Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are welcome to your opinion about Jimmy Fae. But honestly. I think you
have gone into a direction where I fail to follow you nor do I see a
benefit. I also fail to understand why you have it in for Jimmy, it comes
over as personal.

What I personally observed in quite a few occasions is that Jimmy was
instrumental in moving things quietly and deliberately in a direction that
served, serves and will serve us well. Jimmy is not an employee, at that he
is more like an ambassador and it is a function he serves pretty well imho.
As far as I know our foundation, there is nobody who can fill his shoes and
as such your sniping is not contributing to what we aim to achieve.

My question to you is very simple. Who else and how else could we replace
Jimmy, Do not give me crap by stating that elected members of the board do
equally well. They do not.
Thanks,
  GerardM


On 11 April 2016 at 13:37, Fæ  wrote:

> If we are going to have more elections, can we please hold Jimmy to
> account this year rather than waiting for him to leave the board under
> his own steam?
>
> His use of "utter fucking bullshit", then using these distraction
> politics to avoid answering basic questions intended to deal with his
> repeated public allegations of lying against a respected community
> member, is not what the Wikimedia movement needs or wants from a
> Trustee, or someone who represents the movement to the press.
>
> If Jimmy were a WMF employee, he'd be gone by now.
>
> P.S. We are still waiting for Jimmy to publish his interviews with WMF
> employees resulting from his trip to SF, when he was claiming to act
> for the WMF board, I can't be bothered to work out how many weeks ago
> that was. Is this sort of promise that Jimmy would call "bullshit" if
> it was yet another person he had an ongoing feud with?
>
> Fae
>
> On 11 April 2016 at 12:24, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> > On 23 March 2016 at 11:48, Andy Mabbett 
> wrote:
> >> On 23 March 2016 at 10:01, Jimmy Wales 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But I did publish something on my user talk page that is relevant.
> >>
> >> Diff, please.
> >
> > Answer came there none...
>
> ___
> 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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Trillium Corsage]

Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on the 
topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the minutes of the 
board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the executive director 
Lila Tretikov will be published.

I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but these 
minutes (if they exist) are not currently there.

Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I 
supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am interested a little 
further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only supported but *introduced* the 
motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay, but then whom?

Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to hear 
the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed his vote, 
so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for violating any 
confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency.

Trillium Corsage 

16.03.2016, 12:17, "Andreas Kolbe" :
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>  On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV  wrote:
>>  >
>>  > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
>>  > wrote:
>>  >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
>>  >> release an email?
>>  >
>>  > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
>>  > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1]
>>  >
>>  > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to
>>  > James and cc-ed to Pete.
>>  >
>>  > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2]
>>  >
>>  > Sarah
>>  >
>>  > [1]
>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html
>>  > [2]
>>  >
>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html
>>
>>  Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest
>>  priority. It has gone on too long.
>>  If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from
>>  other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part
>>  was redacted.
>
> As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here.
> The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated
> here.[2]
>
> There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things
> drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I
> submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication
> in this movement for long enough.

___
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

[Risker]

On 15 April 2016 at 17:42, Trillium Corsage  wrote:

> Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on
> the topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the
> minutes of the board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the
> executive director Lila Tretikov will be published.
>
> I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but
> these minutes (if they exist) are not currently there.
>
> Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically,
> "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am
> interested a little further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only
> supported but *introduced* the motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay,
> but then whom?
>
> Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to
> hear the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed
> his vote, so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for
> violating any confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency.
>
> Trillium Corsage
>
>
I think they already have been - by Patricio's email and public posting
stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it.  It
doesn't matter who makes the motion to accept the resignation, since the
Board would have to debate it regardless; for motions like this, the
identity of the mover is more process than substance.

The rest of the discussion would be a human resources matter which I
certainly hope was not recorded, or if it was, that it would ever be
published.  I cannot imagine that anyone on this list would seriously
believe that personal performance appraisals should be published. It would
probably violate quite a few labour and human rights laws, not to mention
the separation agreement that no doubt exists. That's not transparency,
it's prurience.

Risker/Anne
___
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] Updated dates: Reimagining WMF grants consultation

[Alex Wang]

Hi All,

We've pushed back the dates a bit for launching the new grants programs.
Please see the updated dates below:

16 May: Launch Rapid Grants
*30 June:* Last day to apply for a grant under the current Project & Event
Grants program
1 July: Open call for Project Grants and launch of Conference Support
Program
2 August: Round 1 Project Grant applications due

More details can be found on the Implementation page here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Implementation

Cheers,

Alex



On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Alex Wang  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> In August, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the
>
> structure of WMF grant programs.
>
> Next steps for implementing changes based on the consultation are now
> available:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Implementation
> 
>
> Important dates to note:
>
> 1 May: Rapid Grants launch; submission forms available for new Project
> Grants program
>
> 30 May: Last day to apply for a grant under the current Project & Event
> Grants program
>
> 1 July: Project Grants and Conference Support launch
>
> Come read about the timeline and next steps for implementing changes based
> on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the
> discussion page.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex
>
> --
> Alexandra Wang
> Program Officer
> Project & Event Grants
> Wikimedia Foundation 
> +1 415-839-6885
> Skype: alexvwang
>



