Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

[Christophe Henner]

Hi Yair,

Yes board was informed in the process.

Plus when situation started a few days ago, board expressed full support
stepping up against that specific EO.





Christophe HENNER
Chair of the board of trustees
chen...@wikimedia.org
+33650664739

twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*



On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Yair Rand  wrote:

> Would this action fall under "Collaborative advocacy" in the Foundation
> Policy and Political Association Guideline? The section refers to
> "collaborat[ing] with another organization to take action on a particular
> policy or political question". The example given is signing a petition by
> the EFF against Internet censorship. The required steps include (among
> other requirements) consultation with the Public Policy Advisory Group,
> along with getting consensus in a broader RfC except where time does not
> permit. I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical
> and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under
> that section, the policy was yet again violated. Frankly, I don't believe
> that an RfC would pass in the first place. If you've been following the
> earlier thread, you may be aware that there is increasing alarm at the risk
> of the movement being hijacked by political interests, and this new action
> is not helping matters.
>
> This was a unilateral political actions in a sensitive area without prior
> discussion. The Guideline does say that the WMF may deviate from the policy
> if specifically approved by the General Council, although I don't know why
> deviating would be warranted here. Was this done here? Who was involved in
> the decision? Was the Board consulted, as suggested by the guidelines
> (although as an "Optional" step)? Or was it simply considered to not fall
> under the policy at all? Is the guideline still in effect, or was it
> eliminated or changed without the document on Meta being updated?
>
> The amicus brief specifically challenges the refugee suspension, among
> other areas. Is this topic considered to be within the WMF's goals, or was
> bringing the WMF into an irrelevant political battle considered simply an
> unavoidable side-effect in the effort to protect WMF operations by means of
> national political intervention?
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_
> Association_Guideline#Collaborative_Advocacy
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Michelle Paulson 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other
> > organizations in filing an amicus brief[1] in State of Washington v.
> > Trump[2]
> > currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States.
> > This case challenges the recent executive order[3] issued in the United
> > States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel
> > restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief
> > include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal. The
> > brief includes legal arguments against the order itself, and details the
> > real and immediate impact these restrictions will have on the Wikimedia
> > Foundation and other signatories’ staff, users, customers, and
> operations.
> > We expect it to be filed in other current and future cases challenging
> the
> > order, as appropriate.
> >
> > We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order
> > has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other
> > forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a
> > political stance on behalf of the movement. Others approve, with concerns
> > about the impact of this order on the practicalities and values of open
> > collaboration and sharing. We would like to clarify our perspective on
> this
> > important issue.
> >
> > From our perspective, the implications of this order - and the urgency of
> > our response - are clear. Beyond the issue of the values of open
> > collaboration, this order will also have serious, tangible effects on the
> > Foundation and our ability to support the Wikimedia projects and
> > communities.
> >
> > From an operational standpoint, orders such as these may substantially
> > limit our ability to deliver on support for the global Wikimedia
> > communities. Much of the Foundation's work involves travel across
> borders.
> > We cross borders to develop and sustain strategic partnerships with
> > Wikimedia affiliates and free knowledge advocates. We travel to
> gatherings
> > and hackathons to support and collaborate with Wikimedians around the
> > world. We represent Wikimedia research and methodologies at conferences
> > with librarians and scientists from across the globe. We meet with
> > community leaders and board members internationally to exercise corporate
> > and community governance and execute strategic oversight.
> >
> > As the Foundation, we have an obligation to protect the Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

[Christophe Henner]

Hey,


Sorry, with everything I forgot to answer this thread. So I'll provide a
general answer if I may. As I've shared back in June, for this year, some
of my goals include building a strong working relationship between the
Board and the Executive Director, and helping the Board focus on the most
important issues in front of them, like movement strategy. Minor changes to
policy do not require the Board's consideration or approval, and so this
resolution delegates a certain amount of authority to the Executive
Director. This delegates authority, not responsability.

In 2004, the Board of Trustees made a decision that certain "global
policies" should be approved by the Board. At the time, the Board did not
go into significant detail about what kind of policies they want to
approve, or what that approval process should look like. This left some
ambiguity around when the Board needs to be involved in policy changes.
Since that time, the Wikimedia Foundation Board and staff have also changed
and grown significantly. The Board is ultimately responsible for governance
and leadership for the Wikimedia Foundation, so we have to be judicious
about where we focus.

Under this new resolution, we are explaining that the Executive Director
has authority to set and change policies for the organization and its work,
without requiring prior Board approval in most circumstances. The baseline
is that the Executive Director has authority over policies, unless the
Board asks otherwise. In some cases (like any changes to the Conflict of
Interest policy), it's considered good governance for the Board to be
responsible for these policies. Decisions to change these policies will
remain with the Board. Other policies (like the internal staff policies)
will be maintained by staff. For policies on the Wikimedia Projects, we may
still review and approve them where appropriate. This will be something the
Board works closely with the Executive Director to determine as part of the
organization's regular work.

A few other questions have come up in this thread, and I hope it's helpful
to clarify:

# Who is accountable for policy changes now?
The Board has delegated some of its authority to set policies, but it will
still remain just as responsible as if it were making the decisions itself.
The Foundation and the Board remains accountable, just as they were before.

# How should we be transparent about policy changes?
We keep track of the Foundation's policies on the Foundation Wiki [1], and
staff will continue to maintain pages similar to this. Major cross-project
policies, like the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, will still be updated
following an open consultation with notice to the community. Minor changes,
however, will not need to be ratified by the Board.

