Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

[Eduardo Testart]

Hi,

The case I found says:

   - Registered: XX feb 2011 (4 years ago), which is actually the date when
   the CentralAuth claims that the account was "attached on".

But:

   - First edit: XX may 2006

This dates do not match when an account was created locally and when an
account was created globally. Also, the field says "registered" but shows
something else.

I believe Asaf could be right, and would agree on a one-time job to
backdate the SUL accounts to the actual first edit of each now-unified
account happened, of course, when things settle down.


Thanks.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Keegan Peterzell <
> kpeterz...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > What you're likely seeing that's causing confusion is the difference
> > between when an account was created locally and when an account was
> created
> > globally. For example, on 16/17 March 1.4 million local accounts were
> > attached to global accounts, so it looks like they were only created a
> > month ago on CentralAuth (because they were only created a month ago on
> > CentralAuth) when the account could be as old as the wiki itself in local
> >
> registration.
> >
>
> Right.  But now that the SULpocalypse is come[1], and we're all one big
> happy user namespace, the value of "date created on CentralAuth" is
> significantly lower than what people really want to see in that field,
> which is "date started editing, anywhere".  It was much more impractical
> until now, but perhaps now (read: when the dust settles and any dangling
> issues are dealt with, and you're back from vacation), it would actually
> make sense to run a one-time job to backdate the SUL accounts to the actual
> first edit of each now-unified account?[2]
>
> Cheers,
>
>the One True [[User:Ijon]] :)
>
> [1] kudos on that, and on the elegantly epic thread resurrection. :)
> [2] Best response possible would be an already-existing Phabricator ticket,
> of course.
>
> --
> 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, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Eduardo Testart
(56)(98) 293 5278 Móvil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Asaf Bartov]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me
> with
> > > their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
> > >
> >
> > So do I. :)
> >
> > > Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site
> > > contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely
> > > focused on the mission of the movement.
>
> > Eh, no, that's not a valid argument.  Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians
> > have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort.  People manage to
> > contribute to the projects if they want to.  It's a matter of
> > prioritization, as always in life.  So we mustn't accept "maybe they're
> > just too busy" as an excuse for why staffers purportedly "can't" edit.
> > Many staffers do.  Some don't.  In both cases, it's by choice and
> > preference.
> >
> I respect the decision of WMF staff to go home and take care of their
> personal business, or be involved in other outside activities, and then
> come back to work refreshed and ready to work on issues related to WMF and
> wikimedia movement.
>

So do I. :)  (Indeed, I have had occasion to remind, uh, a colleague, that
editing Wikipedia or its sister projects is a bit of an unusual hobby, and
that it's Perfectly Fine to not choose to volunteer to do that on your
personal time.)

But it that's their choice, they probably don't need to vote for the WMF
Board of Trustees.  Indeed, they probably won't be very informed voters if
they could.

(to be clear, I have been responding specifically to the "staff may not
have time to edit" argument, which I found unconvincing.  I agree WMF staff
(who do get a vote, in the status quo), should not be privileged over
affiliate staff (who don't), i.e. that status quo is broken.)

   A.
-- 
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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

[Asaf Bartov]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> What you're likely seeing that's causing confusion is the difference
> between when an account was created locally and when an account was created
> globally. For example, on 16/17 March 1.4 million local accounts were
> attached to global accounts, so it looks like they were only created a
> month ago on CentralAuth (because they were only created a month ago on
> CentralAuth) when the account could be as old as the wiki itself in local
>
registration.
>

Right.  But now that the SULpocalypse is come[1], and we're all one big
happy user namespace, the value of "date created on CentralAuth" is
significantly lower than what people really want to see in that field,
which is "date started editing, anywhere".  It was much more impractical
until now, but perhaps now (read: when the dust settles and any dangling
issues are dealt with, and you're back from vacation), it would actually
make sense to run a one-time job to backdate the SUL accounts to the actual
first edit of each now-unified account?[2]

Cheers,

   the One True [[User:Ijon]] :)

[1] kudos on that, and on the elegantly epic thread resurrection. :)
[2] Best response possible would be an already-existing Phabricator ticket,
of course.

-- 
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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Eduardo Testart 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I do not know if this is the right thread to post this (otherwise ignore
> and please post me in the right direction).
>
> I believe that there is a bug in the Central Auth, since I've seen at least
> two users where the information that appears about when they started
> editing does not match the information saved in the wiki (as off first
> edit).
>
> Could this be a bug due to the recent change?
>

Hi there,

What you're likely seeing that's causing confusion is the difference
between when an account was created locally and when an account was created
globally. For example, on 16/17 March 1.4 million local accounts were
attached to global accounts, so it looks like they were only created a
month ago on CentralAuth (because they were only created a month ago on
CentralAuth) when the account could be as old as the wiki itself in local
registration.

