Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Research on the acquisition of new volunteers shows that most new people
drop out because of perceived hostility. This excercise of formulating a
strategy for 2030 aims to address this among other objectives. It follows
that when new volunteers that stick is an important objective, the status
quo cannot be maintained. When people threaten to leave because the status
quo, their power base is threatened, they are welcome to take a leave of
absence and as Jan-Bart said in them days we hope they will reconsider.

Mind you, I am not a fan-boy of the new strategy. I was in Stockholm and I
made several points where I think the strategy fails.

The problem that I have with "advocates for the community" is that like
lawyers they do not necessarily self include and certainly take no
responsiblity. Their point would be more clear when they say "I will leave
our community because... ". Our community will be better off when some bad
apples but "pillars of the community" leave. Our community would be better
off when we argue in stead of state opinions. Let's be on point and to the
point.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 22:39, Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> Gerard
>
> A good point.  The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all
> those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the
> WMF for free.  In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on
> the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
> terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
> these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
> large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
> there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
> sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
> Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
> course for them and not for us to decide.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> > accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> > the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> > of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> > is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> > community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
> electorate
> > has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> > not beholden to you nor me.
> >
> > "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
> our
> > projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> > in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> > references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> > when.
> >
> > Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
> opinion
> > nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
> needs
> > an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is
> best
> > to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> > consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
> of
> > how we could improve upon them.
> > Thanks
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
> it
> > > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
> some
> > > clarification would be welcome.
> > > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
> the
> > > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> > recommendations
> > > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
> more
> > > effective.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > > here!
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> > > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
> > > sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
> > made.
> > >
> > > In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then
> as
> > > it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to
> a
> > > point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> > > expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you are not answerable for the mails you send, I might agree. I do not
put words in your mouth, you were quite capable of doing that yourself.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 22:02, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> My notion of community depends on context. The context of this thread was
> not defined by me,  so why do you not address your question to the person
> who brought it up? (Benjamin)
> Please refrain from telling me what I accept or do not accept, I am aware
> of my own thoughts and opinions and find your attempts to define my
> opinions offensive, as you are necessarily ignorant of what I have not
> stated. It is entirely obvious that the WMF is not a democracy, I have
> never claimed that they were, or even that they should be. The WMF has had
> mixed success in its endeavours. Some things they do well. Communicating
> with English Wikipedia on some aspects of trust and safety, policy and
> software changes is a thing they have not done well. This is my opinion.
> Yours may differ. I will give your opinion the consideration it deserves
> when it is explained logically, politely, and referring to verifiable
> facts. The farcical state of some elected governments and the
> irresponsibility of the elected is extremely familiar to me, as I live in a
> state where the elected government has continuously failed to deliver on
> their promises and on the laws they make (Not the USA, by the way, other
> countries also have embarrassing elected officials). That does not relieve
> other elected bodies or persons of their responsibilities. Being appointed
> to a position also does not relieve a person of their responsibility to do
> due diligence in governing the institution they gave been appointed to
> govern. Failure to take known risks into account is negligence, wherever a
> person is given the responsibility to direct an organisation following a
> constitution which requires them to do so. Boards are usually elected and
> appointed to take the responsibility to govern with due diligence and to
> avoid where possible damaging the organisation. I have reasonable
> confidence that the board will do its job. I do not have confidence in the
> ability of some of the working groups to come up with workable solutions to
> the various problems of the various projects.
> There is a need for change, but the need is for carefully considered
> change that does not unduly damage the projects, not a mixed bag of
> measures which includes poorly considered and poorly articulated
> recommendations that have been put together by people who do not appear to
> wish to communicate with those who will be affected by their
> recommendations. Here are some friendly suggestions: Please read my words
> carefully and try to understand my points, and refrain from assigning
> motives and opinions to me if I have not claimed them for myself, or when
> they are based on the words of other people. Make sure you are addressing
> the relevant person. Ask for clarification if you need it. Do not put words
> into my mouth.
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: 24 August 2019 20:10
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> here!
>
> Hoi,
> Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
> has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> not beholden to you nor me.
>
> "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
> projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> when.
>
> Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
> nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
> an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
> to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
> how we could improve upon them.
> Thanks
>   GerardM
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> > clarification would be welcome.
> > English Wikipedia may 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Todd Allen  wrote:

> When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia
> functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF
> backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly
> backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone
> regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.
>

There's a different interpretation to those events:

> nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia functionaries resigned

Maybe I missed somebody, but the only functionary
, who resigned was
BU Rob13, others were admins and bureaucrats, not functionaries.
It's worth noting, that Rob did not resign because of the WMF's office
action, but the opposite: the community's response to it.
The 22 admins who resigned was ca. 5.4% of the reasonably active admins
("411 [admins] with 24 [actions] or more in the year").

> Many have returned

Read: Some of those resignations were for the effect. In a superficial
check I only found a few, who have actually returned.

> WMF backed off
>
Did it? Fram is still banned, temporary office actions policy consultation
is in preparation. I would agree that the WMF is more open to conversation
now, which is good.

