical" - are you referring to new people joining the Board?
> >
> > Dariusz, Alice, for example, haven't served 6 years yet, if I am not
> > mistaken. It seems that this is her fourth/fifth year.
> > And I doubt her expertise is not needed anymore. Probably now more than
> > ever.
> >
> > Yes, onboarding of 6 new members does not seem optimal, even four seem to
> > be a little too much.
> > But there is a possibility that some not brand new people would join the
> > Board.
> > And I hope we will improve the onboarding process (having people join as
> > members of the Advisory Board or just non-voting observers can be a good
> > practice to implement).
> >
> > [1]
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> > Board_Governance_Committee/Board_transparency/Status_report_October_2016
> >
> > Best regards,
> > antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
> >
> > *NOTICE: You may have received this message outside of your normal
> working
> > hours/days, as I usually can work more as a volunteer during weekend. You
> > should not feel obligated to answer it during your days off. Thank you in
> > advance!*
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 3:28 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > The last group of community elected trustees were presented with an
> > > exceedingly difficult issue to solve months into their term. Moral
> among
> > > staff was critically low and many key employees had left, were leaving,
> > or
> > > were thinking about leaving.
> > >
> > > The board at that time disagreed about what to do about the situation
> in
> > > question. We saw turn over of three board members at the end of 2015
> > > including Jan Bart, Stu West, and myself. The community gained greater
> > > clarity of the issues and played a critical roll in pushing for a new
> ED.
> > > We are now in a much better position than before even though it took
> > longer
> > > to get there than I had hoped.
> > >
> > > The issues became more solvable in part as we saw two long term board
> > > members leave after more than six years on the board. I am supportive
> of
> > 6
> > > year maximum term limits. New perspective can be critical.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Nataliia Tymkiv  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I am forking a discussion on Wikimedia Foundation Board of trustees
> > > vacant
> > > > appointed seat(s) and turnover at this point.
> > > >
> > > > == The Board members start and end terms (Turnover) ==
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Personal Update

2016-11-06 Thread Chris Keating
>  I believe the Board could and should consider the wider needs to obtain
the best possible range of strategic advice and input, epsecially as we
move into yet another
strategic review

That strikes me as a difficult statement to disagree with, though also
difficult to actually achieve if you take the very expansive definition of
conflict of interest that you suggest.

Chris





On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Chris Keating wrote: "Fortunately the Board isn't required to consider
> whether hypothetically infuture some other organisation's interests might
> conflict with the Foundation's: only whether in practice they do."  This is
> not correct: one of the functions of the Board is to assess the risks to
> the WMF and this necessarily involves assessing whether certain situations
> might arise in the future that have not arisen now.  This is normal
> practice, and it is why the WMF has a risk register which is reviewed
> regularly by the Audit Committee (see
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Audit_Committee/2015-03-16 and
> discussion at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
> Board_noticeboard/Archives/2016#Risk_Assessment_Document_update
> – it would have been helpful to this discussion if that document had been
> made available to the community as proposed).
>
> This was not a case of a hypothetical future event which did not need to be
> considered, but a risk that needed to be assesd: indeed, as we have been
> clearly told, it was assessed by WMF staff, and their decision was that the
> risk could be managed.  My point was that the Board should consider whether
> the processes required to manage the risk would diminish the effectiveness
> of the trustee concerned to an unacceptable degree: "I do believe it needs
> serious consideration by herself and her fellow Trustees" is what I wrote.
>
> It appears that the WMF are taking a narrow view of conflict of interest in
> terms of financial interest and the fiduciary duty of the Trustees.  That
> is their position, and they are entitled to hold it, although it is not a
> view I have worked with often in my own experience.  I believe the Board
> could and should consider the wider needs to obtain the best possible range
> of strategic advice and input, epsecially as we move into yet another
> strategic review: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/2016-2017
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Personal Update

2016-11-05 Thread Chris Keating
Fortunately the Board isn't required to consider whether hypothetically in
future some other organisation's interests might conflict with the
Foundation's: only whether in practice they do.

