Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
agreed - I actually don't see a reason why the elections should not be limited to Wikimedia editors with some edit count. I would assume that if there are people in other categories currently eligible to vote, who would lose this privilege if they were required to do some minimal amount of editing, it is not too much of a burden to ask them to start editing, if they indeed want to participate in the community also through elections. best, dj / pundit On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:15 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify volunteer community, for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included. rupert. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active on the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats. A. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34: I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers. I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not. Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- __ dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak profesor zarządzania kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:15 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.comwrote: and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included. In the 2011 election, anyone active with commit access (that is, the ability to change code in the software repository) also got a vote. It looks like that will be the case for this election, too. In principle, I would expect more people to be eligible to vote as developers this time, because the new version control system (Git instead of Subversion) doesn't have the same barriers to access. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
On 28/04/2013 06:15, rupert THURNER wrote: also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify volunteer community, for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included. Erm... Developers qualify to vote if they: Have commit access and have made at least one merged commit in git between 1 May 2012 and 30 April 2013. -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement: Jan Eissfeldt joins Wikimedia Foundation as Community Advocate
Philippe Beaudette, 28/04/2013 06:48: Yep. Meta. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/LCA_Announcement I don't remember reading anything like that in that page, and checking again I find only something about community advisory board... confusion increases. Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal to use the internal wiki more
The problem of internal communication came up again at WMCON, but only about internal-l, see the couple quick opinions expressed: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2013/Documentation/Day_2/WMF_board#Charles:_We_need_Internal-l.2C_what_do_you_think.3F Oliver Keyes, 11/04/2013 17:33: [...] Neither I do. I only asked if they *require* the compartmentalisation that e.g. Tom described – otherwise they could as well happen in a slightly different context (like for instance use the internal wiki more, given that's the thread we're in). Yep; there's no reason we should be giving that sort of thing out to random chapters people or trusted volunteers; they have no use case for it. No reason to is not a reason not to, so your yes means no given my question. (And also by analogy, because most people in officewiki won't have a use case for that stuff either.) Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement: Jan Eissfeldt joins Wikimedia Foundation as Community Advocate
The annual plan 2012-13, published a couple of months after the announcement mid 2012, provided more explicitation; saying on p. 42: ..we intend to invest in more thoroughly understanding the non-en-WP communities, and growing our social and political capital. To that end, we will build a team of three community advocates inside the Legal and Community Advocacy department, with the goal of better understanding the non-English language communities, particularly German, Japanese, Spanish, Russian, French and Italian. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf And the underlying reasoning also resurfaced in the narrowing focus effort in October 2012: Wikimedia's success depends on successful two-way communication across projects and languages. ..[..]..We view this as a necessary core activity, and investments on this front as remedial. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner/Narrowing_focus#How_do_Wikipedia_Zero.2C_the_Global_Education_Program.2C_and_the_Community_Advocacy_team_fit_into_this.3F On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Philippe Beaudette, 28/04/2013 06:48: Yep. Meta. http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Legal_and_Community_** Advocacy/LCA_Announcementhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/LCA_Announcement I don't remember reading anything like that in that page, and checking again I find only something about community advisory board... confusion increases. Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Jan Eissfeldt Community Advocate Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] volunteers who don't know about opportunities
Sumana Harihareswara, 24/02/2013 16:07: [...] I don't know the answer. Like Josh, I don't know how well our publicity about these things is penetrating our volunteer communities, and I don't know what level of penetration I would be satisfied with. I suspect that others have better answers regarding what we've tried, what works, and what we're doing next, and I'd love to hear them. This is a general problem and (in my experience) always a very distressing one, but there's no amount of communication that can fix it: you have to live with the defects of human nature, you can't assume information symmetry and rationality. In the end, you can only assess if your program has increased equality or actually reduced it, and move your eggs to another basket in the latter case. (The tragedy is when you're not able to assess.) Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement: Jan Eissfeldt joins Wikimedia Foundation as Community Advocate
Jan Eissfeldt, 28/04/2013 11:23: The annual plan 2012-13, published a couple of months after the announcement mid 2012, provided more explicitation [...] I remember that passage very well, I know that these positions have been announced a long time ago; I specifically asked documentation of «The community advocacy team [...] is an attempt to shore up the Foundation's knowledge of non-English speaking projects». At this point we can conclude that the documentation doesn't yet exist. I suggest to work on the page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy A start could be to answer the questions «What does it mean? How can you help? What do we do?» you asked yourself over a year ago at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Community_Advocacy (I assume you found an answer, but it's not communicated). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone. Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their bosses.. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers. Most chapter members and representatives participate not only in the community elections but also in the selection of chapter-nominated board seats. It doesn't seem like chapters as a group are at all disenfranchised. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