> We lost many of our best to that

That can't be claimed objectively. There was an attempt to measure the
activity of the resigned admins: a statistics about number of admin actions
.
It's subjective, how many actions in a year should count as being active.
"As a more reasonable bar, there are 411 [admins] with 24 [actions] or more
in the year".  22/411 = 5.4% of the "active" admins resigned, those who
"were responsible for 19423 admin actions or 2.4% of the total". Based on
this dataset, the resigned 5.4% of admins made 2.4% of the admin actions in
one year. Less than half of the average. This is not representative of the
"quality" of an admin, but shows that their resignation was not a major
disruption, contrary to how it is dramatized.

I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do
> something like that again".


"Do better than that" would be the solution oriented lesson to be learned.
By better I mean to do a cooperative process.
I wonder if that "community", whose opinion you represent, have learned
from these recommendations, that there are long-running issues to be
solved.
It's not only the Foundations' lacking cooperation with the communities,
that's under scrutiny here, but also the communities' failure to resolve
fundamental issues.
There would be no need for intervention, if the communities were able to do
this on their own.


> What WMF should've learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted
> interference with a local
> community again.
>

Starting these conversations was a major step forward from the "hamfisted
interference" of the framban.
Can the community show good faith in response, and cooperatively
participate? Many of us did.

Aron
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:01, Todd Allen  wrote:

> And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of
> thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than
> a dozen people?
>

Let's be factual. There are 9 WGs

with 8-14, members each, say ca. 100 WG members to sum.
There are ca. 40 "activists" revolting

against
one or more recommendations. Only a few of them made actual, constructive
contributions to the discussions.
This group is hardly representative of the presumed few thousands
interested in the future of the movement.

That's no way to run a project. It's no way to run anything. "Well, their
> vote counts for a hundred of yours...".
>
> That's not how we do things, at all. Either things are accepted or rejected
> by Wikimedia members, but every single long-term, good-faith contributor
> counts the same as any other. No one's voice is "more equal" than another.
>

It sounds like you are describing WP:Vote
.
On enwiki we do WP:Consensus
,
where the arguments count, not directly the number of contributors.
Also, it's questionable, whether the purely negative comments are
good-faith contributions, or disruptions, that make it more difficult to
focus on finding a solution on common grounds.

On the other hand, Wikimania is over, and the WGs' involvement in the
discussions hasn't increased. I hinted on a very optimistic one week
turnaround for the WGs, that didn't happen. I expected this would be a
likely possibility, in which case it's doubtful that the WGs will be able
to produce a recommendation after 15 Sept, that could be accepted as final,
or some will lack important details, or carry the unresolved fundamental
issues. Even if it happens so, that's also a workable process, or
alternatively the Foundation can modify the timeline, when the community
response makes it clear, there's need for more iterations.

Aron
___
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] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

[Dennis During]

Every participant in an iterative multi-party process likes to be the
last.  In a certain sense the larger community will be the last. They can
opt to abandon the movement.  But for those volunteers who will be loyal to
the movement, it is the far-away Board has the last look and final say-so.
Given the difficulty of actually getting any significant level of response
from the larger community, especially of mere content contributors, it
would be nice - and wise IMO - to allow for the larger community to have a
long look at finished draft proposals.

The sad fact is that the only way the larger community would be likely to
take such proposals seriously would be if there were an imminent deadline.
Unfortunately, it is hard to take the imminent deadline seriously given the
absence of substance in some areas.  Thus a chance has been missed to get
substantial involvement from the broader community.

I wonder why some of the working groups have so little to show.  Is there
substantial disagreement among members?

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 2:00 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> the "Recommendations" are a problem because we are so late in the strategy
> process. They are supposed to give the community a chance for community
> input. If the quality of the "Recommendations" is so poor, then the chance
> for the community to give substantial input is very limited.
> In this unready state, the "Recommendations" or parts of them should not
> have been published. It is not appropriate to ask the community to invest
> time in reading texts that are not ready.
> The experience is very frustrating.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Am Do., 22. Aug. 2019 um 13:00 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
> nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>:
>
> > Hi Ziko and all,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I have posted a
> response
> > to the other thread and hope to have addressed your questions there as
> > well. Let me know if you need further clarification.
> >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 10:50, Aron Manning 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after
> which
> > > > working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement
> input
> > > as
> > > >
> > >
> > > I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within
> that
> > > timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental
> to
> > > these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile
> > environment
> > > this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in
> > > wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next
> iteration,
> > > and keep the conversation alive.
> > > I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for
> > > this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most
> > > popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some
> > > feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.
> > >
> > > Aron
> > >
> > >
> > > ᐧ
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicole Ebber
> > Adviser International Relations
> > Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> > Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> > Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> > https://wikimedia.de
> >
> > Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit
> > teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> > https://spenden.wikimedia.de
> >
> > Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> > Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter
> > der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> > Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> > ___
> > 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
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Todd Allen]

Then, let me rephrase, I guess. Why's it seem those people are being
ignored?

When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia
functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF
backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly
backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone
regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.

I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do
something like that again". But then I can't see how that couldn't have
been learned with VE, or Superprotect, or...any of that. What WMF should've
learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted interference with a local
community again.

Has that lesson, at least, been learned?