# Does this affect the community policy process on projects?
This resolution does not change anything for community policies. Policies
that were previously written and enforced by the Wikimedia communities will
remain that way. The policies that have traditionally undergone
community consultations will also continue to do so, for example, as we
have made a commitment to provide advance notice in Section 16 of the Terms
of Use.

I hope I answered most of the questions, if there's more happy to answer
them.

Oh and if I'm not answering after a few days, please feel free to ping me :)

Have all a good day,

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies

Christophe HENNER
Chair of the board of trustees
chen...@wikimedia.org
+33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039>

twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*



On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Christophe,
>
> Would you provide us an update on this topic, please?
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Christophe,
> >
> > Now that the end-of-Western-year holidays are behind us, I'm bumping this
> > thread in the hope that you'll respond to the points that I made in my
> > email from December 23rd.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Christophe,
> >>
> >> Thank you for responding to my questions.
> >>
> >>
> >>> First, the resolution and its context. "Supervising" the ED is indeed a
> >>> board duty, but this supervision must not become micro-management. That
> >>> resolution provides staff the liberty to do their work more
> efficiently.
> >>> It
> >>> doesn't remove our duty of oversight.
> >>>
> >>> I feel like you think delegating negates ones ability to provide
> >>> supervision, I would tend to think otherwise as delegating free time
> and
> >>> energy to focus on the core roles of a board.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Perhaps you could explain further how a resolution which says:
> >>
> >> *"*Resolved, the Board hereby delegates the authority to adopt, alter,
> >> and
> >> revoke policies to the Executive Director, who may further delegate such
> >> authority to Wikimedia Foundation staff as they deem appropriate;

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Christophe Henner]

Hey,

I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you
so much :D

A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on
Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying
neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet is
kind of a really really really really strong political statement.

I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word politics
can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it
regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all
politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a
political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).

That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as,
Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a
political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not
political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate.
And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french wikimedian
is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale and
yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe this
is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).

So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it
comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are those
values we should stand up for?

But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on
the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change always
is poltical.



Christophe HENNER
Chair of the board of trustees
chen...@wikimedia.org
+33650664739

twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*



On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman  wrote:
>
> >
> > The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact, is
> > whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain
> > the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or
> > some other kind of power.
> >
>
> Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
>
> WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does *not*
> include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and
> sufficient to contribute to the mission".
>
> We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except indirectly
> via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to
> billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the
> illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we do
> not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful
> tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute.  The list goes on.
>
>
> The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and
> maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary
> platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for
> *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and
> mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the active
> community, and a few other things.
>
> Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying editors
> to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never been
> close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered
> appropriate.
>
> Now that your years-long query has an answer, perhaps you can stop asking.
>
>A.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Christophe Henner]

Hey,

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Lodewijk 
>> wrote:
>>
>> What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that
>>> are
>>> focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner.
>>>
>> On 01/27/2017 09:54 AM, Danny Horn wrote:
>
>> Your idea for using aggression/harassment scores in admin applications is
>> really interesting; I hadn't thought of that before. Nothing's actually
>> planned right now, just research and conversations, but it's neat to see
>> people already coming up with interesting suggestions. :)
>>
> I'm delighted to see this issue getting some attention. I believe the core
> of the problem comes from the WMF's identity, from the start, as a
> technology company; so shifting in this direction might be an uphill
> battle, but I feel strongly that it's the right way to go.



Be careful there, we're agreeing! :D

Joke aside, I'm not sure it is an uphill battle, but that is a shift I
believe we, not just WMF but all of us as a community, need to do. From
mere "tool" to a movement. Which means that the tech and the platform are a
way to enable us  to achieve our goals. But our goals aren't technical,
they're societal. We're a people movement not a tech movement :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] The Signpost – Volume 13, Issue 2 – 6 February 2017

[Wikipedia Signpost]

Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between
disclosure requirements and user privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Arbitration_report

Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost
of paid editing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Special_report

News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted
funds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/News_and_notes

In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation
management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/In_focus

WikiProject report: For the birds!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/WikiProject_report

Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't
stick around
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Op-ed

In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic
roundup of updates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/In_the_media

Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Technology_report

Traffic report: Cool It Now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Traffic_report

Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Featured_content

Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media
and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday
celebration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Forum


Single-page view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single



https://facebook.com/wikisignpost

https://twitter.com/wikisignpost



--
Signpost team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

[Mike Godwin]

Yair Rand writes:

> I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical
> and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall under
> that section, the policy was yet again violated.

I don't find it difficult at all to believe time was of the essence,
but, then, I'm an attorney who's worked for many years on
collaborative efforts, including but not limited to legal action.

I grant, of course, that your experience with doing legal and
public-policy assessments may be different. But if your view is that
either the Board of Trustees or WMF staff cannot be trusted to make
these assessments, then I urge you to explain in more depth why you
think this is so.

My own experience has been that quite often the Board or the WMF staff
have to make quick decisions, especially when the timeline for
decision-making is not in WMF's control. Certainly I often was called
upon to make decisions on behalf of WMF and the Wikimedia movement on
timelines that made consultation with Wikimedia-l or with committees
and affiliated organizations unworkable. I hope you don't find that
difficult to believe.

Please assume good faith.


Best,


--Mike

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Adam Wight]

Dear friends,

As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us
care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world,
I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our
movement-wide political processes are.  To my understanding, our tools
consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing list,
a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of
chapters.

