Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Vituzzu]

Il 12/01/2016 22:25, John Mark Vandenberg ha scritto:
Also agree. I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done 
first, and then one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's 
plan is finished -- John Vandenberg


Yep, since the second one is, eventually, way to pursue the first one.

Vito


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

[Emmanuel Engelhart]

Thank you Milos for pointing here what seems to me the most fundamental
flaw of our current organisation.

The WMF as organisation was created to bring stability and assure that
the daily business is done: keep the platform online, deal with legal
cases and keep a positive financial balance. This is not the same as
leading "in a political manner" the movement. But the WMF tends
meanwhile to do both.

The political history show us that this is not going to work well that
way because both duties are in essence pretty different and have
internal contradictions. As a consequence, the WMF focuses (with
success) on what it was made for: administrative work and is not is
position to do the other part correctly.

As a consequence we indeed face a serious lack of democracy in the way
we are organized and this weak "quality loopback" leads us, as movement,
to regular awkward situations. This is an instability factor.

Back in 2006, I heard for the first time the idea of a democratic
assembly "Wikimedia international" and was sceptical about it. Seeing
how things have evolved, an approach including two organisations, one
political to lead the movement and one administrative to keep core
things running & stability, looks really appealing.

Emmanuel

On 09.01.2016 20:37, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Forking the issue of Board composition.
> 
> We tend to think of Board as the governing body of the movement, not just
> WMF. Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing body of
> WMF, with shiny cool movement supporting it.
> 
> We tend to discuss of community representation, they tend to assimilate
> anyone who joins them. While "trust and honesty" are noble words, they tend
> to be the words of excuse, covering forced imposition of the dominant
> position over everybody inside of the group.
> 
> The Board composed as it is now has no capacity to overcome this problem. I
> am not talking about particular persons inside of the Board, but about the
> culture of assimilation, which usually ends in assimilation, but, as we
> could see now, it could end in removal of a Board member.
> 
> I see two options to overcome this problem and both of them require wide
> consensus, including the present Board.
> 
> One option is to restructure the Board itself, the other one is to create
> new cover organization, with WMF as one of its institutions.
> 
> It's obvious to me that Wikimedia is not an ordinary organization or even
> an ordinary movement. The importance of Wikimedia movement is on the level
> of smaller country. Our needs are on the level of a city-sized society. And
> our governance should be so.
> 
> At the moment, we have a kind of a mix which works because of that culture
> of assimilation and because WMF makes enough money. Destroying any of those
> corruptive powers would destroy WMF itself. So, if we want to change
> something, we have to reorganize the structure, not to fix it.
> 
> What every organized social group? Yes, assembly (or whatever the name is
> inside of the particular structure). If it's about business, it's the
> assembly of shareholders. If it's about democratic institutions, it's about
> the assembly which represents all members of the society.
> 
> WMF Board is quasi-assembly, quasi-government. It will always has partial
> excuse that it's about community-elected members, but also that it needs
> "an expertise" as a governing body. It's no surprise that the turnover on
> the best elections (the last one) was around 10%. Not a lot of Wikimedians
> think they are able to change anything and they are right.
> 
> I suggested few times that we should create assembly as a real democratic
> institution. Such assembly could then appoint the Board as a governing body
> or leave to ED and staff to be executive body of the movement.
> 
> The other option is to create assembly outside of WMF and make the relation
> between them later.
> 
> As long as we don't talk about this issue, we will have the same stories
> again and again. The set of mistakes Board could make is not finite. And
> whenever something odd or harmful happens, we will be talking the same
> stories.
> 
> By moving it into openly political discourse, we will avoid secrecy and
> Wikimedians will be able to influence decisions, outside of closed groups
> and personal connections.
> 
> (At the end, I am wondering why I am repeating this, as nobody responded to
> this idea previous few times. Not even with "this is bad idea because
> of...".)
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Todd Allen" 
> Date: Jan 9, 2016 19:34
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in
> anticompetitive agreements in Google
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Cc:
> 
>> There is still a significant problem the Board does have, though.
>> "Chapter/thorg selected seats" are not community seats. And we've recently
>> found out that none of the seats at all are actually considered to be
>> community-selected, and that a community el

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

[Lodewijk]

Just as a matter of record: While I did contribute comments to the concept
of the council, and am in general very much in favour of such council, I
also made the comment that I don't think the council in its current shape
addresses the real problems at all - because it has one responsibility
(appointing board members) that will distract from what I thinktheir actual
work: giving a platform for the WMF board/staff and potentially chapters to
get constructive input from the community.

It is not that I find their opinions unacceptable, but they are trying to
solve a different perceived problem. In the current shape, I couldn't
support the council, unfortunately - both for the reason I mention above as
some more practical concerns. I don't want a perception to arise that I
would support the concept you link.

