[Wikimedia-l] Re: 23 March: Invitation to Open Community Call on ChatGPT, generative AI, and Wikimedia

> > > > Are you infringing Stability AI's copyright by clicking this link? If > not, are you infringing Stability AI's copyright by then writing a > Python script that uses this file to generate images, if you only run > it locally on your GPU? > > Even if a court answers either question with

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 23 March: Invitation to Open Community Call on ChatGPT, generative AI, and Wikimedia

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 3:05 PM Erik Moeller wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 12:25 PM Lauren Worden > wrote: > > > If you don't obtain this agreement, you cannot meaningfully enforce > > > the "license" because the downloader never agreed to it in the first > > > place. Moreover, you'll have

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Wikimedia Enterprise API project

Thanks Liam! That looks admirably clear and very thorough - would be great to see this level of detail and transparency in other aspects of the WMF's work Chris/ The Land On Tue, 7 Feb 2023, 14:35 Liam Wyatt, wrote: > Dear all, > > Following the initial announcement and project launch in 2021,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT and Wikipedia

On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 1:04 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been playing with it on over the last week, and my experience is that > that AI is incredibly prone to invent informations that look credible, > while being entirely made up by it. It would generate

[Wikimedia-l] Status of the Knowledge Equity Fund

Hi all, I'm writing to inquire about the status of the Knowledge Equity Fund. Meta (1) suggests 6 grants were made in September 2021 and that a second more community-focused round of grants would be made in 2022. No details of a second round have been published that I'm aware of; is this still

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 1:13 AM Todd Allen wrote: > Yes, and let me say it in stronger terms: This is unacceptable. > Community-selected seats have nothing to do with affiliates; affiliates are > absolutely not the community. Community-selected seats must be an at-large > election from Wikimedia

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:32 PM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Chris, > > There is no longer any distinction between community and affiliate > trustees. For reference, see the "Type of seat" column in the current board > member table on Meta, as well as the footnote under the table.[1] > > What Dariusz

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2022 election - updates

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 1:32 PM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Dear Dariusz, > > I am surprised your post has not attracted more attention. It's probably > because you did not spell out what the adopted recommendation involves. It > says (my emphases):[1] > > > *The Board of Trustees wants to improve

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 00:45 Nathan, wrote: > I suspect there weren't that many FT employees of the WMF in 2008, if any? > According to Andreas's table there were 72 total employees. How many were full time? Pass! But his numbers make little sense, so it's hard to draw conclusions from them. >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia payroll and related (WAS: Re: Media coverage in Germany: Enterprise / Advocacy)

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 1:25 PM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Cost per employee 28796 39801 51133738968478186493 > 102053 106065 116726 131734 140419 149155 > I find it hard to believe that the WMF's average cost per employee has increased from $28,796 in 2008 to

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:41 PM Guettarda wrote: > Crypto + NFTs + {tech startup + disrupt + housing market} sounds like > *just* the kind of person WMF needs on its board! > > Luis Bitencourt-Emilio might be a great person, and just who we need on > the Board right now, but the optics seem

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Feedback requested on draft updated Wikimedia Foundation Conflict of Interest Policy

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 4:02 PM Philip Kopetzky wrote: > I would also find that helpful (if this isn't a policy that's been completely rewritten). The legal text isn't especially easy to read and understand either, so my only question would be if this new policy would prevent past events that

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Feedback requested on draft updated Wikimedia Foundation Conflict of Interest Policy

Hi Amanda, Thanks for this. I've noted a suggestion on the talk page to state explicitly that the Board should include reputational concerns (including the reaction of community members and affiliates) when weighing up whether to approve a transaction where there is a conflict. I feel this is

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

> Agreed. Is this something that the Election Committee > , > as a standing committee not tied to a single election, can help with? SJ > > I would like the answer to this to be 'yes', but the Elections Committee doesn't

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Report about Regional Hubs Ready

Hi Anass, Thank you very much for this report! It really highlights both the strength of the demand/need for hubs, and the many challenges that we will face in setting them up. The list of areas where there is and isn't a consensus among the people you spoke to is very useful and clearly

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 8:40 PM Chris Keating wrote: > I too am disappointed (but not surprised) that STV had almost no effect at >> all on the outcome of this election >> > > This may be true, but if it's true, it was only true very narrowly. The > margin betwee

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Results for the most contended Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

> > I too am disappointed (but not surprised) that STV had almost no effect at > all on the outcome of this election > This may be true, but if it's true, it was only true very narrowly. The margin between the 4th and 5th placed candidates was 12.27 votes in a situation where 1,188 were needed to

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to check...