It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real power,
and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio station
or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build consensus.
There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment
perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're missing
out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?

One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something like
a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and
directly elect the entire Board.  Then you may find your questions
answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around
movement-wide issues.

Adam
[[mw:User:Adamw]]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner 
wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you
> so much :D
>
> A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on
> Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying
> neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet is
> kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
>
> I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word politics
> can bare many different meaning. One of them is derived on how we use it
> regarding national politics. We use politics as a word to include all
> politics (economic, social, education, etc.). And political party, or a
> political organization, will tend to adress all of them (or some).
>
> That is not what we are talking about actually. To me, I mean politic as,
> Asaf will love that, in latin (pertaining to public life). We are a
> political organization, we stand for strong values, but we are not
> political in the sense we're aligned with a specific party or candidate.
> And I don't know about the US, but one thing I love with french wikimedian
> is knowing some of them are so fare away from me on the political scale and
> yet share values (if I had time I would love to explain how I believe this
> is an exemple of why our political systems are broken ^^).
>
> So in the end, to me, the question is where do we draw the line when it
> comes to standing up for our values and, related questions, what are those
> values we should stand up for?
>
> But again, as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on
> the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change always
> is poltical.
>
>
>
> Christophe HENNER
> Chair of the board of trustees
> chen...@wikimedia.org
> +33650664739
>
> twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM James Salsman  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The question I have been trying to ask, going back years now in fact,
> is
> > > whether "empower" refers to the political power to secure and retain
> > > the freedoms necessary and sufficent to contribute to the mission, or
> > > some other kind of power.
> > >
> >
> > Well, it's your lucky day: you're finally getting an answer!
> >
> > WMF's de-facto interpretation of "empower" in the [[m:Mission]] does
> *not*
> > include "political power to secure and retain the freedoms necessary and
> > sufficient to contribute to the mission".
> >
> > We do not directly solve people's lacking infrastructure (except
> indirectly
> > via partnerships like Wikipedia Zero), we do not provide computers to
> > billions of people who don't have them, we do not teach literacy to the
> > illiterate, we do not feed the poor so that they may contribute, and we
> do
> > not declare war on North Korea to free its poor people from the awful
> > tyranny they suffer under, to enable them to contribute.  The list goes
> on.
> >
> >
> > The concrete ways WMF worked to "empower" have been providing and
> > maintaining the main contribution platforms (the wikis), auxiliary
> > platforms (Tool Labs, Quarry, PAWS, Wikidata Query, etc.), funding for
> > *Wikimedia-related* activities via grants, programmatic resources and
> > mentorship, funding and support for international gatherings of the
> active
> > community, and a few other things.
> >
> > Your aspirational expansive interpretation (which includes paying editors
> > to enable them to contribute, if memory serves) of "empower" has never
> been
> > close to what WMF, under its various leaderships, ever considered
> > appropriate.
> >
> > Now that your years-long que

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[James Salsman]

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Bill Takatoshi  wrote:
>
>... I am sending these links without James's commentary

The part that was deleted from what I had asked to be forwarded
basically said this:

Some of the most senior and respected Foundation leaders have pointed
out that fascist regimes have come to power legally and with the
support of a majority. Is that not a lesson that if more people, and
their institutions nominally espousing the virtues of freedom, spoke
up for their opposing views, that some of those fascist regimes might
not have come to be? If you urge restraint and limited political
advocacy, you are less likely to achieve your goals, but more likely
to be able to get along with people who are opposed to them. Which is
more important to us as a community? Do we want history to look back
on us and say, "well, they didn't do anything to prevent ___, but
at least they didn't hurt each others' feelings"? If you accept that
different people reasonably and legitimately draw the line of how much
political advocacy is appropriate at different places, then I, for
one, would rather hear where you think that line is than have you keep
silent, or see you shouted down because you don't have enough culture
spirit, even if you think it's at a very different place than where I
think it is. If free culture doesn't include the vigilant practice of
speaking up for for freedom, then it might not actually be free
culture.

So, where is that line?

The last general strike in the U.S. was in 1946, over store clerks not
being paid for the time they had to wait in a ready room when there
were no customers, amounting to $10 per week in lost pay which they
were awarded upon conclusion of the negotiations that ended the
strike. Those strikes were so effective, they resulted in the
anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act being amended to say, “a general strike in
support of other workers is illegal,” which means that unions can't
call general strikes at all any more, but people, corporations, and
nonprofits can. How bad will things have to get before the Wikimedia
Foundation would join people's call for a general strike?

And I disagree with Asaf's claim that "empower" means nothing more
than to provide technical server-side technical capabilities and
occasional training support in the Mission statement. If the authors
of the Mission statement wanted that, they could have used the words,
"enable and engage," or, "facilitate and engage," but they did not.
And the evidence offered in support of that claim does not stand up to
scrutiny. Wikipedia Zero *is* a program to provide direct economic
resources and political power to those who would otherwise not be able
to access the projects' content. The statement that, "we do not teach
literacy to the illiterate," is just baffling to me. What, exactly are
the wiktionaries for? How many workshops, on-line training materials,
pamphlets, and books have taught wikitext? The list goes on.

Furthermore, the Foundation with its leadership has both sponsored and
approved paid editing projects, five times at least so far. Some of
them did not go well but the more recent have fared far better. What
is the Foundation going to do in less than 20 years when contributors
start getting the right to their copyright grants? Is the Foundation
is going to be prepared to pay editors then? What are the arguments
against adopting a fire department model, where paid professionals
work alongside volunteers, which was the entire premise of my
student's successful Google Summer of Code project last summer:

https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/

I haven't heard anyone argue that the fire department model won't work
in the long term, or that it isn't the appropriate way to prepare for
editors getting the rights to their contributions back. Plenty of time
for that in the future; right now there are more pressing matters.