Lodewijk

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Denny, thanks for supporting this issue moving on. Before few remarks
> I would respond inline, I want to say that the *draft* of the idea to
> make community assembly have been published by Pharos:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact
>
> I want to give a small background of our work on the proposal:
>
> Richard approached me immediately after I sent the first email from
> this thread, so we started to work on it. It turned out that we had
> very different perspectives of what should be done. However, we worked
> on creating a synthetic proposal, which would cover both sets of
> ideas.
>
> I wanted to make a joke-spoiler, but I want to restrain of it because
> I want to see if the differences between our approaches are actually
> the differences between different cultural/continental background.
>
> Besides two of us, Lodewijk and Lane contributed, mostly with
> comments. It turned out that Lodewijk was on the line I started my
> idea in discussion with Richard, while Lane was on the line started by
> Richard. Both of them found unacceptable the opposite part.
>
> If so, I'd like to ask everybody to try to understand that our future
> assembly should be generally acceptable to everybody, no matter of
> cultural differences; which means that we should have to reach
> consensus in such issues, not limited on Richard's and my approaches
> in particular.
>
> Besides that, it's just a draft of the proposal and everything could
> be changed as long as we reach consensus about one final proposal. I
> am fine with it as long as Wikimedians get a framework to communicate
> and make decisions which matter to themselves.
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Denny Vrandecic
>  wrote:
> > You write that Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing
> > body. At least for myself, I can say that this is not the case. My
> > understanding restricts the Board only to the role of being the Board of
> > the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not the community. The Board
> is
> > not the voice of the community for the Foundation. The community is
> neither
> > lead by the Foundation, nor by the Board. I don't even think there is a
> > community - there are numerous overlapping communities.
>
> This is misunderstandings, unless you want to say you don't see Board
> as the governing body of Wikimedia Foundation :P
>
> > It seems to me that in open collaborative projects like ours, the amount
> of
> > scrutiny and criticism a governance body receives is negatively
> correlated
> > to the amount of competences it has. Creating or deleting content,
> banning
> > disruptive users from a project, deciding how the energy of the community
> > should be spent on creating content? None of these is the business of the
> > Board. None of these is the competence of the Board. And that’s good.
>
> This part is very important! There are no "open collaborative projects
> like ours". You are not a Board of Reddit with admins controlling
> content. Our social structure and civilization implications are far
> beyond any of those projects. That's why WMF members -- as long as
> there is no community-wide body -- have to have vision, wisdom and
> balls. The basis of the most of my criticism of the Board lays in the
> fact that it collectively have never shown all three virtues at once.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[rupert THURNER]

On Jan 12, 2016 16:51, "Yaroslav M. Blanter"  wrote:
>
> On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>>
>> All:
>>
>>
>>
>> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
>> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
should
>> we be moving foward?
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>
> I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still
impressed.
>
> Concerning the process itself:
>
> 1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
>
> 2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
still wanted to mention.
>
> 3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the
task force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory
answer. May be I just asked wrong people.
>
> 4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization
in the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was
mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task force
coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so that
I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the second
round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
>
> 5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used
again for such process.
>
> 6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping
things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that
was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community, not
just the English Wikipedia.

Interesting summary,  what are the three major outcomes of this plan, and
one example what should not have gone into the plan?

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[James Heilman]

+1 to the idea of developing a movement strategic plan, we can than judge
how well different movement partners including the WMF are aligned with
movements goals

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

[Milos Rancic]

Denny, thanks for supporting this issue moving on. Before few remarks
I would respond inline, I want to say that the *draft* of the idea to
make community assembly have been published by Pharos:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact

I want to give a small background of our work on the proposal:

Richard approached me immediately after I sent the first email from
this thread, so we started to work on it. It turned out that we had
very different perspectives of what should be done. However, we worked
on creating a synthetic proposal, which would cover both sets of
ideas.

I wanted to make a joke-spoiler, but I want to restrain of it because
I want to see if the differences between our approaches are actually
the differences between different cultural/continental background.

Besides two of us, Lodewijk and Lane contributed, mostly with
comments. It turned out that Lodewijk was on the line I started my
idea in discussion with Richard, while Lane was on the line started by
Richard. Both of them found unacceptable the opposite part.

If so, I'd like to ask everybody to try to understand that our future
assembly should be generally acceptable to everybody, no matter of
cultural differences; which means that we should have to reach
consensus in such issues, not limited on Richard's and my approaches
in particular.

Besides that, it's just a draft of the proposal and everything could
be changed as long as we reach consensus about one final proposal. I
am fine with it as long as Wikimedians get a framework to communicate
and make decisions which matter to themselves.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Denny Vrandecic
 wrote:
> You write that Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing
> body. At least for myself, I can say that this is not the case. My
> understanding restricts the Board only to the role of being the Board of
> the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not the community. The Board is
> not the voice of the community for the Foundation. The community is neither
> lead by the Foundation, nor by the Board. I don't even think there is a
> community - there are numerous overlapping communities.