(By the way, I am not surprised people read your original email as calling
for Kelly to resign - it was the bit where you said the board should
"seriously consider" it and listed all the reasons in favour of her
leaving. Generally it doesn't help persuade people if you carefully word
your emails to heavily hint that you want a particular thing, but then
dispute that you ever wanted it :) )

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Sam,  Thanks you for your views.  Referring to the possible conflicts
> between Wikimedia and Quora, you say that "there is almost no current
> overlap between the organizations' main projects".  Whether or not this is
> true right now, it is entirely possible that it may not be true in future,
> and I gave an example that you did not address (Knowledge Engine).  The WMF
> is "dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of
> free multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content
> of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge", committed to "a
> world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all
> knowledge"  Quora's business is to "share and grow the world’s knowledge".
> It is not at all obvious to me that these can never be in conflict, indeed
> they seem quite remarkably similar, with the signficant exception of the
> profit element.  Is there some demarcation agreement that we have not been
> told about?
>
> "Rogol"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 - 2016 Fundraising Report just published

2016-11-04 Thread Chris Keating
*bump*

Just wondered whether anyone had been able to look in more detail at what
the legal/data protection barriers to releasing statistics broken down by
country are?

I'd be particularly interested to see how WMF is doing at securing repeat
donations and tax-efficient donations from the UK, as I just received an
appeal email with a link to a form that was not really optimised to do
either (generally speaking if someone is being asked for a £10 one-off
gift, asking them for a £10 monthly gift doesn't get many monthly gifts)

Chris

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I can understand that if there are countries with very small numbers of
> donors you wouldn't want to give country-by-country breakdowns. But
> national charities report on how much money they raise all the time without
> any legal barriers, so I doubt there can be barriers to WMF reporting by
> country for most countries
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:42 PM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
>> Joseph Seddon wrote:
>> >Lodewijk: So just as last year, fundraising totals have been posted by
>> >region but there is currently no public data for donations from each
>> >country. It's felt that the regional breakdown at least provides a
>> >compromise between providing a semi-decent view of where our donations
>> >come from while at the same time respecting privacy and other legal
>> >reasons that is associated with releasing country level data.
>>
>> Huh? Like Rupert, I find this comment very confusing. What specific
>> privacy and legal reasons are there for not providing a per-country
>> breakdown of donations?
>>
>> MZMcBride
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 - 2016 Fundraising Report just published

2016-10-20 Thread Chris Keating
I can understand that if there are countries with very small numbers of
donors you wouldn't want to give country-by-country breakdowns. But
national charities report on how much money they raise all the time without
any legal barriers, so I doubt there can be barriers to WMF reporting by
country for most countries

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:42 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Joseph Seddon wrote:
> >Lodewijk: So just as last year, fundraising totals have been posted by
> >region but there is currently no public data for donations from each
> >country. It's felt that the regional breakdown at least provides a
> >compromise between providing a semi-decent view of where our donations
> >come from while at the same time respecting privacy and other legal
> >reasons that is associated with releasing country level data.
>
> Huh? Like Rupert, I find this comment very confusing. What specific
> privacy and legal reasons are there for not providing a per-country
> breakdown of donations?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community review for the 9th round of APG applications - we need your input!

2016-10-19 Thread Chris Keating
For anyone interested in the continuing conversation about "how to define
impact in the Wikimedia movement", I have pulled together a table of the
different metrics that APG requestors are proposing for their programmes.
this is the first year that organisations have been asked to submit their
own cross-organisation metrics in addition to the WMF's global metrics (a
very sensible response in my view to the numerous problems with global
metrics...)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:APG/Proposals#Summary_of_grantee-defined_metrics

A few observations:   The following areas appear several times: diversity
of contributors, quality of contributions, retention of contributors,
amount/quality of volunteer engagement, growth in network of partner
institutions, and communications metrics. Also interestingly of the 3
organisations reporting on "quality" only one is using a pre-existing
community process to do so, while two have developed their own.