I would say my view on the voting rules also, like last year where I was a active editor but wasn't allowed to vote because of the rule that you can't be blocked on more then one project. I was that year a administrator, list administrator and member of the LangCom. But was blocked on a project where I was active before and on a project where I never editted.. This made me not able to vote. With the rule of being blocked it will be very EASY to remove people you don't want to vote... Just block them for a while and they can't vote. The rules of the voting should be changed, so that it would be more easy for people to vote and not let there be a change that people can be excluded from voting by just random facts. Huib On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote: I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal right to everyone. Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a processes where we are not granting chapters and others organizations the right to vote but granting to the WMF. Giving only WMF staff, and not chapters staff the right to vote in community process, it's like saying the first are part of the community, but the second are not. I don't even want to refer to the sensitive issue of the staff voting for their bosses.. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers. Most chapter members and representatives participate not only in the community elections but also in the selection of chapter-nominated board seats. It doesn't seem like chapters as a group are at all disenfranchised. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Met vriendelijke groet, Huib Laurens ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Accommodation best practices
Hi everyone, Last year after the Berlin Hackathon I sent an email to internal-l about the accommodation. The text I sent was quite sharp to get a response. A lot of people replied to the email and it contained a lot of useful opinions. The discussion was quite heated at some point and I would like to have something positive from it. I still have it on my todo list to start and/ or improve the Accommodation best practices. Does such a page already exist on meta or should I start a new one? Maarten ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Accommodation best practices
Maarten Dammers, 28/04/2013 11:58: Last year after the Berlin Hackathon I sent an email to internal-l about the accommodation. The text I sent was quite sharp to get a response. A lot of people replied to the email and it contained a lot of useful opinions. The discussion was quite heated at some point and I would like to have something positive from it. I still have it on my todo list to start and/ or improve the Accommodation best practices. Does such a page already exist on meta or should I start a new one? The only thing I know about is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WH#Accommodations Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] (no subject)
thank you wiki. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] FDC round 2 results are up
Greetings friends, As you know, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) helps to make decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve Wikimedia’s mission, vision, and strategy. [1]. On behalf of the FDC, I am pleased to announce recommendations for Round 2 of funds allocations for the year 2012-13. [2] The WMF Board of Trustees will make a decision on these recommendations by June 1, 2013. This round, the FDC received proposals from four Wikimedia movement entities for a total requested amount of 1.2 million USD. The FDC and the FDC staff spent significant time reviewing all four proposals. The FDC staff prepared materials for the FDC review, including analysis on finances, grant compliance, and programs and presented an overview of these findings to the FDC. The FDC members asked questions of the entities on-wiki over the four-week community review period and closely followed the community questions and commentary on the proposals. The FDC recently met in Milan for three days (April 22-24, 2013) for an additional in-depth review and deliberation on all proposals. To learn more about the review and deliberation process, please visit the recommendations page. The FDC would like to thank all the entities that submitted proposals. Submitting a proposal requires a tremendous amount of work. We'd like to recognize the staff and volunteers that put so much time and effort into creating the proposals, liaising with the FDC members and support staff, and answering questions on the proposal page. We appreciate all of their efforts. We, the FDC, are still learning about the fund-seeking process. For the next few months, we will be reviewing the FDC proposal process, the FDC portal, and all the associated forms. We'd like to hear from you about how you think we can improve (the discussion on this topic started already during our feedback session in Milan, with many great suggestions). We invite you, members of the community to provide feedback about the recommendations and the process by providing feedback about the FDC process on-wiki to the Ombudsperson. [3] The Ombudsperson will collect this feedback and use it in our continuous improvement process. For formal complaints about the recommendations, there is a separate process that entities should follow. Any entity that would like to submit a complaint about the FDC’s Round 2 recommendation should submit it by 23:59 UTC on 8 May 2013 in accordance with the complaint process outlined in the FDC Framework. The process is as follows: [4] * The complaint should be in the form of a 500-or-fewer word summary directed to the two non-voting WMF Board representatives on the FDC (Jan-Bart and Patricio) * The complaint should be submitted on-wiki, through the FDC portal page designated for this purpose [5] * These board representatives will present the complaint to the WMF Board at the same time it considers the FDC recommendation. * Formal complaints can be submitted only by the Board Chair of a funding-seeking entity. * Formal complaints must be filed within seven days of the submission of the FDC slate of recommendations to the WMF Board (by end of day UTC May 8) * Any planned or approved disbursements to the organization filing a complaint will be put on hold until the complaint is resolved. * If the WMF Board's consideration of the complaint results in an amendment of the FDC's recommendations (which is expected only in extraordinary circumstances), the WMF Board may choose to release extra funds from the WMF reserves to provide additional funds not allocated by the FDC's initial recommendation. * Other members of the WMF Board may participate in the investigation if approved by the Chair of the WMF Board. Thank you for all of your support over the inaugural year of the FDC's work. We look forward to hearing your feedback. On behalf of the FDC, pundit Dariusz Jemielniak, (Chair) [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2 [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Appeals_regarding_FDC_process/2012-2013_round2 [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board [5] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Complaints_regarding_FDC_recommendations_to_the_board/2012-2013_round2 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway. Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense? Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify volunteer community, for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included. The first elections (in 2004) had a simple three months in the community rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any complicated rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* Wikimedia server administrators with shell access were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en So we've already got those in :-) I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as community members) voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin! (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections) - Andrew. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active on the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats. A. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34: I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers. I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not. Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