This is misunderstandings, unless you want to say you don't see Board
as the governing body of Wikimedia Foundation :P

> It seems to me that in open collaborative projects like ours, the amount of
> scrutiny and criticism a governance body receives is negatively correlated
> to the amount of competences it has. Creating or deleting content, banning
> disruptive users from a project, deciding how the energy of the community
> should be spent on creating content? None of these is the business of the
> Board. None of these is the competence of the Board. And that’s good.

This part is very important! There are no "open collaborative projects
like ours". You are not a Board of Reddit with admins controlling
content. Our social structure and civilization implications are far
beyond any of those projects. That's why WMF members -- as long as
there is no community-wide body -- have to have vision, wisdom and
balls. The basis of the most of my criticism of the Board lays in the
fact that it collectively have never shown all three virtues at once.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Support of Community

[Asaf Bartov]

(perhaps it would be nice to stop wasting everyone's time with this.)

   A.

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> I've written a guess on what Damon is hinting at. I will reveal this guess
> at some later date, but for now here is the hash value:
>
>
> bd17ae9eef103aec4ce75c8e8ba0c0b9cb45bc63c7bb0b52145642b68b1c6bfb586ea67f18e07e6767b5522765a00e096cf29eceadc0450e8840a19bacb692f2
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Support of Community

[Nathan]

I've written a guess on what Damon is hinting at. I will reveal this guess
at some later date, but for now here is the hash value:

bd17ae9eef103aec4ce75c8e8ba0c0b9cb45bc63c7bb0b52145642b68b1c6bfb586ea67f18e07e6767b5522765a00e096cf29eceadc0450e8840a19bacb692f2
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Beyond the Board (was: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google)

[Denny Vrandecic]

Milos,

I find a lot in your email to agree with.

The Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, in my understanding, is not the top
governance body of the Wikimedia movement. It sometimes stands in for that,
because we don't have anything better - but its composition and its legal
obligations suggest that this is and should not be the case.

You write that Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing
body. At least for myself, I can say that this is not the case. My
understanding restricts the Board only to the role of being the Board of
the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not the community. The Board is
not the voice of the community for the Foundation. The community is neither
lead by the Foundation, nor by the Board. I don't even think there is a
community - there are numerous overlapping communities.

It seems to me that in open collaborative projects like ours, the amount of
scrutiny and criticism a governance body receives is negatively correlated
to the amount of competences it has. Creating or deleting content, banning
disruptive users from a project, deciding how the energy of the community
should be spent on creating content? None of these is the business of the
Board. None of these is the competence of the Board. And that’s good.

When I started working on the Croatian Wikipedia, I did not send a request
to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation to see if what I did was good.
When I became the first admin and bureaucrat on the Croatian Wikipedia, it
was not the Board that bestowed these powers on me. When I suggested to
create a Semantic Wikipedia, it was not a request sent to the Board.

The power of the communities does not emanate from the Board. The power of
many of our other organs do not emanate from the Board (some do, though).

Let's say, a specific Wikipedia would be in trouble - maybe there are
reports that it was taken over by a small group of POV-pushers. This would
be a serious issue - what is the body in our movement to deal with that
issue, though? Does anyone argue here that the Board has these powers? What
could the Board do? What other organ would be the right one to make such
decisions? Which other organ is willing to take on these decisions?

I think that the Wikimedia movement needs to reconsider its governance
structures. We need something like a constitution. Maybe a general
assembly, as Milos suggests, or another body that somehow represents the
communities at large is needed. Maybe a reshuffling or explicating of the
powers vested in the current bodies is needed. What is the role of the
affiliates? What should the Board be deciding and what not? How can the
Foundation talk to a body representing the communities? How can we
strengthen the voices of the communities? Which body could credibly
represent the voice of the communities towards the Foundation?

The Board currently is exposed to requirements from a number of different
sources, and sometimes requirements that contradict with each other. In
order to become more effective, I would like to invite everyone to consider
Milos' suggestions and come up with your own. Our movement is now in its
teenage years - let us have a strategic goal of having a better
constitution before we leave adolescence. Let us aim at having a better
understood governance structure before we turn 18.

