[Wikimedia-l] proposal for regular surveys of community opinion

[Bill Takatoshi]

Over the past few weeks I have been discussing how to correct the lack
of information about community opinion and the disadvantages of
relying on opt-in (RFCs or less formal "speak up and stick your neck
out") methods for addressing the problem with Foundation staff, other
community members, and outside researchers experienced with surveying
wikipedians. A number of themes are apparent, most prominently that I
should, "collectively propose and work to develop additional systems,"
as one Foundation staffer put it.

So to get that ball rolling, I propose a monthly survey of editing
community members as follows:

(1) Anyone may suggest a topic or subject area to be included, for
each of the top 20 largest language editions of Wikipedia by number of
active editors, by sending email to an independent, outside firm
experienced with surveying community members. All such emails will
have their sender and other identifying information removed and then
will be posted in a public location on the web for review by anyone
interested.

(2) Each month, the independent firm will pick the top five most
popular topics to be included in each language's Wikipedia community
survey, and will compose two to five opinion questions on each of
those topics, with the goal of producing a neutral opinion
questionnaire with about twenty likert and multiple choice tally
questions. Every question will have an "other" option when
appropriate, enabling a fill-in-the-blank opportunity when selected.

(3) All questions will be clearly indicated as entirely optional. Each
survey will conclude with demographic questions asking the
respondents' age, sex, education, household income, and household
composition, in compliance with the instructions at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Survey_best_practices along with
state-level geographic location, estimated hours spent editing over
the past month, and the date each respondent started editing.

(4) When each month's survey is ready, the independent firm will use
the Recent Changes history for one day randomly selected from the past
two weeks to select 1,000 users with contribution histories of at
least 100 edits and going back at least one year, and who have email
enabled, and send a link to a Qualtrics survey questionnaire to each
of those 20,000 users. I believe this step can be efficiently
automated, but bot approval will be necessary at least for the final
step of sending the survey email text and links.

(5) The email will indicate that the survey will be open for two
weeks. At the end of the two week period, the raw Qualtrics results,
expected margins or error, and any significant cross-tabulations
information apparent in the data will be made public at a new web page
for each language each month, all linked from a static URL where
highlights from the results will also be summarized in paragraph form.

I would be thrilled to learn what you think of this proposal. I hope
the Foundation will consider funding such a regular opinion survey,
and I certainly hope they will help with implementing the technical
aspects, but if not, I am willing to pass the hat in the form of a
GoFundMe or similar.

Finally, it seems to me that more than a few of the nagging
controversial questions concerning the Draft Code of Conduct for
Technical Spaces, a subject of ongoing apparent acrimony on this list
recently, could easily benefit from such a facility, were it
available.

-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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Adrian Raddatz]

WMF staff are certainly contributors within the technical spaces. There's
no reason why they shouldn't be able to participate in the COC formation
process (which I have unrelated concerns with...)

A lack of other community members participation is perhaps half on a lack
of advertising, and half on a lack of interest.

Adrian Raddatz

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:12 PM, quiddity  wrote:

> * The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the
> communities.
> * Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
> only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally
> involved, are part of the communities.
> * It is illogical for us to tell the people who take on highly-active
> roles, that they are no longer able to lead.
> * We (collectively) try to encourage the extremely capable volunteers to
> apply for jobs, and for grants.
> * If Wikimedia Cascadia becomes a well-funded chapter, and you were a
> staffer of it, would you become ineligible to lead proposals that effect
> your area of activity?
>
> --
> quiddity
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Let me rephrase and elaborate on that point. Phabricator and MediaWiki
> > aren't the WMF wiki. I think that WMF employees' proposals, comments,
> > questions, and suggestions can be welcome for TCoC drafting. However, in
> > terms of process leadership and in terms of proportion of input, I would
> > like to see -- and I think that the proposal would be more likely to pass
> > an RfC on adoption for the whole document -- community leadership of the
> > process, and a greater proportion of community input.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
> > ebernhard...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made
> some
> > > > good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far
> > less
> > > > WMF involvement with the draft
> > >
> > >
> > > One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people that
> > > participate in technical spaces more than most (because it's their job
> to
> > > do so) not be involved?
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> 
>
___
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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Rogol Domedonfors]