Hope that helps explain it.

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Product
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

[Eduardo Testart]

Hi,

I do not know if this is the right thread to post this (otherwise ignore
and please post me in the right direction).

I believe that there is a bug in the Central Auth, since I've seen at least
two users where the information that appears about when they started
editing does not match the information saved in the wiki (as off first
edit).

Could this be a bug due to the recent change?

Best!
El abr. 22, 2015 1:49 PM, "Anna Stillwell" 
escribió:

> Really nicely done. Given how you spoke of this earlier I thought for sure
> this would not be as seamless as it appears to have gone. Congrats again.
> /a
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Philippe Beaudette <
> phili...@wikimedia.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Erik Moeller 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Eloquence~metawiki
> >
> >
> > Geekpoints, +2
> >
> >
> > *Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> > Foundation, Inc.
> > T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :  @Philippewiki
> > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Anna Stillwell
> Senior Learning and Org Dev Lead
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.806.1536
> *www.wikimediafoundation.org *
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

[Dan Garry]

Nice work, Kunal and Keegan. :-)

Dan

On 21 April 2015 at 23:34, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> On Nov 11, 2004, at 03:27:00 UTC , Erik Moeller 
> wrote
> [1]:
>
> > Hi,
> > there's been some movement forward on the Single User Login (SUL) issue.
> I
> >
> > ask the Board to review this mail carefully as this has significant long-
> > term implications and we need Board input to go ahead. I also ask other
> > developers to correct me if I misrepresent anything.
> > There are currently three competing strategies. Before I describe these
> > strategies, let me point out that one important consideration for any
> > system is scalability. That is, single login will be used on all existing
> > and future Wikimedia projects, and potentially even on non-Wikimedia
> sites
> >
> > which we allow to participate in our system.
> > The three strategies are:
> > 1) GLOBAL NAMESPACE, IMMEDIATE CONFLICT RESOLUTION
> > We try to move towards a single global user namespace for all Wikimedia
> > wikis. If a name is already taken in the global namespace, you have to
> > find one which isn't.
> > For the migration, any names which clearly belong to the same user are
> > combined into one. If passwords and email addresses are different, the
> > user can manually link together any accounts which belong to him by
> > providing the passwords.
> > For cases of true name conflicts between the existing wikis, there is a
> > resolution phase, where factors like seniority, use on multiple wikis vs.
> > a single one, etc., are weighed in - the "loser" has to choose a new
> > account name.
> > After the manual resolution phase, any remaining accounts are converted
> to
> >
> > the new system automatically by making them unique, e.g. by adding a
> > number to the username. The transition is now complete. The old system no
> > longer exists.
>
> ---
>
> > 1) is very complex, and we may not find someone willing to deal with the
> > name conflict resolution issue and take the blame from annoyed users at
> > the same time. Naming conflicts will always be an issue in this scheme,
> as
> >
> > e.g. all common first names will be taken, and any small wiki hooking up
> > with our SUL system would feel this impact. People can mutate these
> > usernames relatively easily to make them unique - Erik333 - and the
> system
> >
> > can offer such mutations, but it's still a bit annoying.
>
>
> This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad.
>
> 1.
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-November/061327.html
> 2.
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-April/077576.html
>
> --
> Keegan Peterzell
> Community Liaison, Product
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Dan Garry
Product Manager, Search and Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Fæ]

On 22 April 2015 at 19:26, Sydney Poore  wrote:
...
> At a time in our movement when we are reaching out to partner organization
> (GLAM, universities, etc) to engage them in activities that are outside of
> making on wiki edits, I think we need to expand our ideas about who is a
>  member of our movement with the standing to select the BoT.
>
> A good start to recognizing a broadening of the movement roles is to
> include WMF staff and affiliate staff who do not make onsite edits.
>
> Additionally, I'm not keen on having people go through the motion of making
> just enough edits to get the right to vote as a volunteer when their true
> value to the wikimedia movement is through their staff work.
>
> Sydney

I find hard to understand the point of view of WMF employees who after
a year in employment, have yet to find an hour to make a minimal
number of edits on Wikipedia, just to see what it is like. I would
compare it to working as a web page designer for a supermarket chain,
and never trying to buy some food from one of the stores using your
staff discount.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Sydney Poore]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore 
> wrote:
>
> > I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
> > their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
> >
>
> So do I. :)
>
>
> > Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site
> > contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely
> > focused on the mission of the movement.
> >
>
> Eh, no, that's not a valid argument.  Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians
> have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort.  People manage to
> contribute to the projects if they want to.  It's a matter of
> prioritization, as always in life.  So we mustn't accept "maybe they're
> just too busy" as an excuse for why staffers purportedly "can't" edit.
> Many staffers do.  Some don't.  In both cases, it's by choice and
> preference.
>
I respect the decision of WMF staff to go home and take care of their
personal business, or be involved in other outside activities, and then
come back to work refreshed and ready to work on issues related to WMF and
wikimedia movement.