Cheers,
Denny


On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Forking the issue of Board composition.
>
> We tend to think of Board as the governing body of the movement, not just
> WMF. Board members tend to think of themselves as the governing body of
> WMF, with shiny cool movement supporting it.
>
> We tend to discuss of community representation, they tend to assimilate
> anyone who joins them. While "trust and honesty" are noble words, they tend
> to be the words of excuse, covering forced imposition of the dominant
> position over everybody inside of the group.
>
> The Board composed as it is now has no capacity to overcome this problem. I
> am not talking about particular persons inside of the Board, but about the
> culture of assimilation, which usually ends in assimilation, but, as we
> could see now, it could end in removal of a Board member.
>
> I see two options to overcome this problem and both of them require wide
> consensus, including the present Board.
>
> One option is to restructure the Board itself, the other one is to create
> new cover organization, with WMF as one of its institutions.
>
> It's obvious to me that Wikimedia is not an ordinary organization or even
> an ordinary movement. The importance of Wikimedia movement is on the level
> of smaller country. Our needs are on the level of a city-sized society. And
> our governance should be so.
>
> At the moment, we have a kind of a mix which works because of that culture
> of assimilation and because WMF makes enough money. Destroying any of those
> corruptive powers would destroy WMF itself. So, if we want to change
> something, we have to reorganize

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Support of Community

[Tim Starling]

On 13/01/16 04:36, Damon Sicore wrote:
> Hi Doma,
> 
> These are links to public posts containing cryptographic hash
> values generated from documents that I wrote on or before the dates
> of the posts.   By posting these hash values publicly, I’m proving
> to the world that I said something specific at a specific time.
> The world does not know what I said, and only I can produce the
> documents which, when hashed, produce these exact hash values.

I guess this is a way to make predictions but avoid being laughed at
if they don't come true?

There are plenty of ways to do this without spamming wikimedia-l. For
example:

https://www.freetsa.org/
http://truetimestamp.org/
https://www.btproof.com/

-- Tim Starling


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Pine W]

Philippe, if you continue to hang around Wikimedia-l, you may find yourself
delegated to run one or both of these planning processes. (:

I've drafted some thoughts about a community process. Hopefully I'll have
some time to refine them and propose some ideas on Meta by Friday.

Pine
On Jan 12, 2016 1:44 PM, "Philippe Beaudette"  wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> > Also agree.
> >
> > I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then
> > one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is
> > finished.
> >
> >
>
> ​That has long been one of my take-aways from the process.  Count me as a
> +1 for this idea.
>
> pb
>
> PS - Yaroslav, few things make me happier than hearing that your children
> are impressed by the iron barnstar.  I'd love to take credit, but that
> credit belongs solely in my friend Eugene Eric Kim's camp - that was his
> idea; I just had charge of execution, but I'm so very glad that it is an
> idea that you liked.  Working with Eugene was an honor and a privilege, and
> I learned a tremendous amount about coordination of a massive process from
> him.
>
> ​
>
> --
>
>
> Philippe Beaudette
>
> phili...@beaudette.me
> 415-691-8822
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 1:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:
>
> Also agree.
>
> I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then
> one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is
> finished.
>
>

​That has long been one of my take-aways from the process.  Count me as a
+1 for this idea.

pb

PS - Yaroslav, few things make me happier than hearing that your children
are impressed by the iron barnstar.  I'd love to take credit, but that
credit belongs solely in my friend Eugene Eric Kim's camp - that was his
idea; I just had charge of execution, but I'm so very glad that it is an
idea that you liked.  Working with Eugene was an honor and a privilege, and
I learned a tremendous amount about coordination of a massive process from
him.

​

-- 


Philippe Beaudette

phili...@beaudette.me
415-691-8822
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[John Mark Vandenberg]

'On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Anna Stillwell
 wrote:
> I like the idea of a strategic plan for the movement and one for the
> Foundation.
> I think that is a good idea.

Also agree.

I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then
one undertaken for the Foundation when the 'movement's plan is
finished.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Anna Stillwell]

I like the idea of a strategic plan for the movement and one for the
Foundation.
I think that is a good idea.
/a

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Pete Forsyth 
wrote:

> Thank you for the reflections, Yaroslav, Specific replies inline below.
>
> Pine, thank you for the invitation; actually, this video was done in
> preparation for my panel session at the Wikipedia 15 celebration, which
> will also be live-streamed later in the day. Eugene will be one of my
> panelists, and we will certainly dig into these issues! Please bring your
> own reflections and questions (and feel free to send them ahead of time so
> I can try to incorporate them into the main panel discussion).
>
> To Yaroslav's points:
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
> wrote:
>
> > On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> >
> >> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last
> round
> >> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
> >> should
> >> we be moving foward?
> >>
> >
> > I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
> > and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still
> > impressed.
> >
>
> Very cool -- I hope the barnstar becomes a treasured family heirloom :) It
> sounds like it was well deserved. And I hope you do watch the video --
> based on your comments below I believe you will find Eugene's design goals
> and reflections very interesting.
>
> 1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
> > there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
> >
>
> Agreed
>
> 2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
> > forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
> > still wanted to mention.
> >
>
> It seems to me (and Eugene or Philippe might correct me here) that the
> expectation was that "coordination" would happen somewhat organically,
> since it was hosted on a wiki. I did browse a number of the task forces at
> the time, and commented on a few, and some others were doing so as well.
> Perhaps there could/should have been a more focused effort to get
> cross-pollination, though?
>
> 3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the task
> > force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer.
> May
> > be I just asked wrong people.
> >
>
> Again from my own, somewhat limited perspective: I believe the intention
> was for volunteers to play a stronger and more central role in the
> synthesis of the Task Force outcomes into a final Strategic Plan. Since
> this was the first time this was attempted, it's not surprising to me that
> this wasn't fully realized. I think a second iteration of this could be
> much more successful, as it could be informed by what worked well and what
> didn't the last time.
>
> 4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization in
> > the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was
> > mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task
> force
> > coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so
> that
> > I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the
> second
> > round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
> >
>
> Ah, noise vs. signal -- always an issue in a community that values openness
> and inclusion! But again, perhaps there are ways to improve on the process
> so that it's easier to navigate toward the "signal."
>
> 5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used again
> > for such process.
> >
>
> I'll leave my opinion on LT (and Flow) aside for the moment, but I do agree
> that using a discussion technology that was unfamiliar to a core set of
> constituents led to some confusion, and may have discouraged participation.
> (However, it's also possible that it encouraged some participation by those
> who were NOT familiar with wiki page discussion, and may have found
> threaded discussion a little easier to deal with.)
>
> 6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
> > on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping
> > things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that
> > was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community,
> not
> > just the English Wikipedia.
>
>
> I agree strongly with this, and am especially glad to hear that it was fun!
>
> Speaking for my own perspective, I started working for WMF during the
> process, and because of that I did not participate deeply -- I was in a
> transitional state between "volunteer" and "staff" and lacked a clear
> perspective in that time on how to appropriately use my voice. But I
> observed the process very closely, and talked a lot with Eugene and others
> about it. I do think it was a valuable exercise in helping both the WMF and
> community members see across languages,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Pete Forsyth]

Thank you for the reflections, Yaroslav, Specific replies inline below.

Pine, thank you for the invitation; actually, this video was done in
preparation for my panel session at the Wikipedia 15 celebration, which
will also be live-streamed later in the day. Eugene will be one of my
panelists, and we will certainly dig into these issues! Please bring your
own reflections and questions (and feel free to send them ahead of time so
I can try to incorporate them into the main panel discussion).

To Yaroslav's points:

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter 
wrote:

> On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>> And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last round
>> (or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How
>> should
>> we be moving foward?
>>
>
> I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community process
> and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children are still
> impressed.
>

Very cool -- I hope the barnstar becomes a treasured family heirloom :) It
sounds like it was well deserved. And I hope you do watch the video --
based on your comments below I believe you will find Eugene's design goals
and reflections very interesting.

1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning:
> there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.
>

Agreed

2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task
> forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but
> still wanted to mention.
>

It seems to me (and Eugene or Philippe might correct me here) that the
expectation was that "coordination" would happen somewhat organically,
since it was hosted on a wiki. I did browse a number of the task forces at
the time, and commented on a few, and some others were doing so as well.
Perhaps there could/should have been a more focused effort to get
cross-pollination, though?

3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the task
> force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory answer. May
> be I just asked wrong people.
>

Again from my own, somewhat limited perspective: I believe the intention
was for volunteers to play a stronger and more central role in the
synthesis of the Task Force outcomes into a final Strategic Plan. Since
this was the first time this was attempted, it's not surprising to me that
this wasn't fully realized. I think a second iteration of this could be
much more successful, as it could be informed by what worked well and what
didn't the last time.

4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization in
> the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I was
> mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the task force
> coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came back, so that
> I took on the coordination myself and delivered some summary to the second
> round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.
>

Ah, noise vs. signal -- always an issue in a community that values openness
and inclusion! But again, perhaps there are ways to improve on the process
so that it's easier to navigate toward the "signal."

5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used again
> for such process.
>

I'll leave my opinion on LT (and Flow) aside for the moment, but I do agree
that using a discussion technology that was unfamiliar to a core set of
constituents led to some confusion, and may have discouraged participation.
(However, it's also possible that it encouraged some participation by those
who were NOT familiar with wiki page discussion, and may have found
threaded discussion a little easier to deal with.)

6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to work
> on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really shaping
> things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. And that
> was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole community, not
> just the English Wikipedia.


I agree strongly with this, and am especially glad to hear that it was fun!

Speaking for my own perspective, I started working for WMF during the
process, and because of that I did not participate deeply -- I was in a
transitional state between "volunteer" and "staff" and lacked a clear
perspective in that time on how to appropriately use my voice. But I
observed the process very closely, and talked a lot with Eugene and others
about it. I do think it was a valuable exercise in helping both the WMF and
community members see across languages, country borders, and project
borders, and in learning to listen better to one another and develop a
fuller understanding of the big picture. I believe the resulting plan was
strongly reflective of common sentiments within our community; and even if
imperfect, it's the first (and maybe only) time a document has really
attempted to do that, and I think it did an adm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategy consultation - translation help?