Pine


When I last spent some time looking at the proposal, I too felt that the
> contributions indicated that the policy had far too little community
> influence. *However*, if you'll entertain a hypothetical with me for a
> moment, let's suppose that the status quo continues and there is
> effectively no conduct policy for technical spaces -- in particular,
> Phabricator and MediaWiki, unless I am missing a conduct policy that
> already applies to them outside of the ToS. If there is no policy, is that
> better than the policy that Matthew has been drafting?
>

Perhaps that is a good reason for putting the decision to the Community:
collectively they are the people who have to deal with the consequences of
a flawed or non-existent policy.

"Rogol"
___
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] Launch of translation drive #16WikiWomen

[Florence Devouard]

Hello

Since the launch of the translation effort, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmaa_Mahfouz went from 11 languages to 20 
! Nice !


We still need your help to give a bit more visibility on the web to 16 
African women.


Please join to help here or relay : 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/16_African_Women_Translate-a-thon?



Anthere

#16WikiWomen



Le 20/02/2017 à 11:10, Florence Devouard a écrit :

In the run up to International Women’s Day on the 8th March, Wiki Loves
Women is launching the on-Wikipedia translation drive #16WikiWomen.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/16_African_Women_Translate-a-thon

The idea is for Wikipedians to take 16 days to make translate the
Wikipedia biographies on 16 notable African women, into at least 16
languages (African or international languages).

The articles to be translated will be the biographies of African women.
The list of language can be, but is not limited to:
* International languages: Arabic, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese,
Mandarin, German
* African languages: Akan, Afrikaans, Igbo, Hausa, Wolof, Tswana, Zulu,
Xhosa, Shona, Swahili, Yoruba, Sudanese, Amharic, Tsonga, Ewe, Sesotho,
Chichewa

The list of the 16 women biographies that will be translated are:
* Malouma, a Mauritanian singer, songwriter and politician
* Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge, a South African politician. The best
initial version was in French
* Cri-Zelda Brits, a South African cricketer
* Anna Tibaijuka, a Tanzanian politician and former
under-secretary-general of the United Nations
* Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, a Nigerian women’s rights activist
* Flora Nwapa, a Nigerian author who writes predominantly in Igbo
* Samia Yusuf Omar, Sprinter from Somalia
* Maggie Laubser, a South African painter
* Fatima Massaquoi, a pioneering educator from Liberia
* Frances Ames, a South African neurologist, psychiatrist, and human
rights activist
* Asmaa Mahfouz, a Egyptian activist. The best version is currently in
Arabic
* Yaa Asantewaa, the legendary former Queen Mother of Ghana
* Fatou Bensouda, a Gambian lawyer
* Martha Karua, a Kenyan politician
* Chinwendu Ihezuo, a Nigerian professional footballer
* Nassima Saifi, a Paralympian athlete from Algeria

Please jump in ! And help relay this message accross communities !


If you wish to participate, please feel free to add your name and any
comments here :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/16_African_Women_Translate-a-thon/participants


Results will be tracked on this page :
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/16_African_Women_Translate-a-thon/tracking




___
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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Erik Bernhardson]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
> WMF involvement with the draft


One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people that
participate in technical spaces more than most (because it's their job to
do so) not be involved?
___
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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Todd Allen]

I think we definitely should think about next steps if the draft fails to
gain consensus. (And, for that matter, if it does get consensus, there will
be a lot of followup work in that case too.)

But if it fails, one of the most important questions will be "Why did
people object to this and how can we address those issues?"

