Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

I'm listening to this, and thank you all. I'll try to be less ... whatever that is I'm being. I do know what you mean, and I'll tone it down. Oliver, I had/have no intention of minimising the hurt felt by those involved. I apologise if I gave that impression. But some of those hurt people have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Powerful on-wiki art visualization

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Dan Andreescu wrote: > I have this funny feeling that we're about to see like a million of these > happen. I wonder if this is how people felt around 2005 : ) > Based on how long it took me to make this one (following the theme), it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

Someone complained to you off-list about the amount you're posting to the list. You immediately forwarded his email to the list. Is this the best approach? On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > I thought I was bringing a sorely under-represented

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Theo10011 wrote: > Please consider (for later) either linking or making a wiki version for > Meta. Thanks for making this effort. > I intend to make a Mediawiki-friendly version once real life is out of the way. – Molly (GorillaWarfare)

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

Good Job GW! Please consider (for later) either linking or making a wiki version for Meta. Thanks for making this effort. On Tue, Feb 23, 2016, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > All the shit from mailinglists is missing. For the temperature aka the > understanding of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

If I might provide at least my, minor, perspective: there is a big difference between "perspective" and "dissent" and some of your communiques. People, particularly at the Foundation, are hurting a lot right now. And the tone of your messages has been a lot of: justifying actual people being in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > All the shit from mailinglists is missing. For the temperature aka the > understanding of the developments it is certainly as potent as some of the > departures. > Hi Gerard, Quite a few of the entries refer

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Powerful on-wiki art visualization

Hi, This is so cool. Great effort. Thanks to the team, Bodhisattwa On Feb 23, 2016 10:40 AM, "Sam Klein" wrote: So nice - I just spent 10 minutes playing with this with friends over dinner. It's tough to construct a new one without a debugger, though. On Mon, Feb 22,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

Hoi, All the shit from mailinglists is missing. For the temperature aka the understanding of the developments it is certainly as potent as some of the departures. Thanks, GerardM On 22 February 2016 at 13:20, GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Recent discussion of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

Hoi, You are not the only one who is told that dissent is not appreciated. It is ironic that when openness and shared values are considered, these same values are swept under the rug when people are not in line with "common" thought. Apparently thoughts are not so common and certainly not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

Anthony, two points: 1. Billinghurst is a very long-serving community member, and has always in my experience been happy to talk things through. I'd urge you just to talk with him directly. 2. Tension is high right now. If we're irritating each other more than usual, keep that in mind...it may

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Powerful on-wiki art visualization

So nice - I just spent 10 minutes playing with this with friends over dinner. It's tough to construct a new one without a debugger, though. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

On 22 February 2016 at 22:00, Sydney Poore wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wrote: > >> > > I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider > > whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

Thank you! For providing context to those that don't have it, structure to those who do, and evidence of our values of collaboration, openness, and empiricism. Remarkable thing to accomplish with a timeline : ) On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > Yes,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Powerful on-wiki art visualization

This is really cool, Yuri! Thank you for sharing this. Risker On 22 February 2016 at 22:15, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > First complex interactive graph in Wikipedia explores the most expensive > paintings in history. Move the mouse around to view images, click the >

[Wikimedia-l] Powerful on-wiki art visualization

First complex interactive graph in Wikipedia explores the most expensive paintings in history. Move the mouse around to view images, click the period or artist to highlight their work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings#Interactive_graph Thank you Jane

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wrote: >> > I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider > whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the > larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members. The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

Thank you all so much for your feedback! I've just gone through all the suggestions that you've sent via emails, messages, IRCs, and pull requests and am really thrilled with all the help. I believe I'm caught up (for now!) with reading through all that I've received, and I've incorporated many of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

GorillaWarfare wrote: >Recent discussion of the Knowledge Engine/Wikimedia Discovery project, >issues with senior leadership, lack of transparency, and the like has been >fairly well spread across several Wikimedia projects and mailing lists, as >well as on Facebook, in the media, and in other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

Pine W writes: > > I would hope that the Board is now planning an executive transition for > WMF. I would like to ask the Board to be transparent about this, including > making timely posts to this mailing list and proactively posting documents > and timelines on Meta and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please change the subject when replying to Digests....