Todd

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:07 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
>> Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?
>>
>
> My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a
> majority of our communities is not interested in administration,
> organization, structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the
> discussion).
>
> 5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to
> group.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:00 PM Todd Allen 
mailto:toddmal...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?

My intent was not dismissive, but factual (I basically made a point that a 
majority of our communities is not interested in administration, organization, 
structures, etc., so as to address an estimation error in the discussion).

5-10 thousand people are still a large and definitely worth listening to group.

best,

dj
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Todd Allen]

Then, why'd we hear something so dismissive as this?

" However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions
(I'd call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between
5 and 10 thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the
recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made."

And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of
thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than
a dozen people?

That's no way to run a project. It's no way to run anything. "Well, their
vote counts for a hundred of yours...".

That's not how we do things, at all. Either things are accepted or rejected
by Wikimedia members, but every single long-term, good-faith contributor
counts the same as any other. No one's voice is "more equal" than another.

Regards,

Todd

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 3:40 PM Dariusz Jemielniak 
wrote:

> Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point
> of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable
> independent sources and disseminated under a free licence" is close to many
> of us (me including). I think it is quite unlikely that recommendations
> challenging every single part of that intent, in the understanding of the
> majority of our community, will go through.
>
> It is my honest belief that the WMF Board of Trustees does not intend to
> radically reduce the number of volunteers involved.
>
> In any case, I suggest we wait and see how the recommendations shape up
> anyhow.
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 5:22 PM Jeff Hawke  > wrote:
> Dariusz
>
> It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you
> mention are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on
> a neutral point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to
> reliable independent sources and disseminated under a free licence.  Since
> there are recommendations that would challenge every single part of that
> intent, it seems reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of
> the volunteer workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a
> project that has so dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> --
> 
> [http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]
>   prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl 
>
>
>
> Ostatnie artykuły:
>
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017)  Cultural Diversity of
> Quality of Information on Wikipedias<
> http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/cultures%20of%20wikipedias.pdf>
> Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:  10.
> 2460–2470.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits
> of A-Hierarchical Organization<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/wikimedia_governance.pdf> Journal
> of Organizational Change Management 29:  3.  361-378.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between
> Wikipedia and Academia<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/bridging.pdf> Journal of the
> Association for Information Science and Technology 67:  7.  1773-1776.
>   *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Breaking the Glass Ceiling on Wikipedia<
> http://www.crow.kozminski.edu.pl/papers/glass-ceiling.pdf> Feminist
> Review 113:  1.  103-108.
>   *   Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)
> Inequalities in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s
> Commits in Apache Software Foundation Projects<
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0152976.PDF>,
> PLoS ONE 11:  4.  e0152976.
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

Well, "the intention of building an encyclopedia based on a neutral point of 
view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable independent 
sources and disseminated under a free licence" is close to many of us (me 
including). I think it is quite unlikely that recommendations challenging every 
single part of that intent, in the understanding of the majority of our 
community, will go through.

It is my honest belief that the WMF Board of Trustees does not intend to 
radically reduce the number of volunteers involved.

In any case, I suggest we wait and see how the recommendations shape up anyhow.

best,

dj

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 5:22 PM Jeff Hawke 
mailto:geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dariusz

It seems very likely that the majority of the 60,000 contributors you mention 
are there with the intention of building an encyclopaedia based on a neutral 
point of view achieved by verifiable information attributed to reliable 
independent sources and disseminated under a free licence.  Since there are 
recommendations that would challenge every single part of that intent, it seems 
reasonable to assume that some non-trivial proportion of the volunteer 
workforce will not wish to continue to participate in a project that has so 
dramatically changed its entire raison d'etre.

Jeff



--

[http://crow.kozminski.edu.pl/minds.jpg]
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry MINDS (Management in Networked and Digital Societies)
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://NeRDS.kozminski.edu.pl 



Ostatnie artykuły:

  *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Maciej Wilamowski (2017)  Cultural Diversity of 
Quality of Information on 
Wikipedias 
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68:  10.  
2460–2470.
  *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Wikimedia Movement Governance: The Limits of 
A-Hierarchical 
Organization 
Journal of Organizational Change Management 29:  3.  361-378.
  *   Dariusz Jemielniak, Eduard Aibar (2016)  Bridging the Gap Between 
Wikipedia and Academia 
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67:  7.  
1773-1776.
  *   Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Breaking the Glass Ceiling on 
Wikipedia Feminist 
Review 113:  1.  103-108.
  *   Tadeusz Chełkowski, Peter Gloor, Dariusz Jemielniak (2016)  Inequalities 
in Open Source Software Development: Analysis of Contributor’s Commits in 
Apache Software Foundation 
Projects,
 PLoS ONE 11:  4.  e0152976.
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

" Only some of the board members are elected by the community." - and the
others are appointed by those who are elected by the community.
OK, it's not entirely direct democracy, but still democracy.