On Feb 24, 2017 2:15 PM, "Pine W"  wrote:

> Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (:
>
> I'm cautious about using a plurality of comments on this list as a proxy
> for an RfC, but if I was WMF and I was looking at the comments on this
> thread, I would be giving a lot of thought to fallbacks in case the RfC
> either fails to achieve consensus or if there is a consensus against it.
>
> I'm going to do something bold here and ping Maggie. I met her long before
> she was promoted to her current exalted position, and I like how she thinks
> about problems. I'm not promising to agree with her on this issue, but I'd
> be really interested in hearing her thoughts about options if the TCoC does
> not achieve consensus. I'm asking for opinions and options,rather than
> decisions.While I have mixed feelings about TCoC and the process for its
> creation, I also don't want anarchy in Phabricator and MediaWiki, so it
> seems prudent to explore alternatives.
>
> A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
> WMF involvement with the draft, but in principle I tend to think that there
> should be some kind of baseline expectation for civil conduct, some
> explanations of what that means, and some ways for the community (i.e. not
> WMF) to address behavior problems in places like Phabricator and MediaWiki.
> Even if this iteration of the TCoC is not adopted, perhaps with some
> modifications or revisions and with community leadership, some kind of TCoC
> will be adopted at a future date.
>
> Pine
> ___
> 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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Pine W]

Let me rephrase and elaborate on that point. Phabricator and MediaWiki
aren't the WMF wiki. I think that WMF employees' proposals, comments,
questions, and suggestions can be welcome for TCoC drafting. However, in
terms of process leadership and in terms of proportion of input, I would
like to see -- and I think that the proposal would be more likely to pass
an RfC on adoption for the whole document -- community leadership of the
process, and a greater proportion of community input.

Pine


On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
ebernhard...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> > good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
> > WMF involvement with the draft
>
>
> One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people that
> participate in technical spaces more than most (because it's their job to
> do so) not be involved?
> ___
> 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] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Pine W]

> * The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the
communities.
> * Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
> only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally
> involved, are part of the communities.
> * It is illogical for us to tell the people who take on highly-active
> roles, that they are no longer able to lead.
> * We (collectively) try to encourage the extremely capable volunteers to
> apply for jobs, and for grants.
> * If Wikimedia Cascadia becomes a well-funded chapter, and you were a
> staffer of it, would you become ineligible to lead proposals that effect
> your area of activity?

The way that I tend to think about this question -- which as I'll explain
in a minute, I know is simplified -- is that by "the community" we mean
people who are not WMF employees or employees of affiliates, and who
contribute to the Wikiverse in some way.

This email is going to sound legalistic at first but I hope you'll read it
all the way through.

The reason behind that thinking (and others may have their own thoughts on
this) is that WMF and affiliate employees are receiving financial and
non-financial compensation from WMF or their affiliate, and they have
strong incentives -- in some cases, legal obligations -- to do what their
employer tells them to do and to comply with their contracts, or else lose
their job and possibly get a bad reference which could impact the
likelihood of them being hired by anyone else. Also, I doubt that many WMF
and affiliate employees would feel that it's permissible and safe for them
to publicly critique the members of their governing boards, which is
another difference between employees and community members.

There are also cultural differences. WMF is organized hierarchically, is
opaque about details of its financial spending (an illustration of this was
the contract with Sue for consulting work which was a surprise when I
learned about it), has chosen to use technical means to override community
RfC decisions (such as with Superprotect), and isn't a membership
organization.

WMF does a lot of valuable work in support of the community, for example by
running servers, handling subpoenas, developing software, and providing
grants to individuals and organizations. Affiliate employees also do very
important work, such as with Wikidata and the Wikipedia in Education
program.

Admittedly, the dichotomy of "community membership" / "employee" is a
simplification. For example, individual grantees and contractors may do
temporary or part-time work for WMF or an affiliate. Affiliates as
organizations have some interest in the health and policies of WMF and
staying on somewhat good terms with WMF, particularly regarding WMF's role
as a grantmaker and provider of trademark licenses.

I think that having WMF and affiliate employees in support roles is
important and valuable. However, one place where problems start to surface
is when WMF or affiliate employees start to tell their communities what to
do. That is not their job. Their job is to support the community and to
implement policy, not to manage the community, and not to create policy
without approval from either their organization's board or from the
community that they serve.

