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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
thank you wiki.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
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
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
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
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!
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
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:
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
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
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
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
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_**
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
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