>
>
> > I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
> > opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
> >
>
> Meeting the suffrage bar as a community member is not difficult.  Those
> (few) staffers who aren't already eligible to vote as either developers or
> content contributors, further filtered by the criterion "cares sufficiently
> to read about candidates and figure out voting" -- which I guesstimate to
> be under 20, and probably under 10 -- could have, and therefore should
> have, simply edited a bit, on any of the projects, to get suffrage.  I
> don't think there's any disenfranchisement if they don't get an automatic
> vote.
>
>A.
>

At a time in our movement when we are reaching out to partner organization
(GLAM, universities, etc) to engage them in activities that are outside of
making on wiki edits, I think we need to expand our ideas about who is a
 member of our movement with the standing to select the BoT.

A good start to recognizing a broadening of the movement roles is to
include WMF staff and affiliate staff who do not make onsite edits.

Additionally, I'm not keen on having people go through the motion of making
just enough edits to get the right to vote as a volunteer when their true
value to the wikimedia movement is through their staff work.

Sydney

> --
> 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, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Nathan]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Aleksey Bilogur 
wrote:

> Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the
> decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for.
>
> Yeah, no COI there *at all*.
>
>
Er, no more than any staff member of the WMF. And for both organizations,
any of them who edit can already vote.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Aleksey Bilogur]

Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the
decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for.

Yeah, no COI there *at all*.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors are members
> of the community. So if we decide that employees of community
> organizations, like the WMF, are part of the Wikimedia community... then
> they should have the right to vote on community seats of the Board of
> Trustees. Whether any individual member of the community has a second
> opportunity to influence the composition of the board is irrelevant to
> determining whether they should have suffrage as a member of the global
> community.
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are many people eligible to
> vote in the election that also have chapter affiliations which give them a
> voice in the chapter-appointed seats. Since we don't disenfranchise them
> for their "double vote" power, we should not disenfranchise other people
> that meet our working definition of who counts as a member of the
> community. Either staff employed on behalf of the movement count
> everywhere, or they don't count at all; there is no reason I can see that
> employees of the WMF are more entitled to vote than, say, employees of
> WMDE.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-04-22 01:49 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians
> have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort.

Except that for most people, editing Wikipedia (or involving oneself in
some manner around the project) is a /diversion/ from their jobs and
whatnot whereas for someone who works at the Foundation it often ends up
being "bringing work home" - which is very different.

I don't think it's fair to paint any group with a broad brush.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Nathan]

The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors are members
of the community. So if we decide that employees of community
organizations, like the WMF, are part of the Wikimedia community... then
they should have the right to vote on community seats of the Board of
Trustees. Whether any individual member of the community has a second
opportunity to influence the composition of the board is irrelevant to
determining whether they should have suffrage as a member of the global
community.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are many people eligible to
vote in the election that also have chapter affiliations which give them a
voice in the chapter-appointed seats. Since we don't disenfranchise them
for their "double vote" power, we should not disenfranchise other people
that meet our working definition of who counts as a member of the
community. Either staff employed on behalf of the movement count
everywhere, or they don't count at all; there is no reason I can see that
employees of the WMF are more entitled to vote than, say, employees of
WMDE.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Aleksey Bilogur]

Re: Gregory. I did not mean incorporation in the legal sense, rather, I
meant it in the community sense, sorry for not being clear :). To clarify,
I am not opposed to lowering the barriers to entry, I am opposed to doing
both that and this, too.

I see two threads of thought here, automatically granting WMF staff voting
privileges (which I weakly oppose, largely per Asaf) and automatically
granting chapter and organization staff voting privileges (which I am
opposed to most strongly).

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore 
> wrote:
>
> > I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
> > their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
> >
>
> So do I. :)
>
>
> > Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site
> > contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely
> > focused on the mission of the movement.
> >
>
> Eh, no, that's not a valid argument.  Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians
> have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort.  People manage to
> contribute to the projects if they want to.  It's a matter of
> prioritization, as always in life.  So we mustn't accept "maybe they're
> just too busy" as an excuse for why staffers purportedly "can't" edit.
> Many staffers do.  Some don't.  In both cases, it's by choice and
> preference.
>
>
> > I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
> > opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
> >
>
> Meeting the suffrage bar as a community member is not difficult.  Those
> (few) staffers who aren't already eligible to vote as either developers or
> content contributors, further filtered by the criterion "cares sufficiently
> to read about candidates and figure out voting" -- which I guesstimate to
> be under 20, and probably under 10 -- could have, and therefore should
> have, simply edited a bit, on any of the projects, to get suffrage.  I
> don't think there's any disenfranchisement if they don't get an automatic
> vote.
>
>A.
> --
> 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, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Asaf Bartov]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
> their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
>

So do I. :)


> Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site
> contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely
> focused on the mission of the movement.
>

Eh, no, that's not a valid argument.  Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians
have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort.  People manage to
contribute to the projects if they want to.  It's a matter of
prioritization, as always in life.  So we mustn't accept "maybe they're
just too busy" as an excuse for why staffers purportedly "can't" edit.
Many staffers do.  Some don't.  In both cases, it's by choice and
preference.