> > > >> The costs of doing this now will hardly have been prohibitive. >> Commissioning a report like this would have been well within the WMF's >> means in 2013 as well. (The WMF reported a budget surplus of $13 million in >> 2013.) So I stand by my assertion: the WMF could have done then what

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff

29 Jun 2021 at 20:58, Chris Keating > wrote: > > > Mistakes will always be made where human judgement is involved, but it > seems > > that this one is being remedied and learned from both quickly and openly. > > For those of us not on the call; how so? > > -- &g

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Conflict of Interest - Transition from Trustee to Staff

+1 to this - thank you to the senior staff who led the call, as well as the team that organised it at short notice, and to the Board members who attended. I would like to echo Jan-Bart's sentiments. Mistakes will always be made where human judgement is involved, but it seems that this one is

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

> > I will note that, as Chris pointed out, even WMUK's current policies > would permit a transaction like the one we're discussing if approved > by the Board ("no trustee may _without the consent of the board_" > [8]), and Wikimedia Austria's Good Governance Kodex would permit it if > approved by

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Amanda and Maggie, On the whole I am a great fan of this kind of office hour and believe it does a lot to improve communication between the WMF and community members. However this is not a problem of communication. The people speaking up in this thread are largely not the people who are

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

> > > >> It is a good practice to create a 12 month waiting period before board >> members of non-profits can become a staff member/paid contractor/consultant. >> > > A few people mentioned that their own orgs or committees have norms or > policies around this (Chris, Philip, Tito); could you

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Amanda, Thanks for the detailed comments. However, still, this doesn't really help that much. >From your email it seems that over several months the WMF has created a new role which just happens to be ideal for its outgoing Chair to fill, and indeed could scarcely be filled by anyone else

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Maggie, Thanks for the clarification, but that doesn't really affect anything. Staff roles vs contractors/consultants are not that different. And the fact that you didn't discuss the post with Maria while she was on the Board doesn't mean it isn't a governance problem. First because decisions

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

Hi Maggie, I am flabbergasted. It is verging on inappropriate for the WMF to immediately hire a trustee the moment they step down from the Board. I could just about understand if the focus was solely on the executive transition. But this seems much wider. As a former affiliate Chair I would

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Join the new Regional Committees for Grants

So while this thread has highlighted many sensible comments and questions, I also want to recognise the value in the approach the WMF is taking to this. A consistent piece of feedback within the Movement is that support in the form of grants and capacity-building feels remote from most affiliates

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COVID-19 second wave and protection of our most valuable movement asset

> > > Personally I feel, insuring individuals against COVID-19 or helping people > to get vaccines or sending other supports can be better handled locally by > local affiliates (or local committees as proposed by Tito, whichevers seems > fit) instead of a central organization like WMF. Local

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy support in the next 10 weeks

Hello all, A group of us who have previously been involved with the strategy process have made a proposal on how to move the Movement Charter process forward. It's on Meta as well:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Wikimedia Enterprise API project

Thanks Liam! Great to see such clear and thorough documentation of what this project is about, why we're doing it, and why it's being done in this particular way. Regards, Chris / The Land On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:03 PM Liam Wyatt wrote: > Dear all, > > Over the last few months, a small

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Surveys using third party tools on Wikimedia projects

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:59 AM Philippe Beaudette wrote: > Did anyone ask? > > No, no-one did ask. Which is one reason that it's regrettable this conversation has kicked off with a confrontational on-wiki vote. I would be interested to hear what the WMF's current position on this is.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Call for Feedback: Community Board seats and February 2 office hours