Thanks Richard for moderating this list and reminding us about good practices. Really appreciate it. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Richard Ames wrote: > and if another writer makes the mistake --- Please try to correct it. > > Regards, Richard. > >

[Wikimedia-l] Please change the subject when replying to Digests....

and if another writer makes the mistake --- Please try to correct it. Regards, Richard. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 141

Ido - That was misattributed to Pine. That's a quote from my 2am Pacific time mail on this thread. The overly long one without a TLDR section at the top. An approximate TLDR of the mail is that Lila's public statement articulates a vision and execution in progress of an intentionally

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 143, Issue 141

> > I can only speak for myself here, but I'm really not tied to my position :) > If there is a clear signal from the wider community that I should step > down, I will. > There aren't such signals, and FWIW I think there shouldn't be: while quite a few people (myself included) expressed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

I don't want to suggest the Board resign en masse today or anything like that; that would be overly catastrophic and dramatic, make recovering harder, hurt the people involved all around worse, etc. I think we are getting more about what happened from Board perspectives. That is very much

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi Kat This is good. But why not to look for a CTO? Designing a CTO's profile and putting it in a CEO's profile is a big challenge. This can happen but means also to have a big change of the vision of WMF. Kind regards Il 22/Feb/2016 19:12, "Kat Walsh" ha scritto: > On

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wrote: > > > I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider > > whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wrote: > I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider > whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and the > larger Wikimedia movement for them to continue as Board members. I can only

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

On 16-02-22 02:08 PM, Pine W wrote: > Also in the long run I hope that the Wikimedia Foundation and our volunteer > community will emerge strong, resilient, healthy, and vibrant. I've not always agreed with you, Pine. Not often, in fact. But in this I think you will find broad agreement and a

[Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

I would hope that the Board is now planning an executive transition for WMF. I would like to ask the Board to be transparent about this, including making timely posts to this mailing list and proactively posting documents and timelines on Meta and Commons. I would hope that people skills,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Thank you as well, Kat. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 22, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Kat Walsh wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:03 AM, George Herbert > wrote: > >> One phrase I see used quite often is "sometimes we need to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Thank you, Phoebe. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 22, 2016, at 10:06 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:03 AM, George Herbert > wrote: > >> Lila's vision here clearly calls the change campaign out as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:03 AM, George Herbert wrote: > One phrase I see used quite often is "sometimes we need to break a few eggs." > For those who are not native american english speakers, this is referring to > the need to move beyond shifting things around into

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:03 AM, George Herbert wrote: > Lila's vision here clearly calls the change campaign out as having explicitly > intended to break eggs. > > It further suggests strongly that this was the Board of Trustees' intention > in hiring her, and that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Theo10011 wrote: > Is it time for a #IamwithVibber tag now? :) > a > It might be time to consider just promoting Brion or something? (as deputy > or head of engineering). There is no one the community would trust more on > the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Is it time for a #IamwithVibber tag now? :) It might be time to consider just promoting Brion or something? (as deputy or head of engineering). There is no one the community would trust more on the engineering needs of WMF. And from the looks of it, he does have the support of staff and isn't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Molly White < gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would be fairly trivial to archive the discussions there someplace that > was publicly viewable. However, it would require consent from the ~450 (at > last glance) members that their comments and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi All, The core problem (as several times before) seems to me that all these broad discussions are held AFTER things went wrong or a specific meta decision got out of hand. Obviously the current transparency of or even the current decision-making process in its entirety isn't appropiate