> http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
>
> http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
>
> https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
>
> Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
>
> Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> ground.

Sure, I would also strongly support an Uber-style boycott; just delete
the words from "national general strike" through "stoppages" in
http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png and link the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

[Pine W]

Hi Christophe,

You wrote, "This delegates authority, not responsability." Perhaps you
could explain the distinction. It seems to me that the two go hand in hand.

Speaking generally, it sounds to me like the Board has good intentions
here, but there is a lot of room for error and misunderstandings with this
policy, especially given the broad scope of the resolution that MZMcBride
mentioned at the beginning of this thread. I would be more comfortable if
the delegation resolution was amended to provide greater clarity on what
exactly the Board intends to delegate, and the procedure for involving the
Board in consultations with the ED when the ED is proposing changes that
the Board does not wish to review as extensively as it otherwise would.

Stepping back a little, I am wondering if the underlying problem is that
the Board is finding itself overworked, especially keeping in mind that
Board members are not compensated for their time on the WMF Board (though
they do get some limited perks). If overwork is the problem, I would
suggest that there are other ways to address that problem that are less
risky.

Pine


On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Christophe Henner 
wrote:

> Hey,
>
>
> Sorry, with everything I forgot to answer this thread. So I'll provide a
> general answer if I may. As I've shared back in June, for this year, some
> of my goals include building a strong working relationship between the
> Board and the Executive Director, and helping the Board focus on the most
> important issues in front of them, like movement strategy. Minor changes to
> policy do not require the Board's consideration or approval, and so this
> resolution delegates a certain amount of authority to the Executive
> Director. This delegates authority, not responsability.
>
> In 2004, the Board of Trustees made a decision that certain "global
> policies" should be approved by the Board. At the time, the Board did not
> go into significant detail about what kind of policies they want to
> approve, or what that approval process should look like. This left some
> ambiguity around when the Board needs to be involved in policy changes.
> Since that time, the Wikimedia Foundation Board and staff have also changed
> and grown significantly. The Board is ultimately responsible for governance
> and leadership for the Wikimedia Foundation, so we have to be judicious
> about where we focus.
>
> Under this new resolution, we are explaining that the Executive Director
> has authority to set and change policies for the organization and its work,
> without requiring prior Board approval in most circumstances. The baseline
> is that the Executive Director has authority over policies, unless the
> Board asks otherwise. In some cases (like any changes to the Conflict of
> Interest policy), it's considered good governance for the Board to be
> responsible for these policies. Decisions to change these policies will
> remain with the Board. Other policies (like the internal staff policies)
> will be maintained by staff. For policies on the Wikimedia Projects, we may
> still review and approve them where appropriate. This will be something the
> Board works closely with the Executive Director to determine as part of the
> organization's regular work.
>
> A few other questions have come up in this thread, and I hope it's helpful
> to clarify:
>
> # Who is accountable for policy changes now?
> The Board has delegated some of its authority to set policies, but it will
> still remain just as responsible as if it were making the decisions itself.
> The Foundation and the Board remains accountable, just as they were before.
>
> # How should we be transparent about policy changes?
> We keep track of the Foundation's policies on the Foundation Wiki [1], and
> staff will continue to maintain pages similar to this. Major cross-project
> policies, like the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, will still be updated
> following an open consultation with notice to the community. Minor changes,
> however, will not need to be ratified by the Board.
>
> # Does this affect the community policy process on projects?
> This resolution does not change anything for community policies. Policies
> that were previously written and enforced by the Wikimedia communities will
> remain that way. The policies that have traditionally undergone
> community consultations will also continue to do so, for example, as we
> have made a commitment to provide advance notice in Section 16 of the Terms
> of Use.
>
> I hope I answered most of the questions, if there's more happy to answer
> them.
>
> Oh and if I'm not answering after a few days, please feel free to ping me
> :)
>
> Have all a good day,
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies
>
> Christophe HENNER
> Chair of the board of trustees
> chen...@wikimedia.org
> +33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039>
>
> twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Chris

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

[Pete Forsyth]

On 02/06/2017 11:53 AM, Pine W wrote:

Hi Christophe,

You wrote, "This delegates authority, not responsability." Perhaps you
could explain the distinction. It seems to me that the two go hand in hand.

Pine, I disagree. I have had plenty of jobs where I had the authority to 
do something, but the ultimate responsibility fell to my boss. For 
instance, as a teenager I worked for a bakery. I could give away the 
occasional muffin to a dissatisfied customer, but if I had done so every 
day, or if I only gave muffins to my friends and cute girls, I would 
have been fired, and the bakery would have borne the responsibility of 
making good with any customers I had slighted via my decisions.


My reading of Christophe's message is that the board trusts the ED to 
know when, and what kind, of consultation is needed. An example that 
fits with my analogy: "Hey boss, I just spilled a full cup of coffee on 
this customer's purse. Yes, it's true I have a crush on her, and I 
realize she's gotten free muffins here in the past. OK with you if I 
give her a muffin anyway? I think it's in the bakery's best interests." 
Then, my boss could make the decision.


One might ask whether that trust is justified, and events from last year 
might even make such a question compelling -- but I think you'll agree, 
in a healthy organization, the board has reason to trust the ED; and I 
don't think we've seen any reason to doubt the current ED's trustworthiness.


