Re: [Wikimedia-l] Your support is wanted: The WMF Board of Trustees is looking for a new Board member

2013-02-19 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
Hey

I think that chapters represent a different part of the movement, and that 
their input in board composition results in different candidates than we would 
possibly elect :) At the same time the increased scope of affcom also gives us 
the option of increasing the scope of these two selected seats to include 
thematic organisations and user groups (giving them more community coverage 
than is the case now). That would be a good discussion to have over de coming 
months as the selected seats term expires in july next year…

thoughts anyone?

Jan-Bart


On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:42 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:

 Snipping a bunch for simplicities sake
 
 On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede 
 jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 
 I simply don't agree.
 a) Chapters are part of the community
 b) Whenever a vote comes up for an appointed seat that seat obviously does
 not vote, therefore the (s)elected seats have a majority vote on any
 appointed seat (5 our of 9 votes) Apart from that I would say that Jimmy's
 seat is a community seat, but recognise that not all share that viewpoint.
 
 Jan-Bart
 
 
 :-/ To be honest I don't particularly like this meme that the chapter are
 part of the community either. The chapters may be part of the community
 (and so the statement not false) but we use the phrasing in such a way as
 to say that they are more then they are.  There may be a part of the
 community but they are really a very small part of it overall.
 
 Their power in board selection and movement voice (both formally and
 informally) is disproportionately huge and we set them up to represent the
 community when that is a serious misstatement. They represent their members
 who are a very small subset of the community and often have a very
 different goal and interest set then the, much larger, remainder of the
 community and depending on the chapter may include more donors or readers
 then editors.
 
 That is not to say they don't do good things at times (or that it is a
 problem to include donors or readers, personally I think they are part of
 our larger community) but we should not confuse what they actually are.
 
 Jimmy is a whole different question ;) I would certainly say he deserves a
 seat at the table, I prefer to just categorize him as Jimmy because he's
 just a class of his own in all ways :).
 
 James
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia UK - IRC Office Hours chat session reminder

2013-02-19 Thread Stevie Benton
Hello everyone,

This is a gentle reminder that the Wikimedia UK office will be hosting an
IRC Office Hours chat tomorrow from 1730 GMT. Everyone is welcome. Some of
the staff (and hopefully Trustees) of Wikimedia UK will be on hand to
answer any questions you might have about recent activity.

For full details, and information on how to join the chat, please visit
this page on our wiki http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours.

Thanks and regards,

Stevie

-- 

Stevie Benton
Communications Organiser
Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173
@StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street,
London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a
global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the
Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Info: [Chapters Association] Next steps from the WCA coordination weekend // 16-17 Feb

2013-02-19 Thread Jon Davies
It was a pleasure to host you all and glad you made progress. Will pass
your thanks on to Richard Nevell.

Jon Davies
CEO UK Chapter.

PS Hope you were all warm enough.

On 18 February 2013 18:38, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear fellow committed Wikimedians and Chapter enthusiasts,

 Last weekend a number of Wikimedia Chapters Association Council
 members, two trustees from the WMF board and some welcome guests,
 worked together to review in detail the current progress of the
 association and feedback given by the WMF board.[1][2]

 A total of nine Council members took part with several being able to
 join using video conferencing and etherpad. There were a number of
 firm recommendations, along with a series of immediate actions. The
 meeting minutes will be issued later this week and everyone can
 preview all the notes taken during the meeting.[3][4] The meeting was
 fully open and the Council will continue to use open public
 communication channels, in preference to closed lists or meetings,
 recognizing recent community feedback on how best to meet our shared
 values of openness and transparency.

 As the Council chair, I can summarize these points as follows, and
 will be happy to refine and discuss these with an open dialogue on
 meta[4]:
 1) A small set of action teams have been agreed with a focus on
 external deliverables including chapter peer reviews, providing advice
 and analysing chapter practices. The time-frame is *three months* for
 key deliverables and all are expected to be part of the Milan
 conference in April.[3][6]
 2) The recruitment of a Secretary General is parked until such a time
 as the council is confident of securing a budget and there is a strong
 consensus on the immediate necessity of such a role or its equivalent.
 Legally incorporating the Association will also be similarly parked,
 as the driving factor would have been the need to employ staff.
 3) The previously planned elections for Wikimedia Chapters Association
 Council Chair will be brought forward one month, to starting this
 week. A separate note/email will explain the process of one week
 calling for nomination statements, questions and a similar time for
 the council vote.