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hey everyone, i'd really like to reaffirm what Àlex wrote in his mail: let's start with people, not technology. When i read this in Lila's message: > Many companies copy our knowledge into their own databases and > present it inside their interfaces. While this supports wider > dissemination, it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > I found this response interesting. It highlights the imbalance we, on the > outside, are having to deal with. It is OK for anyone to criticize the ED > on this list and elsewhere but if she says something that implies >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I think everyone should remember that sarcasm, and tone in general, frequently do not come through across the wires, as it were. For that matter, please, stay civil. I'm happy to report that I haven't had to moderate anyone, yet, but I think we can all appreciate the current circumstances.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Danny, four months ago the board decided to give her time. The vocal staff have responded by rejecting that. The board needs to reconsider, in light of that response, and either confirm their commitment to the ED or come to a different resolution. Soon, preferably. On 23 Feb 2016 12:09 am, "Danny

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

> Does anyone know when the board is meeting (has it met) to resolve this? I > don't want them to rush a poorly thought-through decision but, after a > while, inaction in a human crisis like this becomes negligent abuse. > Yeah, that happened four months ago. It's going great so far.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I found this response interesting. It highlights the imbalance we, on the outside, are having to deal with. It is OK for anyone to criticize the ED on this list and elsewhere but if she says something that implies shortcomings on the part of one or more of her staff or former staff - and if WMF

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

> Why we’ve changed Lila, This is either the 3rd (or 4th?) semi-conflicting grand statement of your overall thinking for the WMF that you have shared. If it’s not that, it reads like an explanation for how you have been thinking about the WMF since you started. If the latter, why have we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Dear Lila, I woke up this morning and as usual I went for my WMF email with my coffee. I woke up to read my ED implying that the employee discontent[1] was due to, amongst other things: > We’ve asked for adjustment in attitude towards work, our responsibilities and > professional

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi, First of all thank you Lila for making such a clear statement on how you see the movement. I would like to go to the basics. I do agree with your vision of what we did 15 years ago and could agree about the changing environment and that we need to constantly rethink ourselves in this

[Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Monday, 22 February 2016, Faidon Liambotis > wrote: > > What you did instead was to sent a community-wide email making it sound > like this was a carefully executed plan and the only reason people are > revolting is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

That's a great wrap-up - thanks Molly! For something a bit different, here is an outsiders view. I found this on reddit, posted by a user named Ken_Thomas (I don't know who this is, but it seems to be someone vaguely aware of, but not heavily involved in, the off-wiki side of things). I thought

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we’ve changed

> Why we’ve changed > I want to address some of the many questions that are coming up in this > forum. From the general to the very concrete, they all touch on the fact > that many things about the WMF have been changing. We are in the thick of > transformation, and you all have the right to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Lila, This is a pretty infuriating email, full of inaccuracies, FUD and unnecessary platitudes. We're in need of answers and actions, not essays. After such a failed record as an ED, I would expect you to acknowledge that we have indeed changed, but for the worst. Then, learn from your mistakes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

minor correction - the ? in my reply was meant to be a period. I'll be keeping an eye on this timeline and watch the events unfold. *Steven Crossin* *cro0...@gmail.com * On 22 February 2016 at 23:37, Chris Keating wrote: > Yes - very handy -

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

Le 22/02/16 13:20, GorillaWarfare a écrit : Recent discussion of the Knowledge Engine/Wikimedia Discovery project, issues with senior leadership, lack of transparency, and the like has been fairly well spread across several Wikimedia projects and mailing lists, as well as on Facebook, in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

Yes - very handy - thanks GorillaWarfare! On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Steven Crossin wrote: > Thank you Molly. This is indeed helpful? > > *Steven Crossin* > *cro0...@gmail.com * > > On 22 February 2016 at 23:20, GorillaWarfare < >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

Thank you Molly. This is indeed helpful? *Steven Crossin* *cro0...@gmail.com * On 22 February 2016 at 23:20, GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Recent discussion of the Knowledge Engine/Wikimedia Discovery project, > issues with senior leadership,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Le 22/02/16 11:03, George Herbert a écrit : I have been letting Lila's mail stew in my brain for a little while, and I am going to respond now having had time to think it over. I apologize in advance for the length. There are three main sections to my analysis and argument, and then some