All that said, I very much agree with the sense that the Delegation 
resolution was *impolitic*. The board has taken almost no substantive 
action via resolution; above all, it has declined to pursue an 
independent governance evaluation, which you (Pine) and many of us have 
urged. In that context, a single resolution to make its own job easier 
certainly *looks* weird, and *seems* like cause for concern. But in my 
view, Christophe's explanation is satisfactory, and suggests that the 
board wants to proceed in a way that presumes health, rather than 
dysfunction; that may be rather far from the present reality, but it's a 
worthy aspiration. I don't think this one resolution is a problem, 
provided that the board is fully willing to accept responsibility for 
any poor decisions made by its ED.

Stepping back a little, I am wondering if the underlying problem is that
the Board is finding itself overworked, especially keeping in mind that
Board members are not compensated for their time on the WMF Board (though
they do get some limited perks). If overwork is the problem, I would
suggest that there are other ways to address that problem that are less
risky.

I agree with this part, very much.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Christophe

On 20 December, you wrote

> Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to do
> small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole
> resolution process to change a comma.
>
> Now you write

> the Executive Director
> has authority to set and change policies for the organization and its work,
> without requiring prior Board approval in most circumstances. The baseline
> is that the Executive Director has authority over policies, unless the
> Board asks otherwise


These do not appear to be the same, and the later version appears to be
what is in fact in force.
Do you agree that your December posting was inaccurate?

"Rogol"

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Christophe Henner 
wrote:

> Hey,
>
>
> Sorry, with everything I forgot to answer this thread. So I'll provide a
> general answer if I may. As I've shared back in June, for this year, some
> of my goals include building a strong working relationship between the
> Board and the Executive Director, and helping the Board focus on the most
> important issues in front of them, like movement strategy. Minor changes to
> policy do not require the Board's consideration or approval, and so this
> resolution delegates a certain amount of authority to the Executive
> Director. This delegates authority, not responsability.
>
> In 2004, the Board of Trustees made a decision that certain "global
> policies" should be approved by the Board. At the time, the Board did not
> go into significant detail about what kind of policies they want to
> approve, or what that approval process should look like. This left some
> ambiguity around when the Board needs to be involved in policy changes.
> Since that time, the Wikimedia Foundation Board and staff have also changed
> and grown significantly. The Board is ultimately responsible for governance
> and leadership for the Wikimedia Foundation, so we have to be judicious
> about where we focus.
>
> Under this new resolution, we are explaining that the Executive Director
> has authority to set and change policies for the organization and its work,
> without requiring prior Board approval in most circumstances. The baseline
> is that the Executive Director has authority over policies, unless the
> Board asks otherwise. In some cases (like any changes to the Conflict of
> Interest policy), it's considered good governance for the Board to be
> responsible for these policies. Decisions to change these policies will
> remain with the Board. Other policies (like the internal staff policies)
> will be maintained by staff. For policies on the Wikimedia Projects, we may
> still review and approve them where appropriate. This will be something the
> Board works closely with the Executive Director to determine as part of the
> organization's regular work.
>
> A few other questions have come up in this thread, and I hope it's helpful
> to clarify:
>
> # Who is accountable for policy changes now?
> The Board has delegated some of its authority to set policies, but it will
> still remain just as responsible as if it were making the decisions itself.
> The Foundation and the Board remains accountable, just as they were before.
>
> # How should we be transparent about policy changes?
> We keep track of the Foundation's policies on the Foundation Wiki [1], and
> staff will continue to maintain pages similar to this. Major cross-project
> policies, like the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, will still be updated
> following an open consultation with notice to the community. Minor changes,
> however, will not need to be ratified by the Board.
>
> # Does this affect the community policy process on projects?
> This resolution does not change anything for community policies. Policies
> that were previously written and enforced by the Wikimedia communities will
> remain that way. The policies that have traditionally undergone
> community consultations will also continue to do so, for example, as we
> have made a commitment to provide advance notice in Section 16 of the Terms
> of Use.
>
> I hope I answered most of the questions, if there's more happy to answer
> them.
>
> Oh and if I'm not answering after a few days, please feel free to ping me
> :)
>
> Have all a good day,
>
> [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies
>
> Christophe HENNER
> Chair of the board of trustees
> chen...@wikimedia.org
> +33650664739 <+33%206%2050%2066%2047%2039>
>
> twitter *@schiste*skype *christophe_henner*
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Christophe,
> >
> > Would you provide us an update on this topic, please?
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Christophe,
> > >
> > > Now that the end-of-Western-year holidays are behind us, I'm bumping
> this
> > > thread in the hope that you'll respond to the points that I made in my
> > > email from December 23rd.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Michelle

Would you let us know how much of the donors' money will be spent on this
legal brief, either directly or in the costs of staff time, please?
It would also be of interest to know why you felt that the input of the WMF
to this brief was essential given that there are 90 other organisations
involved?