Paulo


Gerard Meijssen  escreveu no dia sábado,
24/08/2019 à(s) 19:10:

> Hoi,
> Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
> has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> not beholden to you nor me.
>
> "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
> projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> when.
>
> Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
> nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
> an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
> to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
> how we could improve upon them.
> Thanks
>   GerardM
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> > clarification would be welcome.
> > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the
> > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> recommendations
> > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more
> > effective.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > here!
> >
> > Hoi,
> > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
> > sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
> made.
> >
> > In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
> > it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
> > point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> > expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
> environment,
> > it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
> > fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
> taken,
> > fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
> >
> > So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
> > as an abstraction.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Benjamin,
> > > Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> > > that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> > > Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > > here!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community
> in
> > > such a massive way.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > > > position at this point in time.
> > > >
> > > > J
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke  >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> James
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> > > Board's
> > > >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> > > >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> > > >>
> > > >> Jeff
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> James
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke <

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Yaroslav Blanter]

We are not "working for WMF for free". We are actually not working for WMF
at all. This is a completely false premise for any discussion.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 10:39 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> Gerard
>
> A good point.  The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all
> those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the
> WMF for free.  In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on
> the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
> terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
> these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
> large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
> there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
> sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
> Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
> course for them and not for us to decide.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> > accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> > the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> > of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> > is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> > community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the
> electorate
> > has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> > not beholden to you nor me.
> >
> > "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that
> our
> > projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> > in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> > references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> > when.
> >
> > Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your
> opinion
> > nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that
> needs
> > an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is
> best
> > to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> > consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines
> of
> > how we could improve upon them.
> > Thanks
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard,
> > > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume
> it
> > > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and
> some
> > > clarification would be welcome.
> > > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but
> the
> > > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> > recommendations
> > > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or
> more
> > > effective.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > > here!
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> > > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
> > > sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
> > made.
> > >
> > > In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then
> as
> > > it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to
> a
> > > point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> > > expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
> > environment,
> > > it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the
> well
> > > fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
> > taken,
> > > fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
> > >
> > > So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that
> great
> > > as an abstraction.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood <
> > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Benjamin,
> > > > Has the board or any member of the board made any statement
> suggesting
> > > > that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> > > > Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 4:39 PM Jeff Hawke 
mailto:geoffey.ha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
course for them and not for us to decide.

just a side remark (in my personal capacity only): we have about 60 thousand 
active editors, which I think is more or less what the core community is formed 
of (mainly because readers do not have Wikimedian identity). For the vast 
majority of them our organizational discussions do not matter much at all. I 
don't think that the assumption that "the large proportions of the current 
volunteers will cease their involvement" makes any sense.

However, among those who are interested in organizational discussions  (I'd 
call them "activists", I'm unsure how many there are, probably between 5 and 10 
thousand, give or take) some will definitely be unhappy about the 
recommendations. Some may leave, as always happens when decisions are made.
We will surely have to discuss the overall picture and evaluate the pros and 
cons, but only once the recommendations are ready.

I have to say that I am really impressed at how dedicated most of the working 
groups have been so far. This process was huge and resulted in many challenges 
we did not expect. It is the first time in humankind history that a strategic 
conversation is carried out this way. Inevitably, there will be gaps, there 
will be shortcomings, but there will be also amazing ideas. How we get from the 
recommendations into actual applications will definitely be tricky, but I don't 
think it is fair to the tremendous effort of these wonderful and committed 
people to just assume that the result will be disastrous. On the contrary, I'm 
quite certain that we can use the recommendations to the movement's benefits, 
even if we do not literally follow every single one of them, but treat some as 
more general directives or ideas for later future.

best,

dj "pundit"

___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Jeff Hawke]

Nicole,

You say that the harmonisation sprint will take place in Tunis.  Why was it
decided to hold the sprint in a country in which ihomosexuality is
illegal,  as are sexual relations outside marriage.  Is this going to be a
safe space for such community members?

Jeff

On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 11:58 AM Nicole Ebber 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so much
> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for building our
> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and clarifications.
>
> DRAFTS
> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently shared are
> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but working
> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups. Some
> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further development,
> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next few
> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give everyone a
> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into multiple
> progress levels.
>
> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A recommendation to
> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go through a
> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the reasoning
> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be ways to
> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to look into
> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in the
> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation, instead of
> rushing to a quick fix.
>
> INTEGRATION
> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania and via
> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next iteration of
> their recommendations. These documents will then serve as a basis for
> harmonization across working groups.
>
> The input that we are gathering comes in on different levels. Some of it
> targets structural level changes or emphasizes specific principles or
> values, while other feedback is more on the programmatic side or already
> addressing implementation. Structural input will continue to be  considered
> in forthcoming iterations of the recommendations. Programmatic input will
> be documented and taken forward to inform the implementation.
>
> TIMELINE
> We wanted to get the English drafts out as soon as possible and the
> translations on a rolling basis, so that Wikimania participants could read
> and prepare to engage in person. Over the next few weeks, we will do
> targeted, public outreach to online project communities in multiple
> languages. We are soliciting feedback to shape the overall direction of the
> recommendations through mid-September. Working Groups are already working
> on identifying gaps and overlaps with other groups to prepare for
> harmonization.
>
> At the harmonization sprint in Tunis on 20-22 September, we will bring 3
> representatives from each Working Group together to work to develop a more
> coherent set of recommendations. The group will be supported by
> facilitators and external advice, as well as the core team. We have also
> invited María Sefidari, Katherine Maher, Ryan Merkley, Valerie D’Costa
> (Wikimedia Foundation) and Abraham Taherivand (Wikimedia Deutschland) to
> the sprint. They contribute expertise and experience from their work and
> leadership in the movement and beyond. They will be active listeners and
> can challenge recommendations by pointing out risks and consequences on the
> organizational and movement level. They also participate as the
> representatives of organizations that may be impacted by the
> recommendations. Involving them early is important so they can anticipate
> any possible changes for their staff and programs, and plan for
> implementation.
>
> Our aim is to release recommendations in November 2019, and present them to
> the Board of Trustees for approval in December. We will need the legal
> authority of the board for some of the recommendations, while others will
> then be further delegated to other community mechanisms and structures for
> approval or further consultation.[1] There will be additional public
> consultation activities around implementation that will be discussed and
> owned across the movement.
>
> WORKING GROUPS
> We have chosen the working group model to ensure that the process that
> embarks to make significant changes to our movement structures is owned by
> the community. Members of the nine working group were selected by a
> steering committee and the groups were established in July 2019.[2] Group
> members come from different parts of the movement, e.g. from different
> regions and languages, from individual contributors and organized groups,
> and with different volunteer and staff roles, incl. Wikimedia Foundation
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Jeff Hawke]