 Thank you to those who have engaged already with feedback and those
 that were available to take part in the meeting last weekend. For
 those Council members and interested Wikimedians who were unable to
 take part, I welcome your feedback on this pragmatic way forward as
 early as possible, and I encourage you to lend a hand with the action
 teams, as they will benefit your chapter directly.

 A special thanks to Wikimedia UK for offering to host the London
 meeting, including Richard Nevell's support with practical logistics
 all weekend, including much needed coffee and sandwiches. I look
 forward to seeing many Chapters helping the action teams and future
 activities of the Association, with suggestions and practical offers
 of staff support. :-)

 Links
 1.
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#WMF_Board_letter_regarding_the_Chapters_Association
 2.
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Meetings/2013-07/Questionnaire
 3.
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Meetings/2013-07
 4. http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/ep/pad/view/WCA/latest
 5. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association
 6. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2013

 Thank you,
 Fae
 --
 Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae...@gmail.com
 Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA
 Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2013 scholarship now accepting application

2013-02-19 Thread Jon Davies
Mozart, being Austrian, was more discreet?

On 19 February 2013 07:27, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:

 sooo weird...

 Just some observations, my written English is bad, it is something I have
 to
 improve, however, my understanding, both read when listening are close to a
 native, and my oral production is excellent (:P). And honestly, I will not
 really use my writing ability in Wikimania or Hong Kong, but my English was
 evaluated for it.

 But I think the message should be have a level of English sufficient to
 follow the lectures, discussions and conversations

 And also I did not find that a good test for English, there's a maximum
 limit, but there is no minimum limit. I could say: I have a very
 restricted diet because I am Jewish and vegan, so my diet is restricted to
 that.

 I could say, or, I like almost everything, but I'm lactose intolerant, so
 I can do much poop if I eat things with milk. Until that can be
 interpreted only
 as something to check if I have dietary restrictions, as in previous
 questionnaires.

 And one of the advantages of being Brazilian, is that many of us find it
 easy to understand other Latinos, the reverse is not true, I would not find
 it strange to see some lectures in Interlingua, or even, Italian or
 Spanish.

 But as the Wikimania is itinerant, lectures in the local language could be
 very interesting, and even a form of local people interact more, I
 know that English
 is present among the HK natives, but I do not see why not have a lectures
 in
 Cantonese to appreciate local culture...


 On 19 February 2013 01:09, Mathieu Stumpf psychosl...@culture-libre.org
 wrote:

  Le lundi 18 février 2013 à 21:09 +1100, Liam Wyatt a écrit :
   Yes, I think that writing I will bring Stroopwafels gives you an
   automatic extra 10points in the scholarship assessment ;-)
  
   wittylama.com
   Peace, love  metadata
 
  Goddamn[1], why do you tell that only now!
 
  [1] Of course you should have read le Mariage de Figaro to understand
  this subtle reference :
  {{fr}} http://monsu.desiderio.free.fr/bibliotheque/goddam.html
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 



 --
 Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
 rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
 +55 11 97 97 18 884
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?

2013-02-19 Thread Bence Damokos
Hi,

I'll separate this out as I think it is a really interesting conversation,
and as I have heard the two arguments below repeated numerous times, it
might be useful to think about it and the future shape of things a bit more.

I think the fundamental question is how legitimate can an interest group
(chapters in this case) be if it's membership is significantly smaller than
its potential membership (at least 30% of editors come from countries with
well established chapters in afaik good standing with their local
community)?
The difference in the answer to this question could be behind the two
memes on chapters being seen as insignificant or significant parts of the
community based either on their membership or potential membership size.