The "community" vs "employee" dichotomy makes it sound like there are no
shades of gray, but there are, and I'd welcome conversations about how to
develop a vocabulary that better illustrates this.

To answer your last question directly: yes, there are initiatives which I
would feel would be inappropriate for me to lead as an affiliate or WMF
employee, for example I would feel OK about *facilitating* community
discussion about a global ban policy but I wouldn't want to create and
impose that policy myself without some kind of community consensus. Also, I
would be much more cautious about what I chose to say about the governance
of WMF and my affiliate employer, because I would have financial and
employment interests that would conflict with my ability to speak candidly,
especially in public.


A brief follow-up to Adrian regarding :
> A lack of other community members participation is perhaps half on a lack
> of advertising, and half on a lack of interest.

From what I can see, Matthew has been thorough about trying to recruit
participation.

I'm trying to leave the door open to approving some kind of TCoC. Perhaps
there will indeed be community consensus to approve the draft that's
currently in the works -- I don't know. I prefer a different process and
some changes to the draft, but with the information that I have it's
impossible for me to predict what the outcome of an RfC on the final
document will be. If it's approved with significant community (i.e. non-WMF
support), I'll learn to accept it or propose amendments at some point. I
realize that there has been good-faith effort in developing that draft, and
I appreciate the effort even if the draft doesn't pass. From my
perspective, a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[Pine W]

Well, WMF will have to deal with this policy too. (:

I'm cautious about using a plurality of comments on this list as a proxy
for an RfC, but if I was WMF and I was looking at the comments on this
thread, I would be giving a lot of thought to fallbacks in case the RfC
either fails to achieve consensus or if there is a consensus against it.

I'm going to do something bold here and ping Maggie. I met her long before
she was promoted to her current exalted position, and I like how she thinks
about problems. I'm not promising to agree with her on this issue, but I'd
be really interested in hearing her thoughts about options if the TCoC does
not achieve consensus. I'm asking for opinions and options,rather than
decisions.While I have mixed feelings about TCoC and the process for its
creation, I also don't want anarchy in Phabricator and MediaWiki, so it
seems prudent to explore alternatives.

A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far less
WMF involvement with the draft, but in principle I tend to think that there
should be some kind of baseline expectation for civil conduct, some
explanations of what that means, and some ways for the community (i.e. not
WMF) to address behavior problems in places like Phabricator and MediaWiki.
Even if this iteration of the TCoC is not adopted, perhaps with some
modifications or revisions and with community leadership, some kind of TCoC
will be adopted at a future date.

Pine
___
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] February 24: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#8)

[Pine W]

Hi Katherine,

Just to follow up on some of the conversations yesterday on IRC, there were
some questions about which functions (e.g. fundraising, legal, technical
development, governance, communications) fit into which track. I'm thinking
that a number of functions will be shared across multiple tracks. Can you
(or someone involved in coordinating the tracks) share some thoughts about
how that will work?

Thanks,

Pine
___
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] February 24: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#8)

[Katherine Maher]

Hi all!

Apologies for getting this out on a Friday, when so many of you are already
enjoying your weekends.

This week we hosted staff members from around the Foundation here in San
Francisco for annual planning preparations. As a result, we have a slightly
shorter update this week, but with some very exciting news: we’ve finalized
the selection of the audience track leads! We also hosted the monthly WMF
Metrics meeting - you can watch the update on strategy starting at 33:29
(video set to play at that time): https://youtu.be/-blWUhkm8g4?t=2009

Aa always, please read on for more details.