> I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
> opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
>

Meeting the suffrage bar as a community member is not difficult.  Those
(few) staffers who aren't already eligible to vote as either developers or
content contributors, further filtered by the criterion "cares sufficiently
to read about candidates and figure out voting" -- which I guesstimate to
be under 20, and probably under 10 -- could have, and therefore should
have, simply edited a bit, on any of the projects, to get suffrage.  I
don't think there's any disenfranchisement if they don't get an automatic
vote.

   A.
-- 
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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Sydney Poore]

I was speaking in support of keeping the current policy which allows WMF
staff to vote even if they do not meet the eligibility guidelines with a
volunteer account.

The issue of allowing staff in affiliated organizations who are not
volunteers vote is more complex because they could have minimal involvement
with the larger movement, and in some cases already have the ability to
select WMF BoT.

But, I would be inclined to encourage more voices to be heard by inviting
everyone who is part of the wikimedia movement to vote in the WMF BoT
elections.

This could happen by the affiliate organizations encouraging all staff to
become volunteers by giving them time to edit in a volunteer capacity
several hours a month,

or by allowing affiliated organizations to identify a list of staff who are
not on site volunteers but who are part of the wikimedia movement.

Additionally, a strong effort to get more volunteer community members
running for positions as well as voting.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Aleksey Bilogur 
wrote:

> Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political
> reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the
> highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even
> believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level.
> This is a discussion that should occur at the board level.
>
> A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant
> copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people
> voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and
> non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for
> incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower.
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
>
> > On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
> > > I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have
> the
> > > opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
> >
> > I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
> > would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in
> > administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other
> > perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable.
> >
> > But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the
> > ideals behind the movement.  They wouldn't be working at the Foundation
> > if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about
> > the mission.
> >
> > Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer.
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Gregory Varnum]

That was three notes - not two - sorry. ;P

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Two quick notes:
>
> 1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote.
>
> 2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one
> of the ways they vary from other affiliate models. They are recognized by
> the AffCom, but are not required to legally incorporate as Chapters and
> ThOrgs are. If folks are interested though, there is an active RFC on the
> topic of the requirements for that recognition:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/RFCs/Wikimedia_user_groups_approval_process_and_agreements_-_Spring_2015
>
> 3. At this exact moment in time, Wikimedia User Groups do not have a vote
> in the affiliate elections.
>
> -greg
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Aleksey Bilogur <
> aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political
>> reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the
>> highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even
>> believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community
>> level.
>> This is a discussion that should occur at the board level.
>>
>> A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant
>> copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people
>> voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and
>> non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for
>> incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
>> > > I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have
>> the
>> > > opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
>> >
>> > I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
>> > would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in
>> > administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other
>> > perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable.
>> >
>> > But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the
>> > ideals behind the movement.  They wouldn't be working at the Foundation
>> > if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about
>> > the mission.
>> >
>> > Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer.
>> >
>> > -- Marc
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> >
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Gregory Varnum]

Two quick notes:

1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote.

2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one
of the ways they vary from other affiliate models. They are recognized by
the AffCom, but are not required to legally incorporate as Chapters and
ThOrgs are. If folks are interested though, there is an active RFC on the
topic of the requirements for that recognition:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/RFCs/Wikimedia_user_groups_approval_process_and_agreements_-_Spring_2015

3. At this exact moment in time, Wikimedia User Groups do not have a vote
in the affiliate elections.

-greg

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Aleksey Bilogur 
wrote:

> Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political
> reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the
> highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even
> believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level.
> This is a discussion that should occur at the board level.
>
> A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant
> copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people
> voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and
> non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for
> incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower.
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
>
> > On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
> > > I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have
> the
> > > opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
> >
> > I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
> > would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in
> > administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other
> > perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable.
> >
> > But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the
> > ideals behind the movement.  They wouldn't be working at the Foundation
> > if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about
> > the mission.
> >
> > Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer.
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Pine W]

Personally, I'm less concerned about staff votes than I am about having
only a relatively small number of community members vote. If there is a
substantial turnout of community votes then the enfranchisement of staff is
a non-issue. I think there would be more cause for concern if is only 1800
total votes and of those 400 are from WMF and affiliate staff. I would hope
that community participation would be much higher so that the vote total is
at least 8,000, or around 10 percent of the active editor population.

