On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:46 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:30 PM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:
pheobe, concerning your motion to vote saying:
wikimedia foundation grows, the affiliated organisations do not grow
the
What I can say about this new-old not surprising decision?
When WMDE posted their feedback about the FDC, the responses from the
board/fdc was wait, we want to finish 2 years cycle and then talk about
the it. Of course it didn't stopped the WMF, before having such a
discussion, to decide and limit
phoebe ayers, 11/02/2014 06:33:
The Board also decided
that new organizations should first form as a user group and have two years
of programmatic experience before being approved as a legally incorporated
entity (either a chapter or thematic organization).
A very unfortunate slowdown. What a
Itzik Edri skrev 2014-02-11 09:26:
makes the FDC kind of powerless, having to face him over the next 2 year with
a
really hard decisions about really limiting the allocation for the
chapters, without of course, having enough time, knowledge or resources for
them to prepare for self
On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
Hi Phoebe,
thanks for your answer !
It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic organization.
However, this is an assessment at a given point in time. How the group
If you were thinking of applying for a scholarship from either the
Wikimania Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland, or Wikimedia Österreich,
the deadline is end of the day UTC this coming Monday. Don't miss it!
Katie
On 08/01/2014 17:37, Katie Chan wrote:
Hi all,
Scholarship applications for
If you were thinking of applying for a scholarship from either the
Wikimania Foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland, or Wikimedia Österreich,
the deadline is end of the day UTC this coming Monday. Don't miss it!
Katie
On 08/01/2014 17:37, Katie Chan wrote:
Hi all,
Scholarship applications for
Dear Frederic,
On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:44, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote:
On 11/02/14 09:03, phoebe ayers wrote:
Hi Phoebe,
thanks for your answer !
It is indeed up to the WMF to decide the conditions a group must have
achieved before being recognized as a chapter or thematic
Hi,
I'm very sorry about these decisions. Not only because I disagree with them
on the content (although there are one or two aspects I can live with) and
because I think this is very bad for the volunteers, but also because the
board returned to a mode where they make decisions without involving
Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
statement presented to the Board, which resulted in the establishment of
these new guidelines.What resolution is the Board seeking to achieve? In
the
Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that be, Cynthia? The
board's consensus is reflected in the decision. There's almost no public
discussion of this outside of this specific thread on a mailing list (a
grand total of two comments on the talk page of the FAQ, as I write), so
I'm not
Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to
have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established
members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff
seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton
wool and glib praise, that
Per Fae, a short response in bullet points:
* I'm sorry. I take your criticisms seriously.
* How we got to this point, as I see it*: I think the Board felt we had
gotten input from AffCom because we saw their responses to the proposal to
change to a usergroup-first approval model, which was
Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear. I'm referring to the
current consensus of the community, i.e., the feedback being received about
this decision.
Cynthia
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to be nit-picky, but what consensus would that
Hi Phoebe,
Thanks for the swift reply. Please note that the proposal sent to AffCom by
the staff was /not/ the same proposal considered by the board. The
arguments presented with it, were not even close to the ones presented now
- it is unrealistic to expect AffCom to be able to provide any
While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that
AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have imagined
occurring. I have noticed it mentioned a few times that our feedback was
Certainly, in the last 2 years and before, a handful of Wikimedia
volunteer groups have been quite as active and organized as those
currently being classified as User Groups - only the option of being
recognized as User Groups did not exist for them at the time of their
founding.
And it is a good
Hello Frédéric, a quick comment:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Frédéric Schütz sch...@mathgen.ch wrote:
Your decision is not you should have a good track
record, it is you should have a good track record AND NOT have bylaws.
Bylaws are fine, whatever makes sense for each group; just not
Lodewijk, 11/02/2014 19:36:
Maybe the board had a reason to rush through this decision without
consultation, but I still haven't heard any satisfying argument for that.
To me it seems rather obvious. The board (together with the WMF
executives?) is worried about more organisations asking
Dear members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, dear Wikimedians,
I would like to share a few thoughts and questions with you. Thoughts
and questions that I would love to see being addressed when talking
about these movement issues. I have the feeling that this substantial
decision is
One of the (many) problems that I have with this is that it both makes
these user groups more dependent on movement funds for a longer period of
time, but then caps those funds in the same decision. It is easy to tell
the org to just find some outside funding (which is mentioned in the FAQ) -
Hello All -
We (WMF Grantmaking) have reached the conclusion of the first round of
Individual Engagement Grants (IEG)! The grants program itself was an
experiment, and we are excited by the types of innovations emerging from
the project thus far.
Take a look and join the discussion on the blog
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.comwrote:
One of the (many) problems that I have with this is that it both makes
these user groups more dependent on movement funds for a longer period of
time, but then caps those funds in the same decision.
One quick
2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com:
Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.
IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with 7-3 and 6-4[1],
when you can see that most of the times[2] the vote was unanimous.
Cristian
[1]
Consensus is not the same as unanimity, and anyone who's crossed a few
different Wikimedia projects will know that what is defined as consensus
varies pretty widely, from majority +1 to 80% or higher support. For the
purposes of board votes, it's majority +1.
I'm actually quite pleased that the
Speaking in my personal capacity, I echo the surprise that the Board has
decided to move a motion before they had full or close to full consensus on
the issue - which is in general a departure from the usual.
I can only assume that there was a better reason behind the urgency than
the need to
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Gregory Varnum
gregory.var...@gmail.comwrote:
While AffCom will likely be making an official statement later, I am having
a hard time not chiming in and I do think it is worth pointing out that
AffCom was not consulted in a manner I think most of us would have
2014-02-11 23:01 GMT+01:00 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Consensus is not the same as unanimity, and anyone who's crossed a few
different Wikimedia projects will know that what is defined as consensus
varies pretty widely, from majority +1 to 80% or higher support. For the
purposes of board
Hi Greg and all,
This is not a direct reply to your points, but I think it might be helpful
in removing the cloak of mystery from all this.
Here is what happened during the board meeting, from my perspective.*
Background context:
* The board has been discussing movement roles for
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit :
For me in these debates about funding, which often present the staff on
one
side pushing to reduce the relative power and centrality of chapters on
one
side and chapter representatives pushing the opposite way on the other
side,
On 2/11/14, 9:18 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
The WMF also wants to let all groups have easier access to trademarks
and funds. This is what user groups were designed to allow, with
minimal overhead. These two ideas were combined into be a user group
for two years.
This part I do think is a good
*This Month in GLAM* is a monthly newsletter documenting recent happenings
within the GLAM project, such as content donations, residencies, events and
more. GLAM is an acronym of *G*alleries, *L*ibraries, *A*rchives and *M*useums.
You can find more information on the project at glamwiki.org.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.comwrote:
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit :
Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of
Trustees, FDC and AffCom, as well as Board members of all Chapters. All of
us are
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstood what I was wondering about, which is probably my
fault as I was trying to avoid giving any specific examples. But without at
all attempting to disparage her or suggest that her intentions are anything
Le 12 févr. 2014 04:20, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 12 févr. 2014 00:10, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com a écrit :
Well, it's actually pretty straightforward. For members of the Board of
Trustees, FDC and
35 matches
Mail list logo