Regards,

Chris

User:The Land

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Delphine Ménard 
wrote:

> Dear Wikimedia friends,
>
> For the 9th time since the Funds Dissemination Committee was created, the
> Annual Plan Grants process needs your eyes, brains and analytic skills.
> Since October 1st, 11 Wikimedia affiliates have posted their proposal for
> review by the FDC...and you. These consist of annual plans and budgets,
> with a detail of what programs and activities those organizations are
> planning for the year 2017.
>
> This opens the time for community review, a month long process in which we
> need as many people as possible giving their feedback on the proposals,
> asking questions or clarifications and analyzing the initiatives that our
> movement affiliates have developped for the year to come.
>
> In November, the FDC will meet to make recommendations to Wikimedia
> Foundation's Board of Trustees on how to allocate movement funds to these
> affiliates in order to achieve the most impact. Your input and
> participation will be valuable as they make these recommendations.
>
> You can find the proposals linked from the Community review portal here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2016-2017_round_1
> The organizations whose proposals, plans and budgets are available for your
> review include:
> Amical Wikimedia, Wikimedia Argentina, Wikimedia CH, Wikimedia Deutschland
> e.V., Wikimedia Israel, Wikimedia Nederland, Wikimedia Serbia, Wikimedia
> Sverige, Wikimedia UK
> Wikimedia Ukraine, Wikimedia Österreich
>
> You can leave your feedback on the proposal discussion page.
>
> Visit the annual plan grant portal [*] for more information about the
> program, the FDC, or upcoming milestones. You can reach the FDC support
> staff at fdcsupp...@wikimedia.org. More information about past APG rounds,
> recommendations, reports from organizations can be found on the proposal
> page:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals
>
>
> *More about community review*:
> The APG proposal submission date is followed by a 30-day open comment
> period, when anyone is invited to provide input on and ask questions about
> a specific proposal on its discussion page.
> Applicants are also expected to respond to input and questions during this
> period, although they are not able to change the proposal form itself after
> the submission date.
>
> The FDC will review the discussion pages during their deliberations in
> November as one of many inputs to the decision-making process. While anyone
> may comment on proposals after the open comment period closes on 31
> October, the FDC may not be able to take comments made after this period
> into consideration when reaching its decisions.
>
> *How to review*:
> Please visit the community review page to view the proposals being
> considered and follow the instructions. While the proposals are only
> available in English, your comments can be in any language.
>
> *Why your feedback matters*:
> We hope this open comment period will add to an in-depth and robust review
> of each proposal, and help keep our grantmaking transparent and
> collaborative. The FDC highly values feedback and insights from the
> Wikimedia community in making its funding recommendations.
>
> Thank you for the time you’ll take to review these proposals,
>
> Best,
>
> Delphine
> --
> Delphine Ménard
> Program Officer, Annual Plan Grants
> 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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria) + opening WUG applications for Chapter and ThOrgs

2016-08-24 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Carlos - that seems a very clear explanation of where we are to me.

Regards,

Chris

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Carlos M. Colina 
wrote:

> Hello Rogol,
>
> Let me try to clarify that. When the AffCom discussed with the board
> liaisons whether we needed a new resolution at our July meeting, we agreed
> that the existing resolution [1] is already sufficient as we're not
> stepping outside of the existing framework.  These criteria are a first
> attempt to communicate more clearly what the AffCom expects in terms of
> "demonstrable programmatic results" in order for an application to be
> supported and passed on to the board for approval. Still, the idea is to
> have the AffCom work on a coordinated consultation on these criteria and
> other aspects of affiliate strategy in the upcoming movement consultations
> since at the end, all are related.
>
> So instead of keeping Chapter and ThOrg applications on hold for longer,
> and because it's been a long while already, the Board has approved the
> Affiliations Committee to accept applications under the potential new
> criteria to test them and to remove the block on applications immediately
> -and it was about time 8-) Based on this future consultation, the
> proposed new criteria will probably be revised and refined to reflect the
> feedback received from the community before putting them as "official" for
> all Chapters and ThOrgs.
>
> Additionally, and trying to make the discussion clearer: AFAIK the
> discussion is an essential part of the movement, but at this time, this is
> not a coordinated consultation because again, it will be part of a larger
> and coordinated movement consultation. In order that the AffCom can focus
> on reopening Chapter and ThOrg applications, everyone is welcome to share
> valuable input on the talk pages [2] [3] on Meta, as it will be better
> organized and useful for reference when the coordinates consultation starts
> in a few months from now.  In the meantime, we can answer questions here,
> or there, but still, it would be better done on the talk pages for
> transparency, clarity and easiness of interaction, since not everyone is on
> the Wikimedia-l, Affiliates-l or Chapters-L lists.
>
> Thanks,
> M.
>
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2013-11#Movement_roles
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/Talk:Affiliations_Committee/
> Thematic_Organisation_Summary_Matrix
> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Affiliations_
> Committee/Chapter_Summary_Matrix
>
> El 24/08/2016 a las 04:17 p.m., Rogol Domedonfors escribió:
>
> The pronouncement of Fri Aug 19 12:36:01 UTC 2016 states "the Board of
> Trustees has instructed the Affiliations Committee to provisionally use
> these three new criteria for all new applicants" and as a consequence the
> Board Chair has stated, on Tue Aug 23 06:46:47 UTC 2016, "This is not a
> discussion".  In the interests of transparency, please could the Community
> be informed of the text of the Board Resolution that laid down these
> criteria?
>
> The Board chair has also informed us (on Tue Aug 23 12:34:37 UTC 2016) that
> *"*Everything is a discussion" and "our main goal for this year is to make
> sure we finally have a comprehensive movement strategy".  This is of course
> excellent news, especially since dialogue between the Board and the
> Community on these issues has been conspicuous by its absence 
> [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard/Archives/2016#Deep_strategy].
> Exactly how and where will this engagement take place?  
> Perhapshttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Strategy_Alpha might be 
> a
> place to plan the mechanisms for that engagement?
>
> "Rogol Domedonfors"
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>  
> 
>
>
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve
> 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
>
> El logotipo y el nombre de Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela
> , Wikipedia,
> Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Incubator, Wiktionary y otros proyectos
> relacionados  son
> marcas registradas usadas bajo permiso expreso de su titular, la Fundación
> Wikimedia, Inc. , una organización
> sin fines de lucro. Otros 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

2016-08-23 Thread Chris Keating
>
> To me the first thing that should change is rather than focusing on how to
> bring down chapters we should be focusing on how to further improve and
> promote the affiliate network, its as simple as saying Affcom can provide
> x,y,z to help support the expansion of chapters, it also has a,b,c to
> assist user groups to expand...
>

Well, yes - and (at least so far as I can tell from my point of view) there
is a huge shortage of support for user groups and smaller chapters.

However, there are some chapters that genuinely don't exist any more and
there is not much point having organisations that have effectively shut up
shop listed as Wikimedia chapters.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

2016-08-22 Thread Chris Keating
> Does the Affiliations Committee have a list of existing chapters which do
> not meet the proposed criteria? I think we should at least get a sense for
> that, and those chapters should be notified and be put on the path to
> meeting standards or losing their status.
>

Hi Ben,

The closest is this table for eligibility for the Wikimedia Conference:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2016/Eligibility_Criteria

That did not apply the same criteria as AffCom are using, but you can see
that there were 2 chapters which appeared to be entirely inactive, and a
further 3 that had some kind of activity but were not reporting activity in
the terms required by their chapter agreements or grants.

In general, I think that it is sensible to have a method of inactive
chapters to be de-recognised - just as it is also useful for User Groups
working towards chapter status to know what they are meant to be working
towards.

Regards,

Chris Keating
User:The Land
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] APG Progress Report: Learn about Wikidata and community-oriented software development

2016-07-27 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Nicole and everyone at WMDE for a very thorough report.