[Kalliope Tsouroupidou]

Correction made on page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Communities

as follows:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Strategy%2FCommunities&type=revision&diff=15232863&oldid=15227414

FYI, for the any translation of that page completed already.

K.




On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Maggie Dennis 
wrote:

> Hello, all. :)
>
> As I know many of you are aware, the strategic planning consultation pages
> went up on Meta yesterday at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation. The
> actual consultation should launch on January 18th. Right now, we are
> seeking translations.
>
> I've requested help from the translator community but just wanted to
> request it here as well. We've put together a list of pages that need
> translation in the consultation at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Translations
>
> I appreciate any help that you can offer and look forward to hearing your
> thoughts about strategy starting on January 18.
>
> Best,
>
> Maggie
>
>
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Kalliope Tsouroupidou
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Support of Community

[Tobias]

On 01/12/2016 06:36 PM, Damon Sicore wrote:
> These are links to public posts containing cryptographic hash values
> generated from documents that I wrote on or before the dates of the
> posts.   By posting these hash values publicly, I’m proving to the
> world that I said something specific at a specific time.  The world
> does not know what I said, and only I can produce the documents
> which, when hashed, produce these exact hash values.

Well, that's a of little use if the only copy is on your private
website (which you can change at any time). So my email contains a dump
of the current hashes (scroll down).

I'd also like to use the opportunity to point out to everyone the
state-of-the-art whistleblowing tools. If you are attempting to blow the
whistle, do NOT do so from home or work. You will need the tor browser,
which is a browser connecting to the anonymization network tor (such
that no attacker, not even the recipient knows who you are). You need it
to access a SecureDrop site. SecureDrop is a web service that some
whistleblowing organization or newspapers offer, which enables you to
hand documents to them and communicate securely and anonymously with them.
Install the tor browser from https://www.torproject.org. Then start the
tor browser and open with it the following URL:
https://securedrop.org/directory. It lists various destinations, mostly
news organizations. Copy the .onion address of your preferred
destination and paste it into the address bar. You are now connected to
the destination's SecureDrop service. Follow the on-screen instructions.
(For extra security, compare the directory's .onion address with the
.onion address listed at the service's landing page. You might also want
to consider using tails: https://tails.boum.org, and verifying GPG keys)

Tobias


Proof 0

512B7900 B895774F E80EF308 A9B929EA 13416E03 A9E1C35B 6D56985D 3CD37E34
E8DC24DC E9E3C1B1 15FF8651 C9B97DCD BFD06905 2584A8E8 AC71882A 331C527D

Proof 1

BB2943F7 C7E1A28B DD814378 2FEE481E 248725ED 65E95F70 488615AB 7767045E
900936AE 8426B067 6E1BE427 87A8AED9 59F4B2A4 A4E09142 9151D6D2 8AE7744D

Proof 2

F191309E 3CE0515F 70425421 BAC09FC9 B7BE7D2D EF720E0E 14B37F0D
6586A12C 1662D6B8 1DEAFED6 DAF0266B 574325BF 2DEC9746 187DAF3A
F5F1C75B DB170388

Proof 3

1563D79E 357DBD36 7DC36938 9600FF97 D682B0EA 36BDD306 3596400D
25B31FBA 13E9A7CA F4AB5C9C C0D82C47 6675B816 9EE3782E 27CE5EDF
9FBB2077 3422F5BA

Proof 4

5A2281EB 549B22CC C292E2E9 4F810647 2EEA02D7 A657FD37 12F8FEDA
794A279F 5379D837 CEC7624D F7F4CF1F C84C6329 92586E80 590C558E
4D527772 755A4D6C

Proof 5

11D8C808 48B918A6 B7E69459 DC20AE1A 4D1680CE 5C977E2A 4D2FCF73
25E4B5A5 E857F656 AEB5B98D 4B24EBEC 872403CC D5470AE3 2242582A
34AFDDEA 83456F97

Proof 6: The Mistake

D86BA5DE 67BE8F18 18ACA3D3 BC0C7BDE 887DCC31
C9DF65FB 7AEEAADD 93CFE568 925CDF80 7B38CE3E
4C6A1103 0C09FC55 9D421599 38A2A5B8 F2FB5C77
BC92C713

Proof: The Stand

748C4ABF C28EC17C EBFA8C19 2E82562D 8B81ECF3 FD963AC0 31282BBB
919E56E3 4E0A3137 923CCB46 98B96A8C 23C54D10 EF096096 7F50CC72
ADC07A2F 8F7430C4






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategy consultation - translation help?

[Maggie Dennis]

I thank you! :D I used the "notify translators" option on Meta, but wasn't
quite sure where it sent notifications to.