"Rogol"

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:20 PM, Mike Godwin  wrote:

> Yair Rand writes:
>
> > I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical
> > and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall
> under
> > that section, the policy was yet again violated.
>
> I don't find it difficult at all to believe time was of the essence,
> but, then, I'm an attorney who's worked for many years on
> collaborative efforts, including but not limited to legal action.
>
> I grant, of course, that your experience with doing legal and
> public-policy assessments may be different. But if your view is that
> either the Board of Trustees or WMF staff cannot be trusted to make
> these assessments, then I urge you to explain in more depth why you
> think this is so.
>
> My own experience has been that quite often the Board or the WMF staff
> have to make quick decisions, especially when the timeline for
> decision-making is not in WMF's control. Certainly I often was called
> upon to make decisions on behalf of WMF and the Wikimedia movement on
> timelines that made consultation with Wikimedia-l or with committees
> and affiliated organizations unworkable. I hope you don't find that
> difficult to believe.
>
> Please assume good faith.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> --Mike
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[James Salsman]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi  wrote:
>
> I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to
> see such proposals from others.

I propose: http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png

Sincerely,
Jim Salsman

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Joseph Seddon]

As someone who supports community central notice campaigns, I must point
out that this list is not the appropriate venue for any discussion that
aims to arrive at any decision relating to such a banner campaign and any
thread here would in no way directly result in such action. There are
precedents in this area for campaigns that relate to policy or political
causes and for internal purposes some of these have been codified as part
of the following guidance:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Foundation_Policy_and_Political_Association_Guideline#Promotional_Use_of_Website_Assets


From a community perspective it would be expected for discussions to occur
on wiki and there be a clear and present need to establish a firm consensus
via RfC. Said RfC would focus on whether action on a particular topic
should or should not take place, it's nature and scale. There would also
need to be discussions and approvals internally for any campaign as
detailed in the guidance above.

Regards

Seddon


On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Bill Takatoshi 
wrote:

> In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
> my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
> Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed
> on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
> appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
> to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
> yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
> me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
> alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
> the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
>
> http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-
> strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_
> nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/
> 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
>
> https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
>
> Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-
> activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
>
> Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> ground.
>
> -Will
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] MediaWiki project

[OhNoitsJamie 1]

Hello,

I have been long interested in starting my own MediaWiki project, but the
issue is that I cannot maintain server infrastructure myself. Also, most of
the MediaWiki hosting services listed do not meet my requirements.
Therefore, I was wondering if the WMF would consider starting a new project
that I could be founder of. I'm open to a variety of topics, please let me
know what you would prefer.

Thank you for your time,
Jamie
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

[Yair Rand]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Mike Godwin  wrote:

> Yair Rand writes:
>
> > I find it difficult to believe that this situation is so critical
> > and urgent that an RfC in advance was impossible, so if it does fall
> under
> > that section, the policy was yet again violated.
>
> I don't find it difficult at all to believe time was of the essence,
> but, then, I'm an attorney who's worked for many years on
> collaborative efforts, including but not limited to legal action.
>
> I grant, of course, that your experience with doing legal and
> public-policy assessments may be different. But if your view is that
> either the Board of Trustees or WMF staff cannot be trusted to make
> these assessments, then I urge you to explain in more depth why you
> think this is so.
>
> My own experience has been that quite often the Board or the WMF staff
> have to make quick decisions, especially when the timeline for
> decision-making is not in WMF's control. Certainly I often was called
> upon to make decisions on behalf of WMF and the Wikimedia movement on
> timelines that made consultation with Wikimedia-l or with committees
> and affiliated organizations unworkable. I hope you don't find that
> difficult to believe.
>
> Please assume good faith.
>

You're completely right. I failed to assume good faith, and it is certainly
possible that there was no time to conduct an RfC. My apologies.

I would still like confirmation of whether it was in fact an urgent
situation, however. Further, the requirement for consultation with the
Public Policy Advisory Group does not allow for bypassing in time-sensitive
situations, so further explanation is required.

Thank you.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Todd Allen]

And a partridge in a pear tree?

But seriously. This is exactly what I was afraid of with opening the door
to political advocacy.

Todd

On Feb 6, 2017 2:24 PM, "James Salsman"  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Bill Takatoshi 
> wrote:
> >
> > I have no suggestion for what a banner might say, but I would like to
> > see such proposals from others.
>
> I propose: http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim Salsman
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

[Michael Snow]

On 2/6/2017 2:01 PM, Yair Rand wrote:

I would still like confirmation of whether it was in fact an urgent
situation, however.
The legal posture of the case (temporary restraining order issued prior 
to hearing on a preliminary injunction) makes it urgent. In order to 
participate meaningfully in the case at this point, it was necessary to 
join the brief now. If you've been following events, we're talking about 
a ruling that was issued within a week after the executive order came 
out, which is incredibly swift action for the courts. It's my 
understanding that the appeal could be decided this week, potentially as 
early as Tuesday.


This is not a trial where the parties might take months gathering their 
evidence before presenting it to the judge and/or jury. Given that the 
circumstances can involve people detained at airport customs who might 
be involuntarily put on a plane back to their point of origin at any 
moment, the legal system's urgency is appropriate to the situation.


As an aside, people focused more on the general policy issues as opposed 
to the facts of particular cases may wonder what makes it urgent (for 
Wikimedia) when we're talking about decisions that are "temporary" or 
"preliminary" in nature. But as those experienced in this area know, 
despite such designations these rulings have a powerful tendency to 
create facts on the ground in a way that they can easily end up 
determining the final outcome as well.


