The conclusion in response to Itzik's original question how the
current jury was elected and by who, is that the Wikimania jury is
not elected, it was selected by a WMF employee against unpublished and
presumably undefined criteria. Sadly, there are no plans or commitment
by the WMF to change or
I do agree that it should be great to have a transparent way to elect the
jury, but people, let's at least take the word or the people who commented
here. The ones who come here and said I do work for a wikimedia org, but
I'm in the jury as a volunteer. Why do not believe in then? Most of then
Based on a prompt from Itzik, I checked the archives of wikimania-l
(which I was not subscribed to). There is a message from Stuart Prior
there with a very brief summary of background of jury members which I
was unaware of and it may have been intended as a response to my
question. Refer to
If you're interested in discussing the future of Wikimania, perhaps it
makes sense to do that on the dedicated list? Just a wild thought.
Best, Lodewijk
2014-10-10 13:25 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
Based on a prompt from Itzik, I checked the archives of wikimania-l
(which I was not
On 10 October 2014 14:58, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
If you're interested in discussing the future of Wikimania, perhaps it
makes sense to do that on the dedicated list? Just a wild thought.
Thanks for the thought. Itzik's general question was posted to
Wikimedia-l, so
Hi Risker,
You seem to have missed the point, this is not a question of bad faith
in any person. Itzik's question exposed failure in making a key
procedure in how our movement manages funding properly transparent.
Please do not derail the issue into one of personalities. There is no
doubt that
Fæ, 10/10/2014 16:44:
[...] a WMF employee make community decisions for us (such as
appointing the Jury [...]
I've not inspected the facts in detail, but as far as I could understand
this is NOT what happened, so it's a bit annoying to hear you repeat it
continuously. I added a summary to
On 10.10.2014 18:56, Fæ wrote:
As for transparency, you are not in a strong position to lecture,
considering that your behind-the-scenes actions got me banned from the
English Wikipedia just a couple of days after Phillipe Beadette had a
supposedly personal and private conversation with you
That seems rather unfair. Fæ is raising some valid points about how this
process has taken place this year, which are worth addressing. Dismissing
concerns unless there is a comprehensive proposal for reform seems like a
reduction to bureaucracy…
Thanks,
Mike
On 10 Oct 2014, at 18:26, Nathan
He's already stated his concerns repeatedly. It would be a lot more
constructive if he had any suggestions for improvement. As always, the
issue with Fae's comments is that he buries a valid point in a mess of
combative argumentation and borderline offensive aspersions. If he believes
the process
Hey Manuel, Thank you for the response.
Transparency is always good - and this case really shows why.
While Ellie didn't respond and answered the question how people been
elected, and summarize her answer to: We have a system that works for jury
selection. Your side and answer shows a whole
With the greatest of respect, everyone, can we please remember that I'm
volunteering for this. I'm not paid to do it. It's out of my own time, the
sametime in which I edit Wikipedia. Who my employer is doesn't (and
shouldn't, in my opinion) enter into it. I don't have to volunteer for the
jury - I
Ellie,
I don't think We have a system that works for jury selection is
appropriate answer. I just asked how and by who, not but it strange for me
that this simple question is been unanswered.
Adding to my first email, now that I familiar more with the jury members -
from one hand I'm happy to
I'm seriously having doubts why this is becoming such a drama for some
people. There's a clear process (the Wikimania committee selects a jury,
which selects a winning bid to be confirmed by the WMF) and they asked for
volunteers, which they selected a jury from. Yay.
Because lets face it, being
On 30 September 2014 14:12, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I'm seriously having doubts why this is becoming such a drama for some
people. There's a clear process (the Wikimania committee selects a jury,
which selects a winning bid to be confirmed by the WMF) and they asked for
Hey Manuel,
Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by who?
Correct me, but beside Richard Sydmonds - all the members of this year jury
are new? there is not continuity in the jury?
Itzik
*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 |
I also would like to know the answer to Itzik question:
Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by who?
_
*Béria L. de Rodríguez*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.
On 29 September 2014 14:45, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
I also would like to know the answer to Itzik question:
Can you elaborate more on how the current jury was elected and by who?
Richard Symonds
Stuart Prior
Claudia Garad
Esteban Zarate
Daniel Bryant
Finne Boonen
It also makes me wonder how hard whoever elected the jury worked to find
interested unpaid volunteers as opposed to employees who are part of the
normal professional networks.
I might be wrong, but I didnt saw a mail with a call for volunteers to
compose the jury like they do every year.
We have a system that works for jury selection. What I would STRONGLY like to
encourage people in the community to do is seek out prospective people who
would be good hosts and work with me on preparing a bid. That is is our
biggest need! The CFP was posted earlier this month.
Thank you
20 matches
Mail list logo