I think it's a good idea Sue. Wikipedians are different than Wikimedians, etc.. There are many people on boards of chapters and involved in the community that might not edit on wiki spaces, making them perhaps unable to vote. And there are a lot of people involved in the community that aren't editors or active on wiki, but, are strong voices involved in helping to shape the movement into what it is. I also think, culturally, it's critical that we consider moving away from assuming people with high edit counts are more important than those without. (bytes versus edit counts) Regarding staff members who vote - I have a feeling most staff members who do not contribute to the projects outside of their work obligations probably won't vote. Just a guess (based on what I gather around the office - just because you work for Wikimedia doesn't mean you contribute to our projects outside of work hours). -Sarah On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway. Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense? Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify volunteer community, for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included. The first elections (in 2004) had a simple three months in the community rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any complicated rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* Wikimedia server administrators with shell access were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en So we've already got those in :-) I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as community members) voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin! (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections) - Andrew. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active on the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats. A. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34: I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers. I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not. Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
2013/4/28 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense? Yes, that would be a very good solution! Pavel Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify volunteer community, for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included. The first elections (in 2004) had a simple three months in the community rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any complicated rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* Wikimedia server administrators with shell access were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en So we've already got those in :-) I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as community members) voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin! (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections) - Andrew. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active on the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats. A. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34: I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers. I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not. Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
2013/4/28 Pavel Richter pavel.rich...@wikimedia.de 2013/4/28 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense? Yes, that would be a very good solution! Pavel That's probably why edits on all wikis count already. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013#Requirements ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
I'd actually suggest the opposite: That the only people eligible to vote for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia projects. That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board eligibility. Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter staffbut eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election every year that involves the entire community. Risker On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway. Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense? Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify volunteer community, for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included. The first elections (in 2004) had a simple three months in the community rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any complicated rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* Wikimedia server administrators with shell access were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en So we've already got those in :-) I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as community members) voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin! (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections) - Andrew. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active on the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats. A. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34: I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid workers who also participate as volunteers. I agree with Nathan, simplifying the rules is useful while complicating them for a few dozens voters is not. Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation http://www.wikimediafoundation.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