I say this as someone who was too occupied with other matters to vote last
year, but does plan to vote this year and is encouraging new candidates to
run.

Pine
On Apr 22, 2015 9:11 AM, "Marc A. Pelletier"  wrote:

> On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
> > I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
> > opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
>
> I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
> would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in
> administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other
> perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable.
>
> But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the
> ideals behind the movement.  They wouldn't be working at the Foundation
> if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about
> the mission.
>
> Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Aleksey Bilogur]

Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political
reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the
highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even
believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level.
This is a discussion that should occur at the board level.

A former Wikimedian in Residence was recently blocked for constant
copyright violations on the English Wikipedia. I do not want such people
voting on a body which will determine their level of monetary and
non-monetary support---especially now that the requirements for
incorporation as a user-group are dipping still lower.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
wrote:

> On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
> > I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
> > opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
>
> I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
> would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in
> administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other
> perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable.
>
> But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the
> ideals behind the movement.  They wouldn't be working at the Foundation
> if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about
> the mission.
>
> Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

[James Alexander]

Aye, I asked a designer to give some nice options and presented them to the
committee. While there are certainly some people who have not liked the
banner I have generally heard good feedback overall from community members
(significantly more good then bad) and have made adjustments to the banner
to make it more accessible after some comments over the past 2 days. The
banner is certainly a bit more colorful then most but that is, indeed, very
much on purpose.

The board specifically asked Philippe and I to create some banners that are
a bit flashier so that we could draw attention to the call for candidates
(and the desire for diversity) and, later, the election itself. There was a
strong concern that the traditional banners were significantly harder to
notice and pay attention too and that drawing your eye was important for
this work.

There is no doubt that *any* banner gets complaints and is at some level
intrusive. However, I will say that it was important to me, personally, not
too be 'too' flashy. This is an election banner, not a fundraising banner,
and that's why I made it clear to our designer that it had to be smaller
and 'relatively' simple comparatively (this is actually smaller then
many/most banners that are shown for non-fundraising purposes just
brighter) and I think we came to a safe balance.

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> I should note it was a WMF design consultant that did this and not a
> volunteer (well - that it was not a committee volunteer I can verify). My
> understanding was they were working from UX team's guidelines as they
> design other banners for WMF. The request that we received was to go with a
> banner design that was intentionally not the same as others. However, I
> will pass the notes along for the next designs.
>
> Also, I recognize it wasn't about the banner's existence or performance - I
> meant that I hear complaints about the design of nearly every banner that
> goes up. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a recent banner that I
> haven't heard a few folks offer opinions about improving the look of. My
> personal opinion is that it's an ongoing process, and the banners used
> often reflect a snapshot in strategies being tried at that exact moment.
>
> -greg
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk <
> tar.locesil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh, it's not about the idea of banners or about their usual performance,
> > it's about this particular ribbon. When I set anonnotice or sitenotice
> on a
> > big wiki, I aim the statement to be aligned with UX... discoveries. Don't
> > set extensive dark backgrounds (unless it's about to be
> > accessibility-oriented), use one colour palette, don't use many icons,
> > borders or any additional/unnecessary/redundant elements in general, be
> > consistent. WMF has UX team (it even has a Visual Experience Designer), I
> > kindly suggest to watch their efforts and make our users benefit from
> that.
> >
> > On 22 April 2015 at 16:58, Gregory Varnum 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > To be clear by "our banners" I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections
> > > banners. ;)
> > >
> > > -greg
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum <
> > gregory.var...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our
> banners.
> > > > Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;)
> > > >
> > > > That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive
> feedback
> > to
> > > > pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be
> > > > changed? Passing along the note "and some people disliked the
> banners"
> > is
> > > > unlikely to produce much actual change.
> > > >
> > > > Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of
> alternatives
> > > > can be saved and passed along as well.
> > > >
> > > > -greg (User:Varnent)
> > > > Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk <
> > > > tar.locesil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from
> > > >> several volunteers.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup 
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > It's horribly ugly, I expected more.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that
> I
> > > >> don't
> > > >> > know) but we had way better designs before.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Amir
> > > >> > ___
> > > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > > ,
> > > >> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

[Anna Stillwell]

Really nicely done. Given how you spoke of this earlier I thought for sure
this would not be as seamless as it appears to have gone. Congrats again.
/a

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> > Eloquence~metawiki
>
>
> Geekpoints, +2
>
>
> *Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
> Foundation, Inc.
> T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :  @Philippewiki
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Anna Stillwell
Senior Learning and Org Dev Lead
Wikimedia Foundation
415.806.1536
*www.wikimediafoundation.org *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> Eloquence~metawiki


Geekpoints, +2


*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :  @Philippewiki

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

[Erik Moeller]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Keegan Peterzell
 wrote:

> This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad.