Gerard

A good point.  The "community" in one sense is simply the collection of all
those people who happen over any given time period to be working for the
WMF for free.  In another sense, it is the structures and cultures found on
the various projects.  I think my question could best have been phrased in
terms of the first meaning -- that is, does the WMF Board expect that after
these recommendations are enacted, and, as we may reasonably predict, a
large proportion of the current volunteers cease their invlvement, that
there will be a sufficient number of continuing and new volunteers to
sustain the projects in the way the WMF desires.  It seems odd that the
Board would not have even begun to consider this question, but it is of
course for them and not for us to decide.

Jeff

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 7:10 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
> accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
> the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
> of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
> is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
> community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
> has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
> not beholden to you nor me.
>
> "We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
> projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
> in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
> references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
> when.
>
> Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
> nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
> an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
> to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
> consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
> how we could improve upon them.
> Thanks
>   GerardM
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> > is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> > clarification would be welcome.
> > English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the
> > WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the
> recommendations
> > of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more
> > effective.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > here!
> >
> > Hoi,
> > May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> > community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> > opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
> > sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises
> made.
> >
> > In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
> > it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
> > point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> > expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe
> environment,
> > it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
> > fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has
> taken,
> > fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
> >
> > So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
> > as an abstraction.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Benjamin,
> > > Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> > > that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> > > Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > > here!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community
> in
> > > such a massive way.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > > > position at this point in time.
> > > >
> > > > J
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard, 
My notion of community depends on context. The context of this thread was not 
defined by me,  so why do you not address your question to the person who 
brought it up? (Benjamin)
Please refrain from telling me what I accept or do not accept, I am aware of my 
own thoughts and opinions and find your attempts to define my opinions 
offensive, as you are necessarily ignorant of what I have not stated. It is 
entirely obvious that the WMF is not a democracy, I have never claimed that 
they were, or even that they should be. The WMF has had mixed success in its 
endeavours. Some things they do well. Communicating with English Wikipedia on 
some aspects of trust and safety, policy and software changes is a thing they 
have not done well. This is my opinion. Yours may differ. I will give your 
opinion the consideration it deserves when it is explained logically, politely, 
and referring to verifiable facts. The farcical state of some elected 
governments and the irresponsibility of the elected is extremely familiar to 
me, as I live in a state where the elected government has continuously failed 
to deliver on their promises and on the laws they make (Not the USA, by the 
way, other countries also have embarrassing elected officials). That does not 
relieve other elected bodies or persons of their responsibilities. Being 
appointed to a position also does not relieve a person of their responsibility 
to do due diligence in governing the institution they gave been appointed to 
govern. Failure to take known risks into account is negligence, wherever a 
person is given the responsibility to direct an organisation following a 
constitution which requires them to do so. Boards are usually elected and 
appointed to take the responsibility to govern with due diligence and to avoid 
where possible damaging the organisation. I have reasonable confidence that the 
board will do its job. I do not have confidence in the ability of some of the 
working groups to come up with workable solutions to the various problems of 
the various projects.
There is a need for change, but the need is for carefully considered change 
that does not unduly damage the projects, not a mixed bag of measures which 
includes poorly considered and poorly articulated recommendations that have 
been put together by people who do not appear to wish to communicate with those 
who will be affected by their recommendations. Here are some friendly 
suggestions: Please read my words carefully and try to understand my points, 
and refrain from assigning motives and opinions to me if I have not claimed 
them for myself, or when they are based on the words of other people. Make sure 
you are addressing the relevant person. Ask for clarification if you need it. 
Do not put words into my mouth.
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 24 August 2019 20:10
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hoi,
Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
not beholden to you nor me.

"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
when.

Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
how we could improve upon them.
Thanks
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> clarification would be welcome.
> English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the
> WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations
> of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more
> effective.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, August 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Your notion of community is what I question. It is in your refusal of
accepting that English Wikipedia is not a safe place, in your notion that
the WMF failed, you fail to accept that it is the WMF that is the arbiter
of last resort. You also fail to appreciate that the Wikimedia Foundation
is not a democracy. Only some of the board members are elected by the
community. The notion that elected officials are beholden to the electorate
has been spectacularly put on display in the United States so no they are
not beholden to you nor me.

"We" do not consider facts, we hide behind opinions. The result is that our
projects could do so much better once opinions are left for what they are
in the face of proven facts. We claim our references are important but
references to our behaviour have been reduced to who said what, where and
when.

Maybe the recommendations of working groups are not better in your opinion
nor mine. In the end it does not matter because there is so much that needs
an overhaul that defensive postures are exactly the behaviour that is best
to be disregarded. What is needed is accepting the need for change,
consider what the recommendations are and consider them along the lines of
how we could improve upon them.
Thanks
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 19:20, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it
> is Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some
> clarification would be welcome.
> English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the
> WMF has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations
> of the Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more
> effective.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> here!
>
> Hoi,
> May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
> community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
> opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
> sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.
>
> In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
> it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
> point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
> expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment,
> it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
> fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken,
> fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.
>
> So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
> as an abstraction.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Benjamin,
> > Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> > that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> > Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> > here!
> >
> >
> >
> > It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> > such a massive way.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > > position at this point in time.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> James
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> > Board's
> > >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> > >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> > >>
> > >> Jeff
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> > >>>
> > >>> James
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Paulo,
> > 
> >  You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> > community
> >  does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> > >> just
> >  five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> > >>> expressed
> >  the opinion
> > 
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> >  over
> >  a much less dramatic change.
> > 
> > > All of this is 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello,

the "Recommendations" are a problem because we are so late in the strategy
process. They are supposed to give the community a chance for community
input. If the quality of the "Recommendations" is so poor, then the chance
for the community to give substantial input is very limited.
In this unready state, the "Recommendations" or parts of them should not
have been published. It is not appropriate to ask the community to invest
time in reading texts that are not ready.
The experience is very frustrating.

Kind regards
Ziko



Am Do., 22. Aug. 2019 um 13:00 Uhr schrieb Nicole Ebber <
nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de>:

> Hi Ziko and all,
>
> Thanks for sharing your concerns and suggestions. I have posted a response
> to the other thread and hope to have addressed your questions there as
> well. Let me know if you need further clarification.
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-August/093303.html
>
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
>
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 10:50, Aron Manning  wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> > > "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which
> > > working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input
> > as
> > >
> >
> > I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that
> > timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental to
> > these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile
> environment
> > this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in
> > wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next iteration,
> > and keep the conversation alive.
> > I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for
> > this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most
> > popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some
> > feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.
> >
> > Aron
> >
> >
> > ᐧ
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> https://wikimedia.de
>
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der Menschheit
> teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
> https://spenden.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
> ___
> 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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard, 
It is not clear who you are addressing here, but I am going to assume it is 
Benjamin, who made the original claim. It is a fair question, and some 
clarification would be welcome. 
English Wikipedia may have failed to provide a safe environment, but the WMF 
has failed possibly even more "spectacularly", and the recommendations of the 
Working Group do not appear to be likely to be any better or more effective.
Cheers, 
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:29 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

Hoi,
May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.

In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.

So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
as an abstraction.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Benjamin,
> Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> here!
>
>
>
> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> such a massive way.
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > position at this point in time.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> >> James
> >>
> >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> Board's
> >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Paulo,
> 
>  You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> community
>  does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> >> just
>  five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> >>> expressed
>  the opinion
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
>  over
>  a much less dramatic change.
> 
> > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
>  acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> >> this
>  next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> >> take a
>  wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
> >> to
>  let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> >>> when
>  needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
> will
>  return when the time is right.
> 
>  I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> 
>  Jeff
> 
>  On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
>  paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> >>> 8and
> > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> >>> December.
> > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
> >> only
> >>> be
> > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> > process of implementation.
> >
> > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
>  Wikimedia
> > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
> >>> the
> > way till implementation phase.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > 22/08/2019
> > à(s) 11:58:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Thank 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
May I ask what you mean with "the" community? If anything the Wikimedia
community exists in some 300 parts and every parts has as many distinct
opinions. There are essential conflicts of interest, by some there is a
sense of entitlement, either based on possession or based on promises made.

In many ways, what Jan-Bart wrote at the time makes as much sense then as
it made now. The model of self governance within a project works up to a
point but when it is then pointed out to it where it fails to meet
expectations, like it does when it is tasked to provide a safe environment,
it fails spectacularly. There is plenty of evidence showing how the well
fortified positions the English Wikipedia community among others has taken,
fails our readers in providing the best possible quality.

