Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this part: On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman wrote: > Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Per these questions: 1. When James was made to leave, then did anyone tell him that there was going to be a joint or prepared statement from the WMF? No one before I left the meeting suggested we come out with a joint statement or that we prepare a joint statement. 2. If so, did anyone ask

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 2/28/16 5:45 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > > > Jimmy, will you respond to some of the other points I made? In > > particular, what you wrote to James was dreadful. Even if you feel > > that his actions were wrong,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

With respect to paid promotional editing, I have done a bit work trying to address it. For example I reached out to Upworks the company behind Elance and Fiverr and they are interested in working together on this. Have been a little distracted and not sure if there is sufficient community or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:03 PM, David Emrany wrote: > Hi Brion > > When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you > proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia > > Have we forgotten so soon the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

On Feb 28, 2016 7:23 PM, "David Emrany" wrote: > > Hi Brion > > When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you > proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ? Never heard of it, so can't comment. -- brion >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

A link to Pharos's (and others') Community Council Compact: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_Council_Compact Your questions highlight the complexity of creating a new, representative corporation. It would be a lot simpler to just convert WMF into a membership organisation with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Jimmy's response on Sunday 28 February: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082685.html "... There are board discussions ongoing about more information being released - and I hope those are productive. Within a few days time, I'll know whether it's ok for me to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Hi Brion When you refer to patches with other movements / affiliates, are you proposing that WMF sponsors more Gibraltrapedias ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltarpedia Have we forgotten so soon the adverse media publicity about these stealth PR campaigns "Once Wikipedia becomes a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

Hi fellow Wikimedians, If we are seriously going to consider an expanded Community Council as an alternative to WMF BoT reform, we need to have a real discussion about what "devolution" would mean, and what specific responsibilities we think should be given up, and distributed to a broader

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:39 PM, SarahSV wrote: > Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc > James telling him why he had been removed? > > ​Jimmy, I see you responded to this in another thread, so I apologize for the repetition. Thank you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On 2/28/16 5:45 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > Yes, but you need to be more clear. At the risk of playing semantic > games, your exact words here are “efforts underway *by Patricio* to > *get James to agree* to a joint statement. > > You are implying here that the effort was all on Patricio’s side,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > No, this is wrong. I think things should be much more transparent at > the WMF generally, and with the board in particular. > Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc James telling

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Chris, I think you are misreading something that I wrote. > On 2/28/16 1:03 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > > The Jimmy sent an email to the mailing list: > > > >> It was written at a time when there were efforts underway by > >> Patricio to get James to agree to a joint statement. It is an >

[Wikimedia-l] Inspire Campaign on content curation & review launches today!

Hi everyone, I am pleased to announce the launch of the second Inspire Campaign for IdeaLab.[1] The theme of this campaign is focused on improving tasks related to content curation & review in our projects: Reviewing and organizing tasks

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

I've been advised by more than one community member not to engage further on this, but I need to correct what I see as a potentially dangerous falsehood. On 2/28/16 11:47 AM, Fæ wrote: > ISSUE > > Jimmy Wales has never declared a conflict of interest or loyalty when > acting as a WMF trustee.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Fæ wrote: > The original vision for Wikia was as a "Google-killer" open search engine, so it would seem highly prudent for Jimmy to have declared a conflict of interest and avoided WMF board discussions and votes in relation to new

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

Brion, Thanks. Our mails crossed, and this answers some of the questions I had. Please be assured that I wasn't expecting you to "defend" anything – I'm merely curious. Regardless, I think the issues Lila summarised in her mail last month[1], when we were discussing charging for API usage, bear

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

If that's the limit of your bespoke work for for-profits, I see no problem. I'm curious about Andreas's other point. Does the WMF have any formal or informal agreements with for-profits that aren't yet on the public record? I realise this is probably a question for the board or chiefs. On

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On 28 February 2016 at 13:07, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > What originally triggered my curiosity was this: I noticed a couple of > weeks ago that the Kindle offered a Wikipedia look-up function. I couldn't > recall -- and cannot find -- any corresponding WMF announcement. So, how

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

If a tech task is relatively cheap and will expand the spread of free knowledge then no one would object to you spending a little bit of donor mony, I'm sure. But don't you see a point where it becomes sensible to expect the for-profit/s who are expanding their profits thanks to such work to pay

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

Somewhat off-topic comment: Andreas, the way you are formatting your messages (especially with that ---o0o--- symbol), it's pretty much impossible to differentiate what you're saying and what you're quoting from someone else. Could you please be much more clear on this? Risker/Anne On 28

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brion Vibber wrote: > > What non-hypothetical work are you referring to? > > {{cn}} > > -- brion > Brion, You tell me. :) For what it's worth, Jimmy Wales has said in this thread today, ---o0o--- On the very specific topic of donor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On Feb 28, 2016 12:29 PM, "Anthony Cole" wrote: > > Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping > large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a > side-project for Amazon. As far as I know, Wikipedia lookups via Apple's Siri and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