Nicely done. :-) Kudos to you, Kunal & everyone else involved in
finally bringing this one home.

Eloquence~metawiki

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
> I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
> opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.

I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
would not otherwise have had eligibility to vote are generally in
administrative, finance and legal positions - all of which bring other
perspectives to evaluation of the candidates that may be valuable.

But, more importantly, they share our values and commitment to the
ideals behind the movement.  They wouldn't be working at the Foundation
if they didn't because our internal culture is - literally - all about
the mission.

Disclaimer: I'm staff myself, but eligible to vote as a volunteer.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

[Gregory Varnum]

I should note it was a WMF design consultant that did this and not a
volunteer (well - that it was not a committee volunteer I can verify). My
understanding was they were working from UX team's guidelines as they
design other banners for WMF. The request that we received was to go with a
banner design that was intentionally not the same as others. However, I
will pass the notes along for the next designs.

Also, I recognize it wasn't about the banner's existence or performance - I
meant that I hear complaints about the design of nearly every banner that
goes up. I cannot, off the top of my head, think of a recent banner that I
haven't heard a few folks offer opinions about improving the look of. My
personal opinion is that it's an ongoing process, and the banners used
often reflect a snapshot in strategies being tried at that exact moment.

-greg

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk <
tar.locesil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, it's not about the idea of banners or about their usual performance,
> it's about this particular ribbon. When I set anonnotice or sitenotice on a
> big wiki, I aim the statement to be aligned with UX... discoveries. Don't
> set extensive dark backgrounds (unless it's about to be
> accessibility-oriented), use one colour palette, don't use many icons,
> borders or any additional/unnecessary/redundant elements in general, be
> consistent. WMF has UX team (it even has a Visual Experience Designer), I
> kindly suggest to watch their efforts and make our users benefit from that.
>
> On 22 April 2015 at 16:58, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
>
> > To be clear by "our banners" I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections
> > banners. ;)
> >
> > -greg
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum <
> gregory.var...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners.
> > > Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;)
> > >
> > > That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback
> to
> > > pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be
> > > changed? Passing along the note "and some people disliked the banners"
> is
> > > unlikely to produce much actual change.
> > >
> > > Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of alternatives
> > > can be saved and passed along as well.
> > >
> > > -greg (User:Varnent)
> > > Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk <
> > > tar.locesil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from
> > >> several volunteers.
> > >>
> > >> On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > It's horribly ugly, I expected more.
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I
> > >> don't
> > >> > know) but we had way better designs before.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Best
> > >> > --
> > >> > Amir
> > >> > ___
> > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> > ,
> > >> >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
> > >>
> > >> Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
> > >> Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
> > >> pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
> 
> > 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> <
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
>
> Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
> Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
> pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
> 
> 
> __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Sydney Poore]

I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.

Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site
contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely
focused on the mission of the movement.

I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk  wrote:

> I don't see why employees (no diff whether it's about WMF or affiliates)
> who are not also volunteers should have the vote right. It's up to
> Wikimedia movement to chose it's lead. The non-volunteering employees are
> outsiders who are just hired to do some stuff for us since we tend to be
> lazy. If they want to influence community's way they must become part of
> the community. They have a choice of who's their boss - if they don't like
> boss in WMF they could go look for another job. --Base
>
> 22.04.2015, 18:10, "Leigh Thelmadatter" :
> > +1
> >>  Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400
> >>  From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com
> >>  To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
> >>
> >>  My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
> >>
> >>  I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
> >>  already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When
> it
> >>  comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the
> movement
> >>  equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity
> >>  ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect
> that
> >>  such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in
> >>  elections*, would immediately result in an influx of "chapter junkies"
> who
> >>  will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate
> promises
> >>  a freer flow of money.
> >>
> >>  The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest
> >>  possible direction to go in.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

[Szymon Grabarczuk]

Oh, it's not about the idea of banners or about their usual performance,
it's about this particular ribbon. When I set anonnotice or sitenotice on a
big wiki, I aim the statement to be aligned with UX... discoveries. Don't
set extensive dark backgrounds (unless it's about to be
accessibility-oriented), use one colour palette, don't use many icons,
borders or any additional/unnecessary/redundant elements in general, be
consistent. WMF has UX team (it even has a Visual Experience Designer), I
kindly suggest to watch their efforts and make our users benefit from that.