So what community and why should we bother when it is not even that great
as an abstraction.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Benjamin,
> Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting
> that the board might overrule the community in this matter?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Benjamin Ikuta
> Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are
> here!
>
>
>
> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> such a massive way.
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > position at this point in time.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> >> James
> >>
> >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> Board's
> >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Paulo,
> 
>  You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> community
>  does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> >> just
>  five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> >>> expressed
>  the opinion
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
>  over
>  a much less dramatic change.
> 
> > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
>  acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> >> this
>  next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> >> take a
>  wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
> >> to
>  let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> >>> when
>  needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
> will
>  return when the time is right.
> 
>  I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> 
>  Jeff
> 
>  On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
>  paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> >>> 8and
> > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> >>> December.
> > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
> >> only
> >>> be
> > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> > process of implementation.
> >
> > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
>  Wikimedia
> > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
> >>> the
> > way till implementation phase.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > 22/08/2019
> > à(s) 11:58:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> >>> much
> >> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
> >> building
>  our
> >> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
> >> clarifications.
> >>
> >> DRAFTS
> >> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
> >> shared
>  are
> >> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
>  working
> >> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
> >>> Some
> >> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
> >>> development,
> >> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Peter Southwood]

Benjamin,
Has the board or any member of the board made any statement suggesting that the 
board might overrule the community in this matter?
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Benjamin Ikuta
Sent: 24 August 2019 07:12
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!



It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such 
a massive way. 



On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:

> The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> position at this point in time.
> 
> J
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke  wrote:
> 
>> James
>> 
>> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the Board's
>> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
>> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman  wrote:
>> 
>>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Paulo,
 
 You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia community
 does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
>> just
 five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
>>> expressed
 the opinion
 
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
 over
 a much less dramatic change.
 
> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
 acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
>> this
 next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
>> take a
 wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
>> to
 let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
>>> when
 needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you will
 return when the time is right.
 
 I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
 
 Jeff
 
 On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
 paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
>>> 8and
> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
>>> December.
> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
>> only
>>> be
> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> process of implementation.
> 
> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
 Wikimedia
> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
>>> the
> way till implementation phase.
> 
> Paulo
> 
> Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> 22/08/2019
> à(s) 11:58:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
>>> much
>> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
>> building
 our
>> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
>> clarifications.
>> 
>> DRAFTS
>> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
>> shared
 are
>> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
 working
>> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
>>> Some
>> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
>>> development,
>> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
>>> few
>> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
 everyone a
>> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
 multiple
>> progress levels.
>> 
>> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
>> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
 recommendation
> to
>> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
 through
> a
>> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> reasoning
>> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
 ways
> to
>> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
>> look
 into
>> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
>> the
>> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
>>> instead
 of
>> rushing to a quick fix.
>> 
>> INTEGRATION
>> The working groups are taking input that they gathered at Wikimania
>>> and
> via
>> different movement channels and incorporating it into the next
 iteration
> of
>> their recommendations. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

" I hope the wider community will engage with and provide feedback to the
core group" - At the meta pages everybody can see the community is engaging
very actively, it's WG and core group engagement there which is very low or
null. And we are already only some 3 weeks before the window for community
engagement closes. How can this look good and inspiring?

I also don't understand why people keep saying that "many of the
recommendations are fine" - Those obviously are not the problem. The
problem is that we, as the wider community, are now seeing the final draft
for some quite egregiously controversial recommendations, and there is not
any indication that they will be removed or adapted in a consensus with the
community. Some crucial WGs such as Roles & Responsibilities seem to have
reduced the output to 3 complex theoretical models that we are supposed to
evaluate in some few days. This can't be right.

Paulo

James Heilman  escreveu no dia sábado, 24/08/2019 à(s)
09:51:

> @ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the
> community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider
> community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is
> working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some
> requires more discussion and some adjustments.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> > such a massive way.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
> >
> > > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > > position at this point in time.
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> James
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> > Board's
> > >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> > >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> > >>
> > >> Jeff
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> > >>>
> > >>> James
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Paulo,
> > 
> >  You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> > community
> >  does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> > >> just
> >  five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> > >>> expressed
> >  the opinion
> > 
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
> >  over
> >  a much less dramatic change.
> > 
> > > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
> >  acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> > >> this
> >  next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> > >> take a
> >  wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you
> have
> > >> to
> >  let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next
> step
> > >>> when
> >  needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
> > will
> >  return when the time is right.
> > 
> >  I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> > 
> >  Jeff
> > 
> >  On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> >  paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> > >>> 8and
> > > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> > >>> December.
> > > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
> > >> only
> > >>> be
> > > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in
> the
> > > process of implementation.
> > >
> > > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
> >  Wikimedia
> > > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass
> all
> > >>> the
> > > way till implementation phase.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > > 22/08/2019
> > > à(s) 11:58:
> > >
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> > >>> much
> > >> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
> > >> building
> >  our
> > >> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
> > >> clarifications.
> > >>
> > >> DRAFTS
> > >> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
> > >> shared
> >  are
> > >> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
> >  working
> > >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Aron Manning]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 11:18, Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

> It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community.
>

Benjamin, this is not a clash between two opposing forces, albeit some
combative elements try to "divide and conquer", and turn the community into
two opposing camps.
The recommendations are about the path we choose for the future, and the
conversations are your chance to contribute to that vision.

Aron
___
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] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Sorry, by "you" I meant the board. 

It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community. 