I like to believe that people who go beyond online editing (or in the case
of readers and donors, beyond online donations and reading) into the
offline world are among the most dedicated of our volunteers, and knowing
their background, they usually are well embedded in their
local/national/linguistic communities, to the point that they are able to
recognize and represent their interests.
(Especially, as chapters tend to have open structures, often giving the
right to be heard to any non-member and generally not making it difficult
to become a member even for those advocating different directions.)

However, as our communities are very diverse (someone active on Wikipedia
and the chapter might not be aware of recent developments in Wiktionary and
vice versa), we need to constantly think about ways of informing and better
engaging those whose interests we wish to represent (be this at the WMF or
the individual chapter level).

Even if we don't subscribe to the wider interpretation of representation of
the potential members, the actual members are still showing a level of
dedication that I think makes it worthwhile hearing their voice in e.g.
board selections.

All that said, the chapter selected board seat is related to the
communities the chapters are embedded in at a further step of remove
because of the way the process is conducted. (The list of candidates and
questions to them, etc. are in theory non-public – although the candidate
may choose to make it public on Meta – so the boards of chapters might not
be in a position to directly survey their members' preferences and have to
bring the decision on their own.)
Therefore, I think there are definite possibilities to improve on the
selection process, even with just chapters.


Best regards,
Bence



On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:

 Hey

 I think that chapters represent a different part of the movement, and that
 their input in board composition results in different candidates than we
 would possibly elect :) At the same time the increased scope of affcom also
 gives us the option of increasing the scope of these two selected seats to
 include thematic organisations and user groups (giving them more community
 coverage than is the case now). That would be a good discussion to have
 over de coming months as the selected seats term expires in july next year…

 thoughts anyone?

 Jan-Bart


 On Feb 19, 2013, at 8:42 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:

  Snipping a bunch for simplicities sake
 
  On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede 
  jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 
  I simply don't agree.
  a) Chapters are part of the community
  b) Whenever a vote comes up for an appointed seat that seat obviously
 does
  not vote, therefore the (s)elected seats have a majority vote on any
  appointed seat (5 our of 9 votes) Apart from that I would say that
 Jimmy's
  seat is a community seat, but recognise that not all share that
 viewpoint.
 
  Jan-Bart
 
 
  :-/ To be honest I don't particularly like this meme that the chapter are
  part of the community either. The chapters may be part of the community
  (and so the statement not false) but we use the phrasing in such a way as
  to say that they are more then they are.  There may be a part of the
  community but they are really a very small part of it overall.
 
  Their power in board selection and movement voice (both formally and
  informally) is disproportionately huge and we set them up to represent
 the
  community when that is a serious misstatement. They represent their
 members
  who are a very small subset of the community and often have a very
  different goal and interest set then the, much larger, remainder of the
  community and depending on the chapter may include more donors or readers
  then editors.
 
  That is not to say they don't do good things at times (or that it is a
  problem to include donors or readers, personally I think they are part of
  our larger community) but we should not confuse what they actually are.
 
  Jimmy is a whole different question ;) I would certainly say he deserves
 a
  seat at the table, I prefer to just categorize him as Jimmy because
 he's
  just a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?

2013-02-19 Thread Bence Damokos
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:

 All that said, the chapter selected board seat is related to the
 communities the chapters are embedded in at a further step of remove
 because of the way the process is conducted. (The list of candidates and
 questions to them, etc. are in theory non-public – although the candidate
 may choose to make it public on Meta – so the boards of chapters might not
 be in a position to directly survey their members' preferences and have to
 bring the decision on their own.)


To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were
public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not
published.

Best regards,
Bence
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2013 scholarship now accepting application

2013-02-19 Thread Katie Chan

On 19/02/2013 07:27, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton wrote:


But as the Wikimania is itinerant, lectures in the local language could be
very interesting, and even a form of local people interact more, I
know that English
is present among the HK natives, but I do not see why not have a lectures in
Cantonese to appreciate local culture...


There will be the option for submission authors to hold their session 
in either Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese) or English. We plan to set up 
a separate Chinese-language track if there is enough demand for such 
sessions. - https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Schedule


--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?