One question - you say that 2017 funding for Wikidata has not been agreed
with WMF. I wondered if anyone could let us know what's happening with this
- is there a conversation progressing about it?

Many thanks,

Chris

On 27 Jul 2016 13:54, "Nicole Ebber"  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We have published our APG Progress Report. It covers the first six
> months of 2016, with a special focus on Wikidata and
> community-oriented Software Development. It also covers our non-APG
> funded activities such as the Attribution Generator, Local Hubs for
> Volunteers and our mapping OER project.
>
> True to our approach of being a learning partner for the movement, we
> have added two sections with shared learnings at the bottom of each
> section.
>
> Check it out, it's beautiful!
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Progress_report_form
>
> Happy reading,
> Nicole
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Referentin Internationale Beziehungen
> Adviser to the ED, International Relations
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. +49 30 21915826-0
> http://wikimedia.de
>
> Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
> Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
> directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
> community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ___
> WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
> wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Elections Committee

2016-07-21 Thread Chris Keating
Great news! Congratulations to the incoming Standing Election Committee and
many thanks to the outgoing (non-standing; sitting?) one.

(I will save the lengthy explanation of my favoured voting system for
another occasion ;) )

Chris

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Dear members of the Wikimedia community,
>
> As you know the board passed a resolution allowing for the creation of a
> standing Elections Committee in November of last year [1]. Per the
> implementing resolution, the Board Governance Committee (BGC) has appointed
> the initial members from the recommendation of the Executive Director and
> her staff. We will be starting with 6 committee members:
>
>
>-
>
>User:Ajraddatz
>
>-
>
>User:Mardetanha
>
>-
>
>User:Ruslik0
>
>-
>
>User:Philippe
>slate
>-
>
>User:KTC 
>-
>
>User:Atropine
>
>
>
> They will be joined by two official advisors from the Wikimedia Foundation:
>
>
>-
>
>James Alexander (Manager, Trust & Safety) from Community Engagement
>-
>
>Stephen LaPorte (Senior Legal Counsel) from the WMF Legal team
>
>
> They will also be working closely with the BGC as a whole and especially
> Nataliia and me. Because I may consider applying as a candidate in the
> upcoming community-selection process I will be recusing for any discussions
> involving that election[2].
>
> The new committee, along with the BGC, will, of course, be able to choose
> how many members and advisors they truly need and how to recruit the best
> candidates. One of the first orders of business for the committee will be
> to decide on a process for expanding its membership through some form of
> open call. While there is an enormous amount of work for the committee to
> do, it can be expected that they will begin looking at:
>
>
>-
>
>The selection of a committee Chair
>-
>
>The dates and process for the upcoming community selection process (and
>consider shortening the terms and having community elections in early
> 2017,
>so that the elected members would join the Board at April meeting[3]).
>-
>
>The method of voting for that process both for the upcoming selection
>and the future and
>-
>
>The composition of the board and how to ensure a steady supply of good
>candidates (in particular, making sure that the candidates have the
>skills and expertise matching the Board skill matrix while making sure
> that
>the process is still owned by the community[4]).
>
>
> Just as the BGC is committed to greater transparency (see for example our
> recent minutes[5]), the committee will likely consult with the wider
> Wikimedia community in developing and revising election procedures within
> the scope of this charter to the greatest extent possible.
>
> This day has been a long time coming and is the result of requests made by
> multiple different temporary election committees over the years. I'm glad
> to finally see it come to fruition and hope that it will allow our
> selection process to continue to expand and improve well beyond the
> record-breaking election we had in 2015.
>
> Before I sign off I also wanted to call out the amazing work of the 2015
> temporary Election Committee[6]. They were put together in 2015 to do one
> thing: run an election. They did that well (with almost 3x the
> participation of the next largest year) but then they went well beyond the
> call of duty in serving as an advisory body to the board, offering
> invaluable feedback on how to fill the empty community selected seats we
> saw this year. They did not have to do this, but they did it anyway, and I
> hope that everyone can acknowledge the stress and courage that took.
>
> Please join me in thanking the 2015 committee and welcoming the new
> standing committee!
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak ("pundit", current Board member)
>
>
>- [1]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Elections_Committee
>- [2] See also my disclosure to the BGC on that matter:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/2017_Election_Disclosure
>- [3]
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-June/084592.html
>
>
>- [4]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/2016_competence_matrix
>- [5]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Minutes_07-08-2016
>- [6]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Committee#Membership
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