On Sunday, April 28, 2013, Risker wrote: I'd actually suggest the opposite: That the only people eligible to vote for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia projects. That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board eligibility. Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter staffbut eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election every year that involves the entire community. Risker Speaking personally, I agree with Risker. On 28 April 2013 16:43, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote: Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway. Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense? Thanks, Sue On Apr 28, 2013 1:26 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 28 April 2013 06:15, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: also agree to simplify the rules. what i'd really love would be to better standardize and with it simplify volunteer community, for all elections and votes. and at least my wish would be that people who donate their time by sending code patches to software considered essential to run the site are included. The first elections (in 2004) had a simple three months in the community rule. After that, we added edit count restrictions. The first election with any complicated rules - allowing people in without passing the edit count limits - was 2008, when WMF staff, ex-Board members, *and* Wikimedia server administrators with shell access were added. In 2011, this got extended to people who have commit access and have made at least one commit between 15 May 2010 and 15 May 2011. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/en So we've already got those in :-) I'm ambivalent about whether it's appropriate to have staff members (those who don't independently qualify as community members) voting or not, but I think in principle Itzik has a very good point - either *both* WMF and Chapter staff should be able to vote, or *neither* should. I can't see any reason that it's right for a staffer in San Francisco to participate in the election, but it isn't right for one in Berlin! (It may be too late to change anything for this time around, of course, but it would be great if we could ensure consistency in future elections) - Andrew. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote: Also agree with Nathan. Those chapter board members who are not active on the projects already have a far greater relative weight in selecting the chapter-selected board seats. A. On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Nathan, 27/04/2013 21:34: I would go the other way, and limit the participants in the election for the community seat to people who are members of the volunteer community. Presumably that would include most members of most organizational boards, but only include those staff and other paid ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'd actually suggest the opposite: That the only people eligible to vote for the three elected seats be active participants within the Wikimedia projects. That would drop the staff/contractor and advisory board eligibility. Alternately, let's make everyone eligible, including chapter staffbut eliminate the chapter-appointed seats and have an election every year that involves the entire community. Risker Also speaking personally I'd completely agree. I think the chapter community, while different, certainly deserves a role in the elections but have never been fully comfortable with the separation of chapter seats (or, I imagine if they were kept 'organization seats for movement groups would probably be included too) and 'community seats'. Rather then push the different community groups apart let us push them together and have them all vote on all 5 of the community seats. Our community is spread out in to many different areas but I'd say they are all part of the wider community and I do not think any one deserves special recognition or status over the others. These are 'your' board members compared to 'our' board members, they should all be there to work for the foundation (as they are required by law to do) and the movement as a whole. James ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Dear trusty Wikimedians, The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection of our FDC proposal. At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team. My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and of little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole. My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative with its strategies and so led into mainstream charity bureaucracy that it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement. My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff to deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love Wikimedia. My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion. WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request was rejected. And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that. My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and the frustration? Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities, particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging toddlers by their full marathon times. Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary idea to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters professionalise. I was wrong. With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better spent helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again. But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement heading. I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort. I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable efforts will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about overheads and staffing. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html With Wiki-Love, Deryck PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I want to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of proportion. Or perhaps I do
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
I am very sorry to read this Deryck. I know how completely committed you are to our movement and you have my sincere respect. I hope that those with influence carefully consider the issues you raise, and take a moment for doubt and serious review. Fae (mobile) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK funding discussions: WMHK FDC proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form Responses: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Staff_proposal_assessment FDC round 2 results: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_round2 Erik ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed upon them. That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts? Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those experiences less painful for all involved. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Honest hardworking non-profits deserve more taxpayer money. I am optimistic that future generations figure this out On 28 April 2013 16:42, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Asking for money to do something you are passionate about, and being subject to the scrutiny and criticism of your valued peers, was always going to be a wrenching and soul-sucking process. This is a good time to acknowledge that, and to think about how the FDC can make volunteers more comfortable and reduce the stress and burden imposed upon them. That said... It seems to be an eminently legitimate point, that taking a chapter from essentially no funding to US$200k in one year is a massive leap that is both risky and unnecessary. Maybe it would make more sense to go from zero staff members to one, instead of three? Pay on a contract basis for book-keeping and legal assistance, and hire a program person to help coordinate volunteer programmatic efforts? Perhaps what's needed from the FDC is better guidance in advance about what the organic growth chart of chapter organizations should look like, and what level of funding increases year to year can be expected vs. what is out of bounds. We don't want volunteers to feel encouraged to shoot for the moon, and then suffer when their dreams are punctured. While predictably will accrue on its own over time and experience, better guidance on what to expect might make those experiences less painful for all involved. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hi all I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board FDC elections?