--Michael Snow

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

[Nathan]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Rogol Domedonfors 
wrote:

> Christophe
>
> On 20 December, you wrote
>
> > Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to do
> > small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole
> > resolution process to change a comma.
> >
> > Now you write
>
> > the Executive Director
> > has authority to set and change policies for the organization and its
> work,
> > without requiring prior Board approval in most circumstances. The
> baseline
> > is that the Executive Director has authority over policies, unless the
> > Board asks otherwise
>
>
> These do not appear to be the same, and the later version appears to be
> what is in fact in force.
> Do you agree that your December posting was inaccurate?
>
> "Rogol"



I also noticed this discrepancy. I hope that the bottom line is that the
Board is maintaining its focus on big picture issues of strategy, vision
and governance, and leaving the management and maintenance of policy
decisions to its senior executive leadership. This seems typical and
appropriate to me.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Romaine Wiki]

To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia
movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all projects
(like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the more
it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want
advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can directly
damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and more.
Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.

The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional cases
where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific legislation
would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles of
Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need to be
a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is in
direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common
understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval (!)
and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for action
but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).




2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi :

> In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
> my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
> Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed
> on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
> appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
> to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
> yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
> me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
> alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
> the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
>
> http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-
> strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_
> nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/
> 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
>
> https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
>
> Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-
> activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
>
> Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> ground.
>
> -Will
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] MediaWiki project

[MZMcBride]

OhNoitsJamie 1 wrote:
>I have been long interested in starting my own MediaWiki project, but the
>issue is that I cannot maintain server infrastructure myself. Also, most
>of the MediaWiki hosting services listed do not meet my requirements.

What are your requirements?

>Therefore, I was wondering if the WMF would consider starting a new
>project that I could be founder of. I'm open to a variety of topics,
>please let me know what you would prefer.

Have you investigated using Wikimedia Labs? This page has more
information: .

The Wikimedia Foundation already hosts over 800 wikis. Maybe you can
explain why you feel you need your own wiki instead of using an existing
one or setting up your own test wiki on Labs or using a service like Wikia?

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] MediaWiki project

[Newyorkbrad]

I suspect that this was posted not by OhNoItsJamie but by an imposter.

Newyorkbrad



On 2/6/17, OhNoitsJamie 1  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been long interested in starting my own MediaWiki project, but the
> issue is that I cannot maintain server infrastructure myself. Also, most of
> the MediaWiki hosting services listed do not meet my requirements.
> Therefore, I was wondering if the WMF would consider starting a new project
> that I could be founder of. I'm open to a variety of topics, please let me
> know what you would prefer.
>
> Thank you for your time,
> Jamie
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

[Nathan]

I generally share Yair's reluctance to see the WMF engage in political
activity outside the scope of the Wikimedia mission, but I'd like to
express my support for the WMF taking action specifically in pursuit of
maintaining the freedom to travel and work of its employees and volunteers
engaged in Wikimedia movement work. It's clear that appellate orders on
this subject are imminent, and high quality briefs from individuals and
organizations with meaningful injury are essential. This brief is tightly
focused on the disruptive and damaging effect the executive order has on
the operations and future interests of the filers. While the WMF's own
guideline should be followed or revised so that it can be practically
followed, I think this is an example of acceptable and even necessary work
that directly serves the WMF's mission.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation duties

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Richard,

I know that at times keeping on top of a mailing list as "spicy" of this
one must have been a tough job.  It's one that you've done well, in this
subscriber's opinion.  Thanks for your service.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin

On 6 February 2017 at 07:18, Richard Ames  wrote:

> I've decided to relieve myself of the moderator job.
>
> The current moderators are listed at the bottom of the listinfo page at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
> Best wishes, Richard.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation duties

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Craig Franklin 
wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
> I know that at times keeping on top of a mailing list as "spicy" of this
> one must have been a tough job.  It's one that you've done well, in this
> subscriber's opinion.  Thanks for your service.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
​What Craig said. Thank you for volunteering in the first place.​

-- 
Keegan Peterzell
Technical Collaboration Specialist
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

[Pete Forsyth]

On 02/06/2017 12:43 AM, Christophe Henner wrote:


I'm delighted to see this issue getting some attention. I believe the core
of the problem comes from the WMF's identity, from the start, as a
technology company; so shifting in this direction might be an uphill
battle, but I feel strongly that it's the right way to go.

Be careful there, we're agreeing! :D

Joke aside, I'm not sure it is an uphill battle, but that is a shift I
believe we, not just WMF but all of us as a community, need to do. From
mere "tool" to a movement. Which means that the tech and the platform are a
way to enable us  to achieve our goals. But our goals aren't technical,
they're societal. We're a people movement not a tech movement :)
Never a surprise to find agreement with a Wikimedian in general, or with 
you in particular -- but I'm glad to hear it! I am heartened to hear 
that you believe this kind of shift is attainable, and look forward to 
seeing the WMF make some decisive moves toward centering on social 
dynamics before technical innovation.


One more past blog post of mine, which I think expresses the value of 
transitioning away from a tech focus, and toward a social focus: 
https://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-needs-trustee/ (Please ignore the 
framing of "what WM needs in a trustee, I should probably republish this 
to be a bit more generic)


-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As far as I am concerned, the WMF is not democratic. It does not matter.
What does matter is that people only care about their own arguments and are
not willing to entertain the considerations of others. While to some extend
policies are worthwhile at the same time they prevent people from thinking.
The consequence of the conversation being in English and the location of
many of the "policies" is that English Wikipedia is over represented. It is
however less than 50% of our traffic and you would not consider this from
the demands put forward by this community. At the same time my perception
is that all our communities think they are inherently superior and because
of their policies refuse to collaborate with others. Wikidata is what I
most closely associate with and they refuse to collaborate with non
professional communities because there are errors in their work. Obviously
self reflection is lacking.

Similar observations are possible for all the Wikipedia communities I know.