Maggie

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Vira Motorko 
wrote:

> I dare to send this to translators-l :)
> ​
>
>
>
> *2016-01-12 17:11 GMT+02:00 Maggie Dennis  >:*
>
> > Hello, all. :)
>
> >
> As I know many of you are aware, the strategic planning consultation pages
>
> > went up on Meta yesterday at
>
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation.
> The
>
> > actual consultation should launch on January 18th. Right now, we are
>
> > seeking translations.
>
> >
> I've requested help from the translator community but just wanted to
>
> > request it here as well. We've put together a list of pages that need
>
> > translation in the consultation at
>
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Translations
>
> >
> I appreciate any help that you can offer and look forward to hearing your
>
> > thoughts about strategy starting on January 18.
>
> >
> Best,
>
> >
> Maggie
>
> >
> ​
> ​
> *--*
> *Vira Motorko*
> Wikimedia Ukraine 
> ​user:Ата
> ​
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Maggie Dennis
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Support of Community

[Chris Keating]

>
> I hope this helps.  :)
>
>
Hi Damon - not really, it doesn't.

If there is anything that you feel you can and should say publically
(bearing in mind whatever confidentiality you have agreed to respect, or
feel you should respect ) - then please say it.

If there isn't - then please don't hint that there is.

Posting secret codes to this list yet further reduces the quality of
communication we are seeing here.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Support of Community

[Damon Sicore]

Hi Doma,

These are links to public posts containing cryptographic hash values generated 
from documents that I wrote on or before the dates of the posts.   By posting 
these hash values publicly, I’m proving to the world that I said something 
specific at a specific time.  The world does not know what I said, and only I 
can produce the documents which, when hashed, produce these exact hash values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function 


I hope this helps.  :)

Kindest regards,
Damon


> On Jan 12, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Domas Mituzas  wrote:
> 
> Damon, for those who are not native in gibberish, care to translate?
> 
> Cheers,
> Doma
> 
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Damon Sicore  wrote:
> 
>> To All,
>> 
>> Just to mark this moment, or maybe remind those who paid attention when I
>> published these, some long before I vanished in silence:
>> 
>> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-0/
>> 
>> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-1/
>> 
>> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-2/
>> 
>> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-3/
>> 
>> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-4/
>> 
>> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-5/
>> 
>> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-6-the-mistake/
>> 
>> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-the-stand/
>> 
>> I trust James Heilman.  I support the community.
>> 
>> :)
>> 
>> Yours faithfully,
>> Damon Sicore
>> aka: gnubeard, ex-vp of eng, and briefly head of product, WMF
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategy consultation - translation help?

[Vira Motorko]

I dare to send this to translators-l :)
​



*2016-01-12 17:11 GMT+02:00 Maggie Dennis >:*

> Hello, all. :)

>
As I know many of you are aware, the strategic planning consultation pages

> went up on Meta yesterday at

> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation. The

> actual consultation should launch on January 18th. Right now, we are

> seeking translations.

>
I've requested help from the translator community but just wanted to

> request it here as well. We've put together a list of pages that need

> translation in the consultation at

> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Translations

>
I appreciate any help that you can offer and look forward to hearing your

> thoughts about strategy starting on January 18.

>
Best,

>
Maggie

>
​
​
*--*
*Vira Motorko*
Wikimedia Ukraine 
​user:Ата
​
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Support of Community

[Domas Mituzas]

Damon, for those who are not native in gibberish, care to translate?

Cheers,
Doma

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Damon Sicore  wrote:

> To All,
>
> Just to mark this moment, or maybe remind those who paid attention when I
> published these, some long before I vanished in silence:
>
> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-0/
>
> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-1/
>
> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-2/
>
> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-3/
>
> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-4/
>
> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-5/
>
> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-6-the-mistake/
>
> https://damon.sicore.com/proof-the-stand/
>
> I trust James Heilman.  I support the community.
>
> :)
>
> Yours faithfully,
> Damon Sicore
> aka: gnubeard, ex-vp of eng, and briefly head of product, WMF
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

[Yaroslav M. Blanter]

On 2016-01-12 04:21, Pete Forsyth wrote:

All:


And beyond this video -- what do those who participated in the last 
round
(or those who have observed it) think the important lessons are? How 
should

we be moving foward?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]



I did not watch the video, but I did participate in the community 
process and still have an iron barnstar sent by Philippe - my children 
are still impressed.


Concerning the process itself:

1) It was good that the process was structured from the very beginning: 
there was a pre-process which helped to shape the task forces.


2) There was little to not at all coordination between different task 
forces. Not sure it was necessary, since it was pure brainstorming, but 
still wanted to mention.


3) It was not clear (at least not to me) what would happen beyond the 
task force round. I tried to ask around but never got a satisfactory 
answer. May be I just asked wrong people.


4) There was a bit too much noise (compared to signal), and organization 
in the task forces was a bit chaotic - for example, in the task force I 
was mainly active at somebody was (or claimed she was) appointed the 
task force coordinator, but she disappeared after a week and never came 
back, so that I took on the coordination myself and delivered some 
summary to the second round - but nobody ever talked to me about this.