Sue writes: Interesting thread, Itzik --- to be honest, I had forgotten that staff had been granted the right to vote regardless of edit count. I wouldn't be surprised if the only staff members who do vote are those who would qualify under the edit count requirement anyway. Seems to me that rather than creating new exemptions from the edit count requirement, we might be better off to lower the number of edits required so that anybody who's demonstrated interest in the projects would qualify. If edits on meta, mediawiki, outreach, etc., qualify, and we were to lower the edit count requirement, then I think that would be inclusive of most/all contributors. Would something like that make sense? It makes sense to me. I think many thoughtful people recognize that the edit-count requirement is a fairly weak metric of engagement in the Wikimedia community. I also think the exemptions actually have reflected the same recognition -- that someone who is not a dedicated editor may be a committed and contributing member of the community in other ways than super-numerous recent edits. That there should be some threshold of engagement I think is necessary to prevent capture of WMF board, but I'm not sure it needs to be as high as it is right now. FWIW, when I was on staff I did not vote for WMF board positions, even though I could, because I thought it was important in the role I was playing to recuse myself from engagement in the elections. I don't think that reasoning would apply to all staff members, but it felt applicable in my particular case. --Mike ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal to use the internal wiki more
On 28 April 2013 09:49, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: The problem of internal communication came up again at WMCON, but only about internal-l, see the couple quick opinions expressed: https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_** 2013/Documentation/Day_2/WMF_**board#Charles:_We_need_** Internal-l.2C_what_do_you_**think.3Fhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2013/Documentation/Day_2/WMF_board#Charles:_We_need_Internal-l.2C_what_do_you_think.3F Oliver Keyes, 11/04/2013 17:33: [...] Neither I do. I only asked if they *require* the compartmentalisation that e.g. Tom described – otherwise they could as well happen in a slightly different context (like for instance use the internal wiki more, given that's the thread we're in). Yep; there's no reason we should be giving that sort of thing out to random chapters people or trusted volunteers; they have no use case for it. No reason to is not a reason not to, so your yes means no given my question. (And also by analogy, because most people in officewiki won't have a use case for that stuff either.) When the information contains personal data, it is totally a reason not to. -- Oliver Keyes Community Liaison, Product Development Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Erik Moeller wrote: As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK funding discussions: [...] Thanks for the links. I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public? Or is it a single recommendation encompassing all requests for that round and members vote on that? And if so, is that vote public? From the round 2 recommendation[3] we find the following snippet of text. We are concerned about the general increase in staff hiring that has been taking place over the last year, in particular where staff are performing functions that volunteers have been leading. We encourage entities to focus on balancing the work done by staff and volunteers in line with the Wikimedia movement's ethos of volunteers leading work, and to focus on having staff coordinate volunteer activities. We are also concerned about the growth rates of both staff and budgets. We would ask entities to consider whether their growth rates are sustainable in the long term, and whether they are leading to the most impact possible. Is the FDC commenting on the Wikimedia chapters here or on the Wikimedia Foundation (or both)? The scope of both the FDC and these comments is unclear to me. MZMcBride [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_members/Current_round [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Decision-making [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=5440314 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone
Hi sorry to hear about that Deryck. Hope we'll get to see you back around here. As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund the first employee. The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time and energy. This is a process everyone should want to avoid as much as possible. As you said we mostly are volunteers not used, or even expecting, that level of scrutiny. And the toll the FDC takes is high. What we would need: 1/ remember that GAC can fund external expert support (accountant, ...) 2/ FDC process is not the only way to get funds 3/ a simpler step to get the first employee. Either more complex GAC proposal or simpler FDC proposal. Either way :) We are not different from other charities. We need a process to disseminate funds within the movement. And with high amount of money comes high amount of responsability. Again, I'm sorry FDC toll is so high on you and your fellow board member. I hope that Wikimania will energize you and will get you back in the movement. Best Christophe Envoye depuis mon Blackberry -Original Message- From: Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu) jerry.tschan...@gmail.com Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:36 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone Hi all I am ACTUALLY PANIC when reading this. Normally I would say please don't go, but realizing myself I am not on the Local Chapter board already and even myself start to feel don't know what to do next And I am sorry to say, the decision had totally stir up the emotion of the whole Wikimania Local Team I frankly don't know whether if it will lead to a melt down of our volunteer power after frustrations of all these years as Deryck said, as I was on the Board and knew most of the stories. -- Jeromy-Yu Chan, Jerry http://plasticnews.wf/ http://about.me/jeromyu UID: Jeromyu (on Facebook, Twitter, Plurk most sites) Tel (Mobile): +852 9279 1601 Οὔτε τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἄξιον ὂν μεγάλης σπουδῆς ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l