On 22 April 2015 at 16:58, Gregory Varnum  wrote:

> To be clear by "our banners" I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections
> banners. ;)
>
> -greg
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum  >
> wrote:
>
> > I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners.
> > Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;)
> >
> > That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to
> > pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be
> > changed? Passing along the note "and some people disliked the banners" is
> > unlikely to produce much actual change.
> >
> > Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of alternatives
> > can be saved and passed along as well.
> >
> > -greg (User:Varnent)
> > Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk <
> > tar.locesil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from
> >> several volunteers.
> >>
> >> On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's horribly ugly, I expected more.
> >> >
> >> > I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I
> >> don't
> >> > know) but we had way better designs before.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Best
> >> > --
> >> > Amir
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> >> > 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
> >>
> >> Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
> >> Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
> >> pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Szymon Grabarczuk*

Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Bohdan Melnychuk]

I don't see why employees (no diff whether it's about WMF or affiliates) who 
are not also volunteers should have the vote right. It's up to Wikimedia 
movement to chose it's lead. The non-volunteering employees are outsiders who 
are just hired to do some stuff for us since we tend to be lazy. If they want 
to influence community's way they must become part of the community. They have 
a choice of who's their boss - if they don't like boss in WMF they could go 
look for another job. --Base

22.04.2015, 18:10, "Leigh Thelmadatter" :
> +1
>>  Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400
>>  From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com
>>  To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>  Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
>>
>>  My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
>>
>>  I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
>>  already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it
>>  comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement
>>  equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity
>>  ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that
>>  such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in
>>  elections*, would immediately result in an influx of "chapter junkies" who
>>  will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises
>>  a freer flow of money.
>>
>>  The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest
>>  possible direction to go in.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

+1 

> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400
> From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
> 
> My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
> 
> I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
> already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it
> comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement
> equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity
> ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that
> such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in
> elections*, would immediately result in an influx of "chapter junkies" who
> will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises
> a freer flow of money.
> 
> The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest
> possible direction to go in.
> 
> 

  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

[Gregory Varnum]

I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners.
Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;)

That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to
pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be
changed? Passing along the note "and some people disliked the banners" is
unlikely to produce much actual change.

Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of alternatives can
be saved and passed along as well.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk <
tar.locesil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from
> several volunteers.
>
> On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:
>
> > It's horribly ugly, I expected more.
> >
> > I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't
> > know) but we had way better designs before.
> >
> >
> > Best
> > --
> > Amir
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
>
> Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
> Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
> pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

[Gregory Varnum]

To be clear by "our banners" I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections
banners. ;)

-greg

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners.
> Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;)
>
> That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to
> pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be
> changed? Passing along the note "and some people disliked the banners" is
> unlikely to produce much actual change.
>
> Anything specific we can pass along? Also, any examples of alternatives
> can be saved and passed along as well.
>
> -greg (User:Varnent)
> Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk <
> tar.locesil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from
>> several volunteers.
>>
>> On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:
>>
>> > It's horribly ugly, I expected more.
>> >
>> > I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I
>> don't
>> > know) but we had way better designs before.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best
>> > --
>> > Amir
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
>>
>> Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
>> Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
>> pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> 
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

[Aleksey Bilogur]

Looks fine to me.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk <
tar.locesil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from
> several volunteers.
>
> On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:
>
> > It's horribly ugly, I expected more.
> >
> > I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't
> > know) but we had way better designs before.
> >
> >
> > Best
> > --
> > Amir
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
>
> Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
> Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
> pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Aleksey Bilogur]

My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.

I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it
comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement
equivalent of a political interest group. The Board is the entity
ultimately responsible for the funding reigns, and I strongly suspect that
such a move, *especially given the weakness of community response in
elections*, would immediately result in an influx of "chapter junkies" who
will vote as a nearly-united political bloc for whatever candidate promises
a freer flow of money.

The ramifications would be immediate. This is absolutely the wrongest
possible direction to go in.


On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> I think this is definitely worthy of discussion and I agree that either all
> employees of WMF affiliates should be permitted to vote or employee status
> should be removed as an element of eligibility. Hopefully the board and its
> electioneers will weigh in with their opinions.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Gregory Varnum]

Greetings,

Thank you for bringing up this important topic. I wanted to share some info
on where things stand right now with this year's elections.

1. The committee did discuss the issue of affiliate staff having a vote. It
appears that a number of affiliates (not all) allow their staff to
participate in affiliate elections, including the process for selecting
their affiliates vote in the WMF board vote. I recognize that the future of
the affiliate elections for the board is a topic for discussion right now,
but we were asked to operate under the current structure, and not a
possible future one. With that in mind, we felt the best approach was to
respect the two elections as being separate. The WMF staff is not a
component in affiliate elections, and so it seemed appropriate to keep the
elections where staff have input separate for now.