*Feedback requested*
There are two items in particular on Meta-Wiki ready for your feedback:

   - Updated processes and timelines for Tracks A & B:
  - https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10152629
   - A briefing document for informed discussions:
  - https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10184031


*Track A (Organized groups) and Track B (Individual contributors)*

   - Starting on March 1, Nicole Ebber will be the Lead for Track A. Having
   Nicole join the strategy team as track lead is made possible through an
   agreement between Wikimedia Deutschland and the Wikimedia Foundation. We’re
   grateful WMDE has agreed to loan Nicole to the movement until the end of
   the year.
   - This means the Track A & B leads are:
 - Track A: Nicole Ebber, Wikimedia Deutschland's Adviser on
 International Relations
 - Track B: Jaime Anstee, Wikimedia Foundation's Senior Strategist,
 Manager, working closely with Maggie Dennis, Wikimedia
Foundation's Interim
 Chief of Community Engagement
  - We shared the fourth, and near final, prototype for tracks A & B on
   Meta-Wiki.[1]
   - The Core Team has been working with experts in and outside the
   Wikimedia Foundation to further develop content for a universal briefing
   document.[2] The brief provides everyone a baseline of essential movement,
   demographic, and other information to support informed movement strategy
   discussions.
   - The Core Team is working on a toolkit for coordinating community
   discussions. A draft should be posted to Meta-Wiki by early next week.
   - Nicole and the Core Team worked on Track A organizational structure
   and a workflow for coordinating community discussions.
   - We are in the final stages of reviewing applications for movement
   strategy coordinators working in up to 1818 different languages.[3] We
   expect to have a strong team in place to help us really reach across the
   movement.

*Track C (Partners and readers in high-reach markets) and Track D (Partners
and readers in low reach markets)*

   - Our Track C & D Leads are:
   - Track C: Juliet Barbara, Wikimedia Foundation's Communications
  Director, working closely with Caitlin Virtue, Director of Development
  - Track D: Adele Vrana, Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Strategic
  Partnerships, Global Reach
   - We reviewed an initial draft of the Track C proposal, including a plan
   for research and expert convenings in high-reach markets. Juliet and
   Caitlin plan to post the proposal on Meta next week for input.
   - For Track C, Adele has been working with the strategy team together to
   identify potential market research firms and consumer research firms for
   Indonesia, Egypt, and Brazil. We plan to post the Track D proposal on Meta
   next week for input.

*Next steps*

   - Final preparations for soft launch of Track A, including emails
   inviting people to host discussions (ideally before the Wikimedia
   Conference in Berlin in late March).
   - Nicole will be convening an advisory council with members from
   different regions, genders, languages, projects, and types and sizes of
   affiliates and groups to help ensure participation and perspective from
   groups that are often underrepresented.
   - Finalize Track C plan and budget for posting on Meta.
   - Build interview guide for Track D (will also be shared with Track C)
   to help facilitate discussions with outside experts.
   - Prototype the process and flow for tracking data we collect during the
   strategy and evaluation process.

This is moving closer to being real - I can't wait to launch the
conversation!

Happy weekend,
Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[4]

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Process/Design
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Process/Framing
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/People#Strategy_Coordinators
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/24_February_2017_-_Update_8_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process


-- 
Katherine Maher

Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

+1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
+1 (415) 712 4873
kma...@wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Draft Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces

[quiddity]

* The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the communities.
* Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
only started volunteering at the same time as they became professionally
involved, are part of the communities.
* It is illogical for us to tell the people who take on highly-active
roles, that they are no longer able to lead.
* We (collectively) try to encourage the extremely capable volunteers to
apply for jobs, and for grants.
* If Wikimedia Cascadia becomes a well-funded chapter, and you were a
staffer of it, would you become ineligible to lead proposals that effect
your area of activity?

-- 
quiddity


On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Let me rephrase and elaborate on that point. Phabricator and MediaWiki
> aren't the WMF wiki. I think that WMF employees' proposals, comments,
> questions, and suggestions can be welcome for TCoC drafting. However, in
> terms of process leadership and in terms of proportion of input, I would
> like to see -- and I think that the proposal would be more likely to pass
> an RfC on adoption for the whole document -- community leadership of the
> process, and a greater proportion of community input.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Erik Bernhardson <
> ebernhard...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > A point I should make is that I think that Matthew and others made some
> > > good-faith efforts with the current draft. I would have proposed far
> less
> > > WMF involvement with the draft
> >
> >
> > One thing I just don't understand here, why should the people that
> > participate in technical spaces more than most (because it's their job to
> > do so) not be involved?
> > ___
> > 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,