2016-07-09 Thread Chris Keating
So, to summarise the discussion (from Wikimania-l)

* The WMF is still coming to a view on whether it supports a 2018
Wikimania, but the issue is being considered by the Board and the ED. The
WMF don't consider the results of their consultation on the matter as
conclusive
* The Wikimania Committee have an ambition/intention to hold a 2018
Wikimania, but don't feel this is based solely on the sample of people who
showed up to the future of Wikimania session at Wikimania
* A number of chapters have expressed support for Wikimania remaining an
annual event, though also thinking that the programme design process needs
to be improved
* There is in fact some dialogue between the Wikimania Committe, the WMF
board, WMF staff, and the chapters

Have I got that right?

Thanks,

Chris

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
>
> I was interested to read the minutes of the most recent Wikimania
> Committee meeting, which decided that Wikimania will be held annually from
> now on, and that it will be in sub-Saharan Africa (effectively meaning
> South Africa) in 2018.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee/Minutes/2016-06-26
>
> Interestingly, I couldn't see any sign of the Committee's decision being
> informed by the WMF's consultation on the future of Wikimania, or anyone
> from the WMF's community engagement department being present.
>
> I have to say I'm a bit confused, not least about who actually makes the
> decision about how frequently Wikimania happens. Is anyone able to shed any
> more light on this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania - annually, with South Africa in 2018?

2016-07-08 Thread Chris Keating
Hoi,

I was interested to read the minutes of the most recent Wikimania Committee
meeting, which decided that Wikimania will be held annually from now on,
and that it will be in sub-Saharan Africa (effectively meaning South
Africa) in 2018.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Committee/Minutes/2016-06-26

Interestingly, I couldn't see any sign of the Committee's decision being
informed by the WMF's consultation on the future of Wikimania, or anyone
from the WMF's community engagement department being present.

I have to say I'm a bit confused, not least about who actually makes the
decision about how frequently Wikimania happens. Is anyone able to shed any
more light on this?

Thanks,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

2016-06-29 Thread Chris Keating
>
> Was the investment in pound sterling?
> The pound has been going down steadily over the last year.
> And now we have a steep drop due to Brexit.


Am not speaking from a position of particular knowledge on this, but the
way I read original the email was simply that income was held in some kind
of depsit account in the currency in which it was received - so GBP income
remained in GBP until there was a need to spend GBP. WMF does after all
have significant expenditures in other currencies than dollars (e.g. grants
and salaries of overseas staff).

Regards,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Direction] WMF Board of Trustees 2016 priorities

2016-06-28 Thread Chris Keating
Thanks Christophe!

Just a quick question...

>
> The HR committee[2] will work toward that end, and the Board as whole is
> ready to take any steps necessary to provide her, and the staff, with the
> best environment possible.
> [2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/HR_Committee


Has the HR Committee been updated to reflect the new Board - does it still
consist of Patricio, Guy and Jimmy?

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

2016-06-02 Thread Chris Keating
> governance consultants are very unlikely to recommend
>> or support (say) live-streaming board meetings to increase transparency,
>> or
>> making community-elected trustees unsackable without a referendum of some
>> kind
>>
>
> Most of what you said is valuable, but I have to point out that you are
> begging the question that those things are a good idea.


Hi Marc - Just for clarity, I don't actually think that either of these
things *is* a good idea. Just that on this list we hear a lot of voices
calling for them and some of those people also call for a governance review.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

2016-06-02 Thread Chris Keating
Just wanted to post some thoughts on the subject of the WMF having an
external governance review/audit. As you may know the FDC recommended that
the WMF should do this and I imagine the WMF board is thinking about the
matter at the moment. I was Chair of Wikimedia UK when we undertook our
governance review in autumn 2012 so hope my perspective is useful.