I have to say the more I look at the 'options' we are asked to feed back on, the more confused I get. So far as I can see there are options relating to: 1) whether there should be elections a) to the Board itself, b) to a "selection committee" that will nominate Board members, or c) not at all 2)

[Wikimedia-l] Some thoughts on the Movement Charter

Hi all, hope you're having a good festive season. England has storms, snow, Covid and Brexit. I've taken the opportunity to put some thoughts on Meta about what principles the Movement Charter might contain. This is not really an attempt at actually drafting the charter, more a way of organising

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF transfers $8.7 million to "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund"

Thanks Lisa, that's very reassuring. Again, I know there will be more info on the Knowledge Equity Fund in the > new year. I ask your patience for the folks initiating this and trust that > they will share more soon. > I look forward to hearing more from those folks in due course. There must be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF transfers $8.7 million to "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund"

Thanks Lisa. That statement makes a lot of sense, though I do have some questions still. > > Our first priority was to ensure that we had enough funding to support > community grants. We transferred the full amount for Annual Plan Grants > (APG) for FY20-21 over to Tides to ensure that all

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 201, Issue 38

Hi John, Well that is part of the answer - though Tides will evidently also be making other grants as well (what, to whom and what for is unclear) But this also raises quite a lot of questions about the APG grants. Who is now determining who gets how much? The FDC has been de facto abolished,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF transfers $8.7 million to "Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund"

So, the text in the FAQs is as follows: "This year’s report says that the Wikimedia Foundation provided an unconditional grant of $8.723 million to Tides Advocacy for the Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund. What is the Wikimedia Knowledge Equity Fund? A portion of our grant to Tides Advocacy will

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Donations - show the editors you care?

I think it would be great if this sub-thread could come to an end and we could stop having the list clogged up with questions about one person's editing history. Also, I can't quite remember the list policy on people who are blocked from one or more Wikipedias for disruptive behaviour

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

Glad to see this is prompting some discussion! Dan - Asking candidates for their current salary is prohibited in San Francisco > as of July 2018 [1] which means that, as a San Francisco based > organisation, the Foundation will undoubtedly not be doing this. > Very glad to hear it! > > There

[Wikimedia-l] Foundation and affiliates disclosing salaries on job ads & the effect of this on workplace equity

Good morning everyone! There's a campaign(1) for nonprofits to disclose the salaries, or at least salary ranges, on job ads. An increasing body of evidence(2) shows that practices like not disclosing expected pay, and requiring applicants to disclose their current salary, is harmful to equity in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:26 AM Gnangarra wrote: > > I think its fair to call for you to stand aside since taking full > responsibility for the failing to communicate the Boards actions with the > community and the communities position with the Board. > > Really, no. We want Board members who

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

It's interesting that of all the strategy recommendations, two are so far being implemented. One is the Universal Code of Conduct, which has at least had plenty of discussion and publicity, that even precedes the strategy process. The other is this, which hasn't been particularly prominent before,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

Hi Aron, > > I see this as a fundamental issue, that's strongly related to why so much > harassment (and lesser forms of incivility) are part of our everyday > editing experience (I'm talking about less-known members of the community, > who aren't protected by their established status, not us).

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

> > Superprotect is now over five years old. Superprotect's removal is now over > four years old. It was a mistake, and it was explicitly acknowledged as > such: the then-ED of the WMF said it had "set up a precedent of > mistrust". Almost all of the people involved in it are no longer affiliated

Re: [Wikimedia-l] AffCom - Candidates for new mandate

To me the main surprise is that AffCom continues to exist despite being obviously broken. It does not fulfill its mandate, it never has done, everyone knows this, yet still the WMF is happy to have a non-functional committee. Chris On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:23 AM Alessandro Marchetti via

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation elections committee: Call for volunteers

Hi Joe, I have some questions! I don't know whether they are best addressed to you, or someone else, but - I can't find any evidence of the Elections Committee having met since the conclusion of the 2017 elections - am I missing something? (The 'Minutes' page seems to only refer to 2015

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Chief of Community Engagement to leave the Foundation