When we consider the world outside of our movement; we have been quite
happy to condemn actions by the Chinese government. Now that the US
American negatively impacts the WMF workforce and the ability for people to
come to the WMF office people object that they are not consulted. Again, we
are not a democracy and the "policies" have to function in the real world.
In the real world our director and our board are allowed and do as the
situation requires. In the real world two lawyers with experience in this
field indicate that action indeed needs to be taken now. Hallelujah.

The WMF is not a member organisation. Chapters are. Chapters however do not
represent our projects and consequently they have no direct impact on the
WMF itself. Consensus while admirable does not mean representation. The
people who are loudest in their demands for consensus do not represent the
Wikimedia movement. As it is, the current situation where we have a board
that reflects the international composition of our movement does really
well. They do consider the thoughts of the community but if anything they
are also stifling what we do with too many well meant policies that are
seen as law.

Rules, guidelines even laws are a necessity. But they have a tendency to
empower those with the loudest voice and they favour the incumbent. The
current US government has a disdain for the law and as a consequence this
invalidates the normal use of rules, guidelines and even laws. They are
invalidated because the attention to what happens is as immediate as the
pace whereby new ukazes are issued.

If anything we are blessed with a board and a director who seek to inform,
to connect to our communities and stay as close as possible to our general
practice. They think and they react to a different world.. Again we face a
world where much of our accomplishments are squandered to benefit those who
are the real people / organisations behind the current US government. I am
happy that I still may vote in the Dutch elections I hope for a different
outcome in the Netherlands.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 6 February 2017 at 18:13, Adam Wight  wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> As wonderful as it is to see this discussion unfold, showing how many of us
> care deeply about humanism and the movement's impact in the material world,
> I'd like to observe that it also demonstrates how underdeveloped our
> movement-wide political processes are.  To my understanding, our tools
> consist of: a small group interested in participating in this mailing list,
> a small group who attends to metawiki, and an infrequent meeting of
> chapters.
>
> It seems that all of these venues are frustrated by a lack of real power,
> and Wikimedia-l in particular has the character of a pirate radio station
> or underground newspaper rather than a place where we can build consensus.
> There's certainly some value in the oppositional and antiestablishment
> perspective that comes out of this arrangement, but perhaps we're missing
> out on the benefits that would come from a fully-developed democracy?
>
> One alternative approach would be that Wikimedians resurrect something like
> a "membership organization" in which you collectively own the WMF and
> directly elect the entire Board.  Then you may find your questions
> answered, and have a path to building lasting consensus around
> movement-wide issues.
>
> Adam
> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Christophe Henner 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > I love that thread. Touchy topîc and yet an awesome discussion, Thank you
> > so much :D
> >
> > A few month ago, little time after my election, I asked that question on
> > Facebook and provided my own answer. And yes, I do believe that saying
> > neutral knowledge should be freely accessible by everyone on the planet
> is
> > kind of a really really really really strong political statement.
> >
> > I also think that "politic" discussion is hard to have as the word
> politics
> > can bare many different me

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Credibility like quality is a two edged sword. When the suggestion is that
we lose credibility, the question is to whom and also is that not exactly
the point. When we take a stance or when we do not take a stance it has
consequences.

The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has
proven that we do not care about our own.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 7 February 2017 at 00:37, Romaine Wiki  wrote:

> To stay short and in addition of Seddon said: The more the Wikimedia
> movement/WMF chooses to pick a side by using a banner above all projects
> (like Wikipedia) - calling yes/no for a strike is taking a side - the more
> it can loose credibility. For the same reason as we do not want
> advertisements, we do not want to take any sides, because that can directly
> damage Wikipedia as being neutral, as well as being independent, and more.
> Therefore banners for advocacy are not done.
>
> The only exception of having advocacy banners is in some exceptional cases
> where all other efforts where insufficient, and the specific legislation
> would have with implementation a direct influence on the key principles of
> Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia project). Even in such cases there need to be
> a local team that is completely informed about the situation, that is in
> direct communication with the legal department of WMF, with a common
> understanding between them, with a clear timeline, community approval (!)
> and even then we need to be as neutral as possible, not calling for action
> but informing why something would directly influence Wikipedia (etc).
>
>
>
>
> 2017-02-05 21:29 GMT+01:00 Bill Takatoshi :
>
> > In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to
> > my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James
> > Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed
> > on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be
> > appropriate to forward his messages, and he said they should be sent
> > to the moderation queue. James then sent me a BCC of a very brief post
> > yesterday, which apparently has not yet been approved. James then sent
> > me, but not the list, arguments about the merits of the various
> > alternatives. I don't agree with the censorship, but in deference to
> > the moderator I am sending these links without James's commentary:
> >
> > http://i.imgur.com/3Fb8Zrr.png
> >
> > http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8671628/national-
> > strike-protest-president-donald-trump/
> >
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5s6ay6/activists_call_for_a_
> > nationwide_strike_in_protest/ddctj1h/
> >
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/
> > 31/wheres-the-best-place-to-resist-trump-at-work/
> >
> > https://www.thenation.com/article/throw-sand-in-the-gears-of-everything/
> >
> > Another respondent who asked that I not use their name suggested that
> > an effective campaign can be patterned after this recent success:
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/progressive-
> > activism-forces-uber-ceo-break-trump
> >
> > Could we please have banner text proposals do NOT call for a general
> > strike? I am not suggesting it be ruled out, nor am I suggesting that
> > we not join the call. I am simply asking for discussion in the middle
> > ground.
> >
> > -Will
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,