-- 
Alexandra Wang
Program Officer
Community Resources
Wikimedia Foundation 
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: alexvwang
___
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] Wikipedia Zero mass effect on Wikimedia projects

[geni]

On 27 March 2016 at 23:00, David Emrany  wrote:
> You are imposing "modern" 1st world standards on these poor people.
> Many I remind you to remember how many 1st world Commons bureaucrats
> and admins were doing something similar / identical [1] only a few
> years ago at Commons.Do we collectively recall how many years.it took
> to ban them and delete their files ?
>


Actually illegal stuff is vaporised as soon as it is found. Images
adult depicting nudity are not per se illegal are where they are
freely licensed and withing project scope they have not been deleted
and remain to this day. By the same token films under a free license
such as Tears of Steel are also not going to be removed from commons.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tears_of_Steel_in_4k_-_Official_Blender_Foundation_release.webm

-- 
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] help, how much money goes to volunteers?

[rupert THURNER]

hi fae,

i do not think the level of detail you describe below will be of any
help, it might cause only work without benefit. IMO it would be
sufficient if every organization tells open how much money goes to
volunteers. for a starter, how much was IEG in 2015 ?

rupert

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> I cannot answer your question, but I am unsure if numbers would mean
> much unless large changes (like more than 20%) are indicated. Here's
> why -
>
> The key problem with working out how much of a volunteer fund goes to
> volunteers, is that reports rarely separate out the money that is
> nominally spent on 'volunteer projects' from the money that directly
> funds a volunteer activity.
>
> Based on past discussions and the experience of real cases, this means that:
>
> 1. Employees or contractors of the WMF or affiliated organizations may
> use volunteer budgets for expenses, travel or scholarships if they
> want to identify themselves as a volunteer in that context. For
> example, many people funded as Wikimedians in Residence may have no
> travel funding and will rely on a volunteer grant, or chapters may not
> provide funds for employees to travel and contribute to events not
> directly within their scope of employment.
>
> 2. A grant for a volunteer project may require reporting of outcomes
> and specific evidence of some expenses, but there is a cost of
> administering the grant before it gets granted, there are costs of
> proposing the grant that may or may not be funded from other grants,
> and there are costs of administration of the money and reporting on
> it, while the project runs. In cases where this can be analysed, the
> overhead costs are in the order of 20% to 50%. In some cases, the
> end-to-end costs of administering a grant from the WMF, to a local
> organization, and then to a specific project means that less than half
> of the money going to a volunteer project was actually used by
> volunteers to deliver a planned outcome.
>
> It's a problem, and unclear reporting of administrative overheads
> really does not help. Changes over the last couple of years to the way
> the WMF and chapters work, means that overhead costs invariably move
> from a central overhead charge, to being absorbed into project
> budgets, making the end-to-end overhead/admin costs almost impossible
> to deduce, unless detailed project time accounting and individual
> expenses are made public (which is never going to happen). The end
> result is that we cannot judge whether reports of reduced
> administration costs, are due to a smart accounting change, or the
> result of hard won meaningful improvements.
>
> Fae
>
> On 14 April 2016 at 10:48, rupert THURNER  wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> on the question how much money will go to volunteers next year,
>> katherine stated that the 2016 grants budget is 5.8 mio, out of 63 mio
>> [1]. my guess was that between 1 and 2 mio would go to volunteers.
>>
>> i have a little difficulty to calculate the number. i saw the 2016 fdc
>> numbers [2], 5.5 mio. WMDE writes that the annual fundraising gives 84
>> mio usd (i.e. 75 mio eur) [3]. on the grants page i do not see numbers
>> [4]. the german community budget page does not list numbers. [5]. WMDE
>> writes that it pays 6 mio a year to WMF [6]. at the same time it gets
>> 1.3 mio via FDC from WMF [7]. there is some indication about money to
>> volunteers in the FDC split up from WMDE [8].
>>
>> my guess was that 0.5 mio usd are support for wikimania travel
>> including funds to make wikimania cheaper in genaral, and 0.5-1.5 mio
>> via various community projects (e.g. the one of WMDE), individual
>> engagement grants to volunteers, summing up to <2 mio usd a year
>> beeing paid to cover volunteers expenses.
>>
>> can somebody please chime in here with better guesses, or real
>> numbers, maybe directly at [1]?
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/draft#money_distribution_to_volunteers
>> [2] 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_2016-17_FDC_budget_recommendation
>> [3] https://wikimedia.de/wiki/Factsheet#Daten.2C_Zahlen.2C_Fakten
>> [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
>> [5] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community-Budget
>> [6] 
>> https://www.wikimedia.de/w/images.homepage/a/ad/Wmde_jb_2014_engl_web_RZ.pdf
>> [7] 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_recommendations/2015-2016_round_1
>> [8] 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form
>>
>> best
>> 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, 
>> 
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://common