On balance I think an appropriately-defined governance audit, conducted by
the right people, would be helpful for WMF and the community but here are
some pros and cons.

*Reasons against  *
1. Cost. At a minimum, an audit would cost $20,000 - if done very
efficiently in a light-touch way. An extensive review could cost several
times that much. Anyone who you'd want to do the work would have a day rate
of $1000+ for top-level consultants and $500+ for other people involved.
2. Governance reviewers won't solve any of the "Wikimedia-specific"
problems. Hopefully whoever would be appointed would have experience of
working with boards of volunteer-based movements not just 'conventional'
non-profits. However, Wikimedia levels of transparency will still be
unusual for them and governance consultants are very unlikely to recommend
or support (say) live-streaming board meetings to increase transparency, or
making community-elected trustees unsackable without a referendum of some
kind.
3. Progress already made. The WMF Board has already introduced a number of
key policies, e.g. a code of conduct. If those have already addressed some
of the key issues then an external review will have less to say.
4. Risk of getting unfocused answers. There is a risk with this kind of
review of getting lots of detailed comments on various policies and
documents that don't actually have an impact. However, this can be avoided
with a well-defined brief.

*Reasons to do it*
1. Feedback on Board behaviour. A reviewer will probably interview Board
members and senior staff, and attend a meeting, as well as reviewing
documents and policies. As a result they will be able to observe the actual
behaviour of the board. That is unique (and hopefully helpful) feedback.
2. Reassurance. From November to January, a lot of people (including many
WMF staff and community members) were confused and concerned (to put it
mildly) about what was happening at WMF board level. (Probably there were
also people *on the WMF board* sharing the same concerns). Many of those
people are still concerned to varying degrees. An external review that says
"actually, most of this is working fine now but you can improve X, Y and Z"
is valuable reassurance for the whole community. If, on the other hand, the
review says "actually there are some serious issues that still need to be
sorted out" then much better that the Board realises that and acts on it in
the next couple of months than waiting another year or two and running into
the same problems again.
3. The amount of change that's happened lately. The WMF has grown immensely
in the last 10 years and has had very high turnover on the Board in the
last 2. Some of the ways of working that have grown up in those 10 years
may not be right, and some of those that were right might no longer be in
the Board's institutional knowledge. If I were in the shoes of one of the
newer WMF trustees I would think that an external governance review was a
very helpful step in making sure that the Board was working as effectively
as possible.

Regards,

Chris Keating
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

2016-05-19 Thread Chris Keating
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Richard Symonds <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I wonder if that's the time to end the thread now (which is on a very
> public list) and let people reach out privately. Discussion of this sort of
> topic, especially when a specific person is involved, is not ideal, and
> could make things worse.
>
> New threads would be best for any more tangentially-related discussions, I
> think.
>
>
Can I reiterate this.

I'm glad we know Chris is well. Now we do, this thread is best closed.

If there are private concerns, please raise them privately. If there are
more general points to discuss, then this thread is not the place for them.
I also see little value in sharing links to other places Chris's original
post has prompted discussion. Let's leave this be.

Regards,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

2016-05-19 Thread Chris Keating
Hoi,


> First, there's an overview of 'highest paid contractors' (for reading
> along: page 61) and the top one is a law firm for 1.7 Million USD. Which is
> quite a big sum of money.


I'd like to second this question - 1.7M is a very significant sum and I am
surprised that WMF has reason to spend this much on legal services (I had
the impression that the WMF legal department handled most things
themselves).

It would be useful to know a bit more about this figure.