Sorry, let me back peddle on that sentence, Todd is correct. Dropping that paragraph from my email does not stop the issue of perceived conflict of interest and Wikia from being a valid concern worth open discussion. Fae On 28 Feb 2016 20:23, "Fæ" wrote: > Todd, putting the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

If statements are hard to answer in real life. I don't think this issue is as black-and-white as you paint it to be. The question is about impact for your bucks. If it requires a relatively small investment from WMF for Wikimedia content to be spread among more people, to reach a wider audience,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

Brion, are you aware of any WMF tech work aimed specifically at helping large for-profits engage with our projects? Andreas mentioned a side-project for Amazon. Regardless of specific instances, in principle, would that be a reasonable place to invest general donation revenue, or should we get

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

Todd, putting the caveats before the main thrust of Jimmy Wales' email, is a strange way of reading it. I read the email the obvious way, and I encourage others to read the original for themselves, rather than relying on cherry-picked quotes towards the end. Thanks, Fae On 28 February 2016 at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Management#References On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Brion Vibber wrote: > Two distinct issues, I think: > > 2) about support for volunteers to get stuff done effectively: ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

Fae, Your second citation didn't at all match what I recall Jimmy saying on the subject, so I went and read it. Even the specific email you cite is not, in any way, "...arguing the case against introducing charges for commercial reusers of WMF services...". Some quotes from the email you cited:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Two distinct issues, I think: 1) about improving community representation in power structures, I think we have to think more about what representation we want and what structures would accomplish it. I have no answers but think we should consider looking beyond WMF alone:

[Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

> > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:54:26 +0100 > From: Florence Devouard > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech > organization > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain;

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

Brion, so far in the discussions I have seen more weight to the idea of the WMF as a tech provider for the community, and not so much conversation about other roles that the organization could fulfill besides of tech / grant making. So when you see that we are agreeing, do you mean that there

[Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

ISSUE Jimmy Wales has never declared a conflict of interest or loyalty when acting as a WMF trustee. He is co-founder of Wikia Inc, set up in 2004, a commercial company that often benefits from new MediaWiki developments, and clearly he benefits financially from resulting profitability of Wikia.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Brion Vibber wrote: > David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :) To clarify, we are strongly agreed that constructive support of people to accomplish movement goals is why WMF exists. My message was focused on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Leigh Thelmadatter wrote: > I have to agree here. Yes. > > The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the mission is to support > the work done on the various wikis, not make work for fireworks for > themselves. No. > Nothing we are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

David, you appear to be agreeing strongly with me, not disagreeing. :) -- brion On Sunday, February 28, 2016, David Cuenca Tudela wrote: > I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF > should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

I have to agree here. The WMF and its employees have forgotten that the mission is to support the work done on the various wikis, not make work for fireworks for themselves. Nothing we are dealing with here is new. It is just the eruption of some very long-standing problems with the WMF and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On Sunday, February 28, 2016, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Jimmy, > > I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and > transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial re-users, > and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On 28 February 2016 at 07:31, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > > The relocation does not have to happen overnight. It can easily take > several years (which is likely longer than the average time a WMF employee > spends in the organization). But I think discussing this as a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

Jimmy, I think the first step is for the Foundation to be more open and transparent about what work it is actually doing for commercial re-users, and to announce such work proactively to both donors and the community. There should be a dedicated space where such information is collected and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Chris, I think you are misreading something that I wrote. On 2/28/16 1:03 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > The Jimmy sent an email to the mailing list: > >> It was written at a time when there were efforts underway by >> Patricio to get James to agree to a joint statement. It is an >> encouragement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

On 28.02.2016 15:53, Brion Vibber wrote: > I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of the > last few days: > > Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like, > saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On the very specific topic of donor funding going to help commercial re-users, we've had some interesting but inconclusive board discussions about this topic. Despite that he takes every opportunity to attack me, and surely it will disappoint him to know, but my general view is 100% in agreement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 2/28/16 6:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > I think it is far more likely that if the board is conducting its > business > > in a non-transparent manner, and has done for as long as it has existed, > > then that is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On 2/28/16 6:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I think it is far more likely that if the board is conducting its business > in a non-transparent manner, and has done for as long as it has existed, > then that is because Jimmy Wales, more than anyone else, likes it that way. No, this is wrong. I

[Wikimedia-l] Responsibility during the revolutionary times

I see that the discussion on this list exploded and I am very happy to see that. Now we need to capitalize on this enormous engagement by all of us and make the real changes. We need the leadership. WMF staff proved to be much more potent than dysfunctional Board. So, please, talk to each other,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

Le 27/02/16 22:41, SarahSV a écrit : On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard wrote: Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah. Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not

[Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a *volunteer* organization

I am starting a new thread because I disagree with the idea that the WMF should be a high-tech organization as the other thread by Brion seemed to suggest. Yes, technology is a tool that we use in our mission to gather and process all forms of human knowledge, but in the end the driving force is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Ad Huikeshoven wrote: > B) Another way would be to use securepoll to (s)elect a number of people in > a specific country by active editors in that country to accept certain > representative roles, for example in two way communication between >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Plan and goals for the Wikimedia, the Foundation, the Affiliates and the movement, Re: 2016 Strategic Approaches Report

