Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Tilman Bayer]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> 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
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
might also have played a role for the FDC's recommendation?

>
> 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



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
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

[David Gerard]

On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner  wrote:

> 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.


This sort of disastrous outcome seems, IIRC, precisely what chapters
were expecting, and were up in arms about, when the WMF first asserted
absolute control of the funding. These arguments being what WMF staff
decided they weren't interested in listening to any more, leading to
internal-l falling into disuse. Unfortunately, as Deryck notes,
ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 26/04/13 19:38, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

* Andrea Zanni wrote:

At the moment, Wikisource could be a interesting corpora and laboratory for
improving and enhancing OCR,
as the OCR generated text is always proofread and corrected by humans.


Try also Distributed Proofreaders. It is my impression that Wikisource's 
proofreading standards are not always up to par.



As part of our project (
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_vision_development), Micru was
looking for a GSoC candidate for studing the reinsertion of proofread text
into djvus [1], but at the moment didn't find any interested student. We
have some contacts with people at Google working on Tesseract, and they
were available for mentoring.



[1] We thought about this both for OCR enhancement purposes and files
updating on Commons and Internet Archive (which is off topic here).


I built various tools that could be fairly easily adapted for this, my
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:lists.w3.org+intitle:hoehrmann+ocr
notes are available. One of the tools for instance is a diff tool, see
image at .


This is a very interesting approach :)

___
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

[Christophe Henner]

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)" 
Sender: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:36 
To: 
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[MZMcBride]

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] Proposal to use the internal wiki more

[Oliver Keyes]

On 28 April 2013 09:49, Federico Leva (Nemo)  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.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] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Mike Godwin]

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] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Jeromy-Yu Chan (Jerry~Yuyu)]

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] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Alex Peek]

Honest hardworking non-profits deserve more taxpayer money. I am optimistic
that future generations figure this out


On 28 April 2013 16:42, Nathan  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

[Nathan]

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

[Erik Moeller]

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

[Fae]

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

[Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to everyone

[Deryck Chan]

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] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[James Alexander]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM, 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
>


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Steven Walling]

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  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" 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 28 April 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.
> > >
> > > 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  >
> > > 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.com>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> 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?

[Risker]

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  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"  wrote:
>
> > On 28 April 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.
> >
> > 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 
> > 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.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 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 
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Asaf Bartov
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >>
> > >> 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...

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[MF-Warburg]

2013/4/28 Pavel Richter 

> 2013/4/28 Sue Gardner 
>
> > 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?

[Pavel Richter]

2013/4/28 Sue Gardner 

> 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"  wrote:
>
> > On 28 April 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.
> >
> > 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 
> > 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.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 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 
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Asaf Bartov
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >>
> > >> 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?

[Sarah Stierch]

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  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"  wrote:
>
> > On 28 April 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.
> >
> > 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 
> > 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.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 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 
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Asaf Bartov
> > >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >>
> > >> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the
> > >> sum of all knowledge. Help us make

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Sue Gardner]

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"  wrote:

> On 28 April 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.
>
> 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 
> 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.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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 
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Asaf Bartov
> >> Wikimedia Foundation 
> >>
> >> 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?

[Andrew Gray]

On 28 April 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.

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  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) 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 
>>> Unsubscribe: 
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Asaf Bartov
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>
>> 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] FDC round 2 results are up

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

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

[Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[joko suwito]

thank you wiki.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Accommodation best practices

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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] Accommodation best practices

[Maarten Dammers]

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] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Huib Laurens]

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  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  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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Itzik Edri]

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  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] Announcement: Jan Eissfeldt joins Wikimedia Foundation as Community Advocate

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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 

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 
 
(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] volunteers who don't know about opportunities

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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]

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)
wrote:

> 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
>

___
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] Proposal to use the internal wiki more

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

The problem of internal communication came up again at WMCON, but only 
about internal-l, see the couple quick opinions expressed: 



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

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

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] Why not everyone have the right to vote in the Board & FDC elections?

[Katie Chan]

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