> On Aug 24, 2019, at 1:29 AM, James Heilman  wrote:
> 
> @ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the
> community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider
> community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is
> working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some
> requires more discussion and some adjustments.
> 
> James
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
>> such a massive way.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>> 
>>> The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
>>> position at this point in time.
>>> 
>>> J
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 James
 
 Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
>> Board's
 position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
 implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
 
 Jeff
 
 On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
>> wrote:
 
> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> 
> James
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> 
>> Paulo,
>> 
>> You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
>> community
>> does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
 just
>> five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> expressed
>> the opinion
>> 
>> 
> 
 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
>> over
>> a much less dramatic change.
>> 
>>> All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
>> acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
 this
>> next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
 take a
>> wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
 to
>> let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> when
>> needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
>> will
>> return when the time is right.
>> 
>> I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
>> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
>>> community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> 8and
>>> their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> December.
>>> Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
 only
> be
>>> dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
>>> process of implementation.
>>> 
>>> It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
>> Wikimedia
>>> community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
> the
>>> way till implementation phase.
>>> 
>>> Paulo
>>> 
>>> Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
>>> 22/08/2019
>>> à(s) 11:58:
>>> 
 Dear all,
 
 Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> much
 attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
 building
>> our
 future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
 clarifications.
 
 DRAFTS
 As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
 shared
>> are
 recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
>> working
 documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
> Some
 answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
> development,
 others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
> few
 weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
>> everyone a
 full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
>> multiple
 progress levels.
 
 I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
 community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
>> recommendation
>>> to
 change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
>> through
>>> a
 quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
>>> reasoning
 behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
>> ways
>>> to
 mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
 look

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

[James Heilman]

@ Benjamin I have never said that I would "consider overriding the
community in such a massive way". What I have said is that I hope the wider
community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is
working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some
requires more discussion and some adjustments.

James

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:12 PM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
> It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in
> such a massive way.
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman  wrote:
>
> > The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> > position at this point in time.
> >
> > J
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jeff Hawke 
> wrote:
> >
> >> James
> >>
> >> Thanks for that.  As a member of the Board, would you clarify the
> Board's
> >> position on whether it is prepared to see the final Recommendations
> >> implemented irrespective of any disagreement from the community?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:05 PM James Heilman 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I for one do not agree with Jan-Bart's prior position.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:40 AM Jeff Hawke 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Paulo,
> 
>  You suggest that "things will not get pretty if the Wikimedia
> community
>  does not approve some of the recommendations".  You may recall that
> >> just
>  five years ago, Jan-Bart de Vreede, then chair of the WMF Board,
> >>> expressed
>  the opinion
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)=prev=9585319
>  over
>  a much less dramatic change.
> 
> > All of this is going to require change, change that might not be
>  acceptable to some of you. I hope that all of you will be a part of
> >> this
>  next step in our evolution. But I understand that if you decide to
> >> take a
>  wiki-break, that might be the way things have to be. Even so, you have
> >> to
>  let the Foundation do its work and allow us all to take that next step
> >>> when
>  needed. I can only hope that your break is temporary, and that you
> will
>  return when the time is right.
> 
>  I presume this is a good summary of the WMF position today.
> 
>  Jeff
> 
>  On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:06 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
>  paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > If I've well understood the timeline, all input from the Wikimedia
> > community ceases in mid September. Then it's all defined by the WGs
> >>> 8and
> > their advisors), and eventually decided upon by the BoT around
> >>> December.
> > Therefore, after 15 September or so, the Wikimedia community will
> >> only
> >>> be
> > dealing with those recommendations again when they are already in the
> > process of implementation.
> >
> > It's quite easy to predict that things will not get pretty if the
>  Wikimedia
> > community does not approve some of the recommendations that pass all
> >>> the
> > way till implementation phase.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > Nicole Ebber  escreveu no dia quinta,
> > 22/08/2019
> > à(s) 11:58:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your engagement and input. It’s been great seeing so
> >>> much
> >> attention on movement strategy and collaborative efforts for
> >> building
>  our
> >> future. Here are a couple of follow up responses and
> >> clarifications.
> >>
> >> DRAFTS
> >> As pointed out in my previous email, the documents we recently
> >> shared
>  are
> >> recommendation drafts. They are not final, and not complete, but
>  working
> >> documents that are currently being refined by the working groups.
> >>> Some
> >> answers still read like stubs that are longing for further
> >>> development,
> >> others are very detailed and will become more focused over the next
> >>> few
> >> weeks. We still decided to publish everything at once, to give
>  everyone a
> >> full picture of the variety of topics and offer an insight into
>  multiple
> >> progress levels.
> >>
> >> I would also like to reiterate that movement values, priorities and
> >> community conversation processes are high on our radar. A
>  recommendation
> > to
> >> change the existing license model, for example, will not just go
>  through
> > a
> >> quick approval process, but lead to a deeper exploration into the
> > reasoning
> >> behind it: What problems are we trying to tackle, and what could be
>  ways
> > to
> >> mitigate them? Such recommendation would then rather suggest to
> >> look
>  into
> >> different measures to ensure indigenous knowledge is included in
> >> the
> >> Wikimedia ecosystem, deploy research and further consultation,
> >>> instead
>  of
> >> rushing to a quick fix.
>