2. It would appear that a majority of staff already qualify to vote either
as editors or developers - so to some extent - this is an issue impacting a
small group of voters. Please do not get me wrong, I am NOT saying that
makes the group less important, but I am more pointing out that affiliate
staff actively engaged in WMF projects will not be stopped from voting
simply because they are affiliate staff.

3. I do not, personally, see any of the eligible groups as "exceptions" -
as that implies to me they are not considered fundamental parts of the
community - which just isn't true for developers, staff, or former WMF
leaders. Removing staff eligibility did not get support. Speaking just for
myself, I absolutely believe that allowing WMF staff to have input on who
their bosses will be is both fair and within the Wikimedia spirit. Which is
why I would absolutely encourage affiliate staff to have say in affiliate
boards, but that is not our decision to make.

4. There are, beyond just staff, others (again - a small group - but they
exist) working with affiliates who are not eligible to vote. We discussed
that if we open the window for affiliate staff, we should do the same for
other affiliate leaders. We already allow for this for WMF connected folks
by providing a vote to advisory board members, past board members, etc.
However, identifying that group for affiliates is tricky as, for example,
not all Wikimedia User Groups have identified leaders. Given the narrow
window of time we had to address this issue, the complexities, and a sense
that affiliate related qualifications are best left for the affiliate based
elections at this point - we decided not to expand the eligibility this
year.

5. All of this said, the committee only had a few days to officially
consider and discuss this topic - along with many others. Even with all the
input from this thread, that was a very fast window to address what turned
into an increasingly complicated question. The 2013 elections committee put
forward the idea of a standing elections committee to address these issues
more in-depth. I am increasingly of the opinion that a standing committee
is the best way to do so - as the 1-2 week setup elections schedule does
not allow for too many complex conversations.

I hope that helps give some insight into how things were decided for next
year, and what my personal recommendation for best next steps would be (ask
a standing committee to do a more in-depth assessment of the question).

-greg (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> I think this is definitely worthy of discussion and I agree that either all
> employees of WMF affiliates should be permitted to vote or employee status
> should be removed as an element of eligibility. Hopefully the board and its
> electioneers will weigh in with their opinions.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

[Szymon Grabarczuk]

I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from
several volunteers.

On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup  wrote:

> It's horribly ugly, I expected more.
>
> I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't
> know) but we had way better designs before.
>
>
> Best
> --
> Amir
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
*Szymon Grabarczuk*

Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Nathan]

I think this is definitely worthy of discussion and I agree that either all
employees of WMF affiliates should be permitted to vote or employee status
should be removed as an element of eligibility. Hopefully the board and its
electioneers will weigh in with their opinions.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Design of BoT election banner

[Amir Ladsgroup]

It's horribly ugly, I expected more.

I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't
know) but we had way better designs before.


Best
-- 
Amir
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

[Itzik - Wikimedia Israel]

A year ago I started this topic and been asked to reopen him before the
next elections. I'll be happy if the election committee will take this
issue in consideration.



*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> Don't worry, we indeed have a lot of time till the next elections, but as
> this issue had been raised during the last elections - and we decided that
> we can't change the rules few weeks before the elections, now I want to
> raise the discussion enough time before.
>
> According to the current rules  [1], in order to influence and vote in the
> elections, you need to be active editor, developer or WMF staff/contractor.
>
> Last year this issue concern some of us. The foundation is not small
> organizations as it been before, and by comparison, the number of people
> participating in the elections every year is not high.
>
> For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes. By comparison,
> the number of WMF staff this days is 218, what makes there voting power 12%
> of the total voters last year. This consider to be a great amount of power
> when we are talking about elections (In the last election you would have
> around 650 votes in order to be elected...)
>
> Wikimedia thematic organizations staff and contractors for example don't
> have the same privilege to vote only because they are employees of the
> movement, only if they are editors as well. The question - what make the
> WMF staff different, and if this is not a little bit problematic that the
> staff have such power to decide on their direct board, but in general - the
> board of the whole movement.
>
> Do we need to give the same privilege also to all the staff in our
> movement?
> Should we limited the elections to staff (both WMF and chapters) that are
> active editors or developers as additional to their work in the movement?
>
> I'll be happy to hear yours input.
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Vote_Questions
>
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results
>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Foundation-l] Single login - decision 2004

[James Alexander]

James Alexander
Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:

> On Nov 11, 2004, at 03:27:00 UTC , Erik Moeller 
> wrote
> [1]:
>
> > Hi,
> > there's been some movement forward on the Single User Login (SUL) issue
>
>
> This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad.
>
> 1.
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-November/061327.html
> 2.
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-April/077576.html
>
> --
> Keegan Peterzell
> Community Liaison, Product
> Wikimedia Foundation
>


Well played sir, well found in the archives and well played.

Congrats, and thank you to you, Kunal, the global renamers & stewards and
everyone involved both directly and indirectly.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,