Regards,

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] governance improvements

2016-05-15 Thread Chris Keating
Hoi,

Thanks for this update Dariusz. Good to see (reading this along with the
March minutes) that the Board is moving forward on some of these important
areas. A couple of clarifying questions;

* Does your discussion on Monday include the Code of Conduct and
Confidentiality Agreement mentioned in the March minutes?
* Have you considered inviting community comment on these before finally
adopting them?
* A number of community members have mentioned the idea of a formal review
of WMF governance. In my experience these can be quite helpful* - has the
WMF board considered this option?
* Has the Board conducted any kind of review or "washup" of the
circumstances around Lila's departure with a view to documenting
board-level lessons to learn?

Thanks!

Chris


(* For the benefit of people who haven't spent years observing movement
governance issues, I was the Chair of Wikimedia UK when we undertook our
formal governance review in 2012)


On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> hi,
>
> I'm just writing to give you a short report on how the Board is working on
> improving its governance and communication.
>
> In March [1], Kelly
> and I conducted an internal survey about our governance, preferences,
> vision on how it can be improved. Geoff and Stephen (from our legal team)
> have prepared a number of recommendations, based on the governance best
> practices.
>
> Currently, Maria and I are working on a proposal to the Board, that will be
> discussed on Monday[
>  >2],
> and that will address many of the issues that have been raised recently
> about timely communication, the level of detail in reporting, as well as
> transparency.
>
> Following our discussions in Berlin, we're going to expand our onboarding
> process for external/expert Board members. Apart from our regular
> onboarding (which includes legal training, mentoring from senior Board
> members, and for expert members - talking to people from the community, as
> well as selected readings about wiki-culture), we are going to introduce a
> short workshop, focusing on the most important things a person coming from
> the outside should know.
>
> I ran a short poll/discussion with the community
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Wikimania_2016_training
> >[3]
> on meta, to decide about the most important topics. "Copyright, copyleft
> and everything in between" as well as "Values and community dynamics of a
> global movement" have been selected.
>
> Guy and Kelly are really interested and looking forward to participating in
> the workshop at Wikimania, which will be also open to staff members. I've
> been in touch with Ginevra and Lorenzo, who have graciously volunteered to
> run
> the workshop
> <
> https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_sessions/Proposals/Wikimedia_Movement_Culture_workshop
> >[4],
> possibly with some help from Asaf.
>
> We are working quite hard on many fronts: the new ED search, the vacant
> seats' fulfilment, internal governance improvements, communication,
> onboarding processes, apart from our usual load. We still can do better,
> and I hope we are on a right path.
>
> best,
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak, "pundit"
> (a current WMF Trustee)
>
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2016-03
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_board_agenda_2016-05
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Governance_Committee/Wikimania_2016_training
>  [4]
>
> https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Training_sessions/Proposals/Wikimedia_Movement_Culture_workshop
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Affiliate Selected Board Seats - Result

2016-05-09 Thread Chris Keating
Dear Wikimedians,

We are writing to let you know the result of the election for the 2
Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia Foundation board.

The successful candidates were *Christophe Henner* and *Nataliia Tymkiv.*

A total of 40 chapters and thorgs voted - all except for the Macedonia and
Macau chapters - which is a record.

The number of first preferences received by each candidate was as follows:

Christophe Henner (9.00);
Siska Doviana (6.75);
Jan Ainali (5.50);
Osmar Valdebenito (5.50);
Nataliia Tymkiv (4.75);
Susanna Mkrtchyan (3.25);
Lodewijk Gelauff (2.50);
Maarten Deneckere (1.50);
Kunal Mehta(1.25);
Leigh Thelmadatter (0.00)

As you know the election was conducted under the Single Transferable Vote,
which meant that votes were redistributed between candidates to come up
with the final result. In the 9th round of voting the final place, after
Christophe was elected, was between Nataliia (16.09) and Siska (9.91). We
will be putting the full count narrative on the Chapters Wiki so that
others can verify it if they wish.

We would like to congratulate Christophe and Nataliia and thank everyone
who stood. It is the closest ASBS result for some time, and all candidates
brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the WMF.

Regards,

Chris Keating, Lorenzo Losa, Lane Rasberry
Election Facilitators
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

  1   2   3   >