2013-02-19 Thread Christophe Henner
Hey Bence,

Thanks for creating this thread and allow us to tackle that issue
(though I don't believe it really is an issue)

On 19 February 2013 14:42, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I'll separate this out as I think it is a really interesting conversation,
 and as I have heard the two arguments below repeated numerous times, it
 might be useful to think about it and the future shape of things a bit
 more.

 I think the fundamental question is how legitimate can an interest group
 (chapters in this case) be if it's membership is significantly smaller than
 its potential membership (at least 30% of editors come from countries with
 well established chapters in afaik good standing with their local
 community)?


Short answer, yes they are part of the community.

Disclaimer, I'm board member of Wikimedia France for 6 years I guess now,
so I'm not really neutral on that point :)

So let me develop that thought now.

I would even add that chapters should, and perhaps are, be key part of our
community. Online communities tend to die slowly over the time. The main
reason is that virtual bonds are much easier to forget than physical
ones. I mean it's easier stop sending email to someone than stopping to see
someone.

Chapters, in my opinion, have 2 main duties :
1/ Push forward are goals
2/ Bring offline the online community

The second one is key and instrumental to the good health of the community.
I have no hard data on that, but I feel that people that do meet regularly
and do projects together (organizing WLM, Wikipedia takes a city, meetup
with beers, etc.) tned to stick longer in the project. And even if at some
point they stop editing (because of work, studies, etc) they eventually
come back because they don't severe bonds with people they've seen
regularly irl.

Part of this can happen without a chapter, but a chapter can increase that,
ease that. And in doing so, increasing the retention of old editor and help
new editors to join in.

Yes, chapter as such do not edit the projects directly. But does this mean
they're not part of the community? I don't think so. They're a different
part of the community, but still are a part of the community.

So should the Chapters seats be considered asa Community seats ? I'd say
that the term is wrong.

We have the editing community seats, the meta community seats and the
appointed seats. Perhaps we should differentiate the two sides of the
community.

(I have virtually not edited massively for years, and people says to me (as
a joke) that I'm not really part of the community... well I believe that
even if I do not edit I'm part of the Wikimedia community)

So please, let me be part of the Wikimedia community ^_^

PS: I do not speak of membership because it is not really relevant in the
end, as the important thing in the inpact the chapter have, not how many
members it has
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?

2013-02-19 Thread Thehelpfulone
On 19 February 2013 13:48, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:

 To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were
 public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not
 published.



Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the
discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? Looking at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Process it
appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and
chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members
of chapters, during which time candidates lose their access to that
wiki/mailing list but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all
the discussions are deleted, what is the benefit of having these
discussions in private, especially if the candidates will see what was said
about them after the election?

I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the
community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing
with regards to Chapter selected seats?

-- 
Thehelpfulone
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?

2013-02-19 Thread Christophe Henner
On 19 February 2013 15:32, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 19 February 2013 13:48, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:

  To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were
  public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not
  published.
 


 Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the
 discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? Looking at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Processit
 appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and
 chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members
 of chapters, during which time candidates lose their access to that
 wiki/mailing list but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all
 the discussions are deleted, what is the benefit of having these
 discussions in private, especially if the candidates will see what was said
 about them after the election?

 I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the
 community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing
 with regards to Chapter selected seats?

 --
 Thehelpfulone
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Hmmm I might be mistaken but WMF board members, selected or not by
chapters, haven't access to chapter-l. But I might be mistaken on that.

--
Christophe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?

2013-02-19 Thread Bence Damokos
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Thehelpfulone
thehelpfulonew...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 19 February 2013 13:48, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:

  To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were
  public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not
  published.
 


 Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the
 discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? Looking at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Processit
 appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and
 chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members
 of chapters, during which time candidates lose their access to that
 wiki/mailing list but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all
 the discussions are deleted, what is the benefit of having these
 discussions in private, especially if the candidates will see what was said
 about them after the election?

 I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the
 community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing
 with regards to Chapter selected seats?

I believe the losing access to the mailing list is meant to ensure that the
candidate has no undue advantage in the process by either influencing the
discussion or knowing the other candidates' answers in advance (I believe
those who win would not get re-added as they would become part of the WMF
and have to give up their chapter board positions, while those who lose
re-gain access once the process is over and there is no more a possibility
to have this influence).