On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 6:29 AM Paul J. Weiss wrote: > I find the disbanding of the Community Engagement department at WMF to be > quite concerning. I will go so far as to say that I view it as a mistake > that will have negative impacts well into the future. > Actually I think the opposite is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Greener travel and the ethics of carbon offset for Wikimedia community events

> > This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has > to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/ > conferences. > Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much air travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of the Wikimedians of Saint Petersburg User Group

Hi Ziko, I believe the only "official" rationale is in the 2012 Board resolution: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Resolutions/Recognizing_Models_of_Affiliations and the thinking behind this is documented here, also from 2011-12. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_project I do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Community Tech: New Format for 2020 Wishlist Survey

> > > the wishlist only reflects > > the needs and perceptions of highly active contributors [at present I > think > > it only accepts submissions in English ,which is another obstacle, but > that > > could be addressed]. > > The wishlist has explicitly accepted wishes in any language. Thanks

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Community Tech: New Format for 2020 Wishlist Survey

Hi Yuri, I just wanted to respond to this as I think there are two levels of issue here, and on one level I agree and on another I disagree! On the more immediate level about "ok, there's a technical wishlist, what should we do with it" - I think it's a reasonable decision for the WMF to opt to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] FY1819 Fundraising Report

Hi Chuck, The reasons the question keeps getting asked is because it was never really answered in the first place. The only good reason I can think of for not publishing country-level data is that there are some countries where that could create risks to the WMF or individuals because they're

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Roles_%26_Responsibilities/Recommendations Thanks, Chris Keating User:The Land On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:37 PM Nicole Ebber wrote: > Dear fellow Wikimedians, > > They’re here! [1] We are delighted to announce the fi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcoming Ryan Merkley to the Wikimedia Foundation

> "*support the strategy core team to move the Working Group recommendations > into implementation within the community and Foundation over the course of > the coming year."* > > Does that mean that it has already been decided to implement those > rcommendations, irrespective to the views of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

> > > I have some bigger concerns with a few of the other strategy proposals and > I am thinking about how to engage with the people who made those proposals. > I don't want people to feel that their ideas are being casually dismissed, > nor do I want to have hostility between the WGs and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hi Ziko, There is in fact a rationale within the text of the recommendation. In essence, it's that some communities will never share their heritage if it can then be re-used in a manner they consider disrespectful. Of course one can disagree with that statement on a factual level, or ask for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hi Yaroslav, > No, it does not work like this. Large communities are only going to accept > decisions which were discussed with them properly, on their project and in > the two-way interaction mode. The discussions on Meta in the mode "we will > listen to you and then let you know of our

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Some goodbye to all

> > It is extremely disappointing, and *extremely typical* of the Wikimedia > movement, to see an entire thread like this dedicated to supporting someone > who Trust & Safety has found to have acted in such a way that they had to > intervene. It is even more disappointing to see a person who was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

> > Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not > sure the strategy process is properly addressing. Does the WMF lead and > direct the Wikimedia movement? Personally, I don't think the WMF knows the answer to this, either in practice, or what they want. We are in a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

Hi all, I just wanted to note that the facilitators have now posted their meeting notes from the election process: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/notes These clearly raise some issues. Hopefully these issues can be addressed before any future similar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate kind > of stuff, what was she expecting, really. > > Maybe she was expecting people to read what she actually said, and engage with it,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

> > So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to > participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people > to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't > get counted. > > Well, Maria Sefidari (Raystorm) showed up and ended up

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

I think we should probably reflect on the fact we've got to the point where arguments along the lines of "This guy shouldn't be blocked, he was only telling people to fuck themselves" are sort of normal. This kind of behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in any other movement or community or

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Board WMNL

> > (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

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

ement/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 m

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

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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Foundation events team

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

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

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: >

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Plea from Wikimedia Portugal

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

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

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

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

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, &g

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

rences, 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 > > > > t

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

> > 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 >

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

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 &

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ar. > > > > > 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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimédia France Governance review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suspension of FDC grantmaking

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/Pro

[Wikimedia-l] Suspension of FDC grantmaking

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

  1   2   3   4   >