[Wikimedia-l] Timeline of recent events at the Wikimedia Foundation

Recent discussion of the Knowledge Engine/Wikimedia Discovery project, issues with senior leadership, lack of transparency, and the like has been fairly well spread across several Wikimedia projects and mailing lists, as well as on Facebook, in the media, and in other venues. I just published an

[Wikimedia-l] Open Belgium conference

Hello all, In one week is the annual Open Belgium conference: 29 February. More information at: 2016.openbelgium.be Greetings, Romaine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

Yes!!! This is why I haven't spent much time contributing on Meta at all since then: " We would say "we need pages," and they would explain why we didn't. We would say "we need archives," and they would explain why good search was a better idea. We would say "there's too much white space," and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I have been letting Lila's mail stew in my brain for a little while, and I am going to respond now having had time to think it over. I apologize in advance for the length. There are three main sections to my analysis and argument, and then some concluding points and implications. First -

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

I think the impact of HHVM rollout hasn't tested on new user survival rate [1] they might become very active later. [1]: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Surviving_new_editor Best On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:14 PM Ori Livneh wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:26 AM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi, This explanation is really appreciated and it helps to understand a point of view. The problem is that it's "a" point of view. We can define it as a "change management". In this explanation are missed some points. The first point is the mapping of the stakeholders and to define what the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

On 2016-02-22 10:31, Erik Moeller wrote: 2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter : Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to state that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk pages. I was replied that they are sorry

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > On 22/02/16 18:45, Erik Moeller wrote: > > The numbers for "very active editors" appear to have stabilized at a > > slightly higher level than previously. I can't find any firm > > conclusion on what has caused this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-22 1:26 GMT-08:00 Tim Starling : > I don't think it is plausible, given the data collected at: > > > > 25,000 new users were put into an HHVM bucket, so the whole site was > twice as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-22 1:14 GMT-08:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter : > Absolutely. This is absolutely what happened. At some point I had to state > that if FLOW gets introduced on all talk pages I would stop using talk > pages. I was replied that they are sorry but this is my choice. Our early

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On 22/02/16 18:45, Erik Moeller wrote: > The numbers for "very active editors" appear to have stabilized at a > slightly higher level than previously. I can't find any firm > conclusion on what has caused this in Wikimedia's public > communications, but the HHVM rollout, long-planned and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi, On 02/21/2016 04:22 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > The world is not standing still. It will not wait for us to finish our > internal battles and struggles. Time is our most precious commodity. No, it's not. -- Legoktm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

On 2016-02-22 04:42, SarahSV wrote: So from the start, it felt as though staffers had ruled out the community as people who might know something about what tools are needed to collaborate on an article (which is not the same as chatting). People who had been doing something for years were

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

On 2016-02-22 04:01, Gergő Tisza wrote: One example of the shortcomings of emails as a medium for complex discussions is how this thread about postmortems continues to be diverted into discussions about Facebook, despite Pete's best efforts. At the end of the day, people will prefer tools

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:22 AM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > In practice this means I demanded that we set standards for staff > communication with our community to be professional and respectful. It > meant transitioning people, shutting down pet projects, promoting some but > not

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:41 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: > > If your contention is that tech supports you as a silent majority, I have > strong doubts that this is the case. I think the silent majority of the WMF employees, tech or not, expressed their opinion quite clearly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

Hi Lila, Thanks for the message. I won't go into this and the other aspects of the current situation in detail -- I think this is an important conversation primarily with current staff and active community members --, but I'll respond to a couple points that I think are important, and for which I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On 22/02/16 11:22, Lila Tretikov wrote: > We started this transformation, but as we move > forward we are facing a crisis that is rooted in our choice of direction. Not really. The crisis has always been about means, not ends. I keep hearing people say "this is a good idea, but why did it have to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:14 PM, rupert THURNER wrote: > brion, > > there is 10'000 km between you and me so i only read mails on this > list. would you mind detailing what you expect from your CEO to > trigger "she benefits me"? > I'd say these would help a lot: *