5) It is good that Liquid Threads died. They should not be ever used 
again for such process.


6) Despite some deficiencies I listed above it was definitely fun to 
work on the strategic plan, and also I had an impression we are really 
shaping things up, not merely rubber-stumping some pre-determined ideas. 
And that was indeed a community-driven process, and I mean the whole 
community, not just the English Wikipedia.


Cheers
Yaroslav

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

[Wikimedia-l] Strategy consultation - translation help?

[Maggie Dennis]

Hello, all. :)

As I know many of you are aware, the strategic planning consultation pages
went up on Meta yesterday at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Community_consultation. The
actual consultation should launch on January 18th. Right now, we are
seeking translations.

I've requested help from the translator community but just wanted to
request it here as well. We've put together a list of pages that need
translation in the consultation at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Translations

I appreciate any help that you can offer and look forward to hearing your
thoughts about strategy starting on January 18.

Best,

Maggie



-- 
Maggie Dennis
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Introducing Jaime Villagomez as our Chief Financial Officer

[Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive)]

Welcome, Jaime!


-Hasive
WMBD

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Kalliope Tsouroupidou <
ktsouroupi...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Welcome Jaime!!
>
> K.
>
> On Tuesday, 12 January 2016, Cristian Consonni 
> wrote:
>
> > 2016-01-12 9:12 GMT+01:00 Pine W >:
> > > Pardon the skepticism, but as you may have heard, it seems that some
> > > changes are need in WMF screening procedures, and this skepticism is
> > > understandably affecting other new requisitions.
> > >
> > > In any case, welcome to the hurricane known as the Wikimedia movement
> (:
> >
> > Welcome Jaime
> >
> > Cristian
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >  > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> Kalliope Tsouroupidou
> Community Advocate
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Nurunnaby Chowdhury (Hasive) **:: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী (হাছিব)*
User: Hasive  |
GSM/WhatsApp/Viber: +8801712754752
​
fb.com/Hasive  | @nhasive
 | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wmfall] Introducing Jaime Villagomez as our Chief Financial Officer

[Kalliope Tsouroupidou]

Welcome Jaime!!

K.

On Tuesday, 12 January 2016, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

> 2016-01-12 9:12 GMT+01:00 Pine W >:
> > Pardon the skepticism, but as you may have heard, it seems that some
> > changes are need in WMF screening procedures, and this skepticism is
> > understandably affecting other new requisitions.
> >
> > In any case, welcome to the hurricane known as the Wikimedia movement (:
>
> Welcome Jaime
>
> Cristian
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>  ?subject=unsubscribe>



-- 
Kalliope Tsouroupidou
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Jaime Villagomez as our Chief Financial Officer

[Cristian Consonni]

2016-01-12 9:12 GMT+01:00 Pine W :
> Pardon the skepticism, but as you may have heard, it seems that some
> changes are need in WMF screening procedures, and this skepticism is
> understandably affecting other new requisitions.
>
> In any case, welcome to the hurricane known as the Wikimedia movement (:

Welcome Jaime

Cristian

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Jaime Villagomez as our Chief Financial Officer

[Pine W]

Hi Jamie,

Pardon the skepticism, but as you may have heard, it seems that some
changes are need in WMF screening procedures, and this skepticism is
understandably affecting other new requisitions.

In any case, welcome to the hurricane known as the Wikimedia movement (:

I look forward to hearing about the plans for a revitalized Annual Plan
development process this year. If you or Lila can talk about that process
at this Thursday's Metrics Meeting, I would love to hear from you.

Regards,

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Jaime Villagomez as our Chief Financial Officer

[geni]

On 11 January 2016 at 20:28, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

>
> Most recently, Jaime served as CFO at two startups: AnyCOMM, a smart cities
> startup,


Looks like literal DRMed light-bulbs.


> and Karum Group, which focused on extending credit services to
> underserved, unbanked communities in Mexico.



Hmm apart from the court filings they have maintained an impressively low
profile. Best I can tell they are software house with a focus on the
Mexican retail sector.



> Before then he was Vice
> President of Finance at Advent Software,


Financial services software. Harmless.



> QRS,



Probably QRS Corporation. Harmless.


> and Northpoint Communications
>
Dot com bust. Messy bankruptcy but well a lot of them were.



> Jaime is a first generation San Franciscan. He speaks fluent Spanish, and
> has strong connections to his extended family in Latin America. Jaime holds
> a deep appreciation for diversity, the importance of learning environments,
> and the urgency of advancing the lives of those in need. He is committed to
> bringing his experience to these issues through support for local community
> organizations and non-profits, including the Salvation Army,


Diversity or the Salvation Army. Pick one.


Seems a reasonable choice but we shall see.


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