On Feb 28, 2016 7:37 AM, "Ad Huikeshoven" wrote: > > Reaching out to Brion Vibber explicitly. Brion shared some long and > interesting posts last week and started a thread about what it means to be > a high tech organization. My question for Brion is to share his case why > the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

2016-02-28 15:53 GMT+01:00 Brion Vibber : > Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like, > saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement > leadership or community representation. Not because they think it shouldn't >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

Hi Brion, these signals indeed worry me a bit. The fact that they bring it up so directly, probably indicates they have struggled with it. If we indeed want some kind of overarching body for the movement as a whole, and the current board feels incapable to be that, there are I think a number of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: We COULD outsource most of our tech (I'm not supporting this, I'm just > giving perspective). > One thing I've been wondering about of late is how much donor-funded the work the WMF is doing that is primarily

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Katy Love to direct WMF Resources team

Asaf , First of all, by your definition of censorship then I must consider that my reaction to ruslanś message was censored, what makes ruslanś message immune for censorship that my reaction doesn't qualify for ? so I reduced my criticism to the quote you made in the message below Some of

[Wikimedia-l] Plan and goals for the Wikimedia, the Foundation, the Affiliates and the movement, Re: 2016 Strategic Approaches Report

Dear Wikimedians, TL;DR: share your thougths on the future direction, plans and goals In the past weeks dozens of people have shared their analysis and unsolicited advice on many aspects. I really appreciate all of your thorough thinking and careful wording in many long posts. While the HR

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On 2016-02-28 16:24, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: A direct consequence would be that one should think again whether San Francisco is the best location for the WMF office, rather than a place better known for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > Actually, in the facebook discussion which was earlier referenced on this > list someone noticed (unfortunately, without much impact) that WMF is not a > business company and not a high-tech company, but more like a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On 2016-02-28 16:10, Guettarda wrote: On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Gnangarra wrote: ​ technology is our tool not our purpose This should be printed on a banner and hung on the wall every time the Board meets. Actually, in the facebook discussion which was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

Yes, thanks Florence. That's about my understanding too. There's editing and there's imposing policy. I can see that WMF, obviously, can't take on an editorial oversight role (and the entailed responsibility) because it can't possibly vet every edit. But it seems to me they can impose editorial

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > ​ > technology is our tool not our purpose > > This should be printed on a banner and hung on the wall every time the Board meets. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

[Wikimedia-l] Movement representation vs WMF board reform

I just want to split out a concept that came up in the big threads of the last few days: Some members of the WMF Board of Trustees are giving strong signals (like, saying it outright) that the BoT can't fully take on the role of movement leadership or community representation. Not because they

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Erik, I have too many times read appeals to do something later, because now is not a good time, or to move discussion to a sub-page, because it's too big a topic, and so forth. Invariably the result was that *nothing ever happened*. Chris Sherlock is absolutely right that the board's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

A couple of responses in-line below. Jimmy, if you would like me to be able to respond to issues on your Wikipedia talk page, let me know. It's been 4 years now since you censored me from writing there, which seems like a long time to hold a grudge. On 27 February 2016 at 14:39, Jimmy Wales

[Wikimedia-l] feature: prevent overwork, statistics was: What it means to be a high-tech organization

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:41 PM, SarahSV wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard > wrote: > > >> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah. >> >> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

Hey Chris, that's great! I didn't know that. I really should have checked the [[Template:Citation needed]] edit history yesterday. There you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Citation_needed=17662960 Well done! Andreas Andreas On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Chris

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

Anna, That too is largely due to volunteers. In early February 2002 for example, Jimmy spoke of putting advertising on Wikipedia, saying on the Wikipedia-l mailing list:[1][2] ---o0o--- However, with the ongoing hard times in the Internet economy, we do anticipate adding some forms of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

I am not a lawyer so would not have the correct legal words to explain this. But roughly... the legal responsibility is not the same when you are simply "hosting" content published by others, as opposed to "publishing with an editorial role". For example, when you are simply a host provider,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

On 28 Feb 2016, at 6:51 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > > Chris, > > It's good to read you here and on WW. I think you're raising > legitimate points that others have also sought progress on. I would > just suggest one thing. Right now the Wikimedia Foundation is going > through

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What kind of ED would you like to see?

This is wonderful,‎ I want a ED with following attributes: 1. Someone that is grounded in global politics ‎as it affects the operations of the movement.  2. Some that has grown within the rank and file of the Wikimedia foundation . 3. ‎Someone that is strategic in implementation of policies  4.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2016 Strategic Approaches Report

Hi, On 02/26/2016 10:25 PM, Patrick Earley wrote: > A summary report of the first stage of community consultation for the 2016 > Wikimedia Foundation strategy process has uploaded to Commons in PDF > format.[1] Two quick questions: 1. How was a user's "home wiki" determined? 2. Page 29 says that