As for the private vs. public aspect, there is a difficult balance to make
between being transparent and being able to attract candidates who might
not be comfortable in being publicly identified as unsuccessful. (The
current search for an expert seat also has this guarantee of privacy, as I
understand.) The result of this balancing was I believe (I might be
mistaken) that in the end the chapters selected candidates could opt for
publicity or the default privacy and all of them opted for the public
option. This has actually resulted in the somewhat awkward need to
duplicate everything between the private wiki and Meta.
Furthermore, the process is meant to be consensual between the different
boards involved, so there is a useful place for private discussions either
on the closed mailing list or between individual board members.

Adjusting this balance and making sure that people beyond the boards are
informed (even if the final decision is still made by the boards) will be
an important challenge for the next selection.

Best regards,
Bence
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are chapters part of the community and board seats for affiliates?

2013-02-19 Thread Béria Lima

 *Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the
 discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? **it
 appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and
 chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members of
 chapters*


Actually it doesn't. If you see the process, pretty much most of it
happened in meta. The part that doesn't happens in the board of each
Chapter (and that is actually private with them) and then they come and say
who they could support and who they couldn't. After that, if there is
consensus the two people are appointed, but since in this year it didn't,
there was a vote (on chapters wiki) and the two with more votes in STV
method got appointed (In this case Patricio and Alice). No drama happens,
we don't kill anyone or anything in the process, there is no cabala, etc
etc etc.

*During which time candidates lose their access to that wiki/mailing list
 but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all the discussions are
 deleted, what is the benefit of having these discussions in private,
 especially if the candidates will see what was said about them after the
 election?*


They do lose access during the election and regain it after. The idea is
not to hide the process from then, is to have a fair discussion. Not all
candidates have access to the list[1], which right there gives then an
advantage the others doesn't. If they have access they would know who
supports then and who doesn't, and what people want the candidate to do and
he could make his campaign over this. The second part is to have the
chapters to say what they really think of the candidates (I can't really
say why I would never vote for candidate A or B if I know that candidate is
seeing the message during the election time).

*I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the
 community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing
 with regards to Chapter selected seats?*


We use a SecureWikiPoll vote method. That is also private like the
community one is. :)

*Béria Lima*

[1] If I'm not mistaken only 2 candidates last year had access - and none
of then got appointed so they both regain it.

*
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir
esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*


On 19 February 2013 11:32, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 19 February 2013 13:48, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:

  To be perfectly fair, all the nominations for the 2012 selection were
  public, so this was less of a problem than in 2010 when they were not
  published.
 


 Whilst this is true, is there a good reason as to why much of the
 discussion for chapter-elected board seats happens in private? Looking at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapter-selected_Board_seats/2012/Processit
 appears chapter discussion happens on a private chapters wiki and
 chapters-l, a mailing list restricted to only current board members
 of chapters, during which time candidates lose their access to that
 wiki/mailing list but presumably gain access to it afterwards. Unless all
 the discussions are deleted, what is the benefit of having these
 discussions in private, especially if the candidates will see what was said
 about them after the election?

 I understand why we use private voting through SecurePoll for the
 community elections but please could someone explain what I'm missing
 with regards to Chapter selected seats?

 --
 Thehelpfulone
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-19 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Dear Council Members and everyone interested in the WCA,

On 16/17th February 2013 a number of Council Members visited the
London Conference I had proposed in mid January to talk about the way
of the WCA and to prepare the Wikimedia Conference in Milan. We are
happy that the London Conference did happen, and, in spite of the
debatable WMF board statement of 5th February, that two WMF board
members still agreed to join us.

Because in 2012/2013 the signals from the WMF were not very consistent
I tried to receive more clarity about the relationship between
Foundation and Association. This was only partially successful, but I
understand that the two present WMF board members were as open as it
was possible within the constraints of the WMF board unity. We very
much appreciated the commitment of Alice and Jan-Bart and were happy
not to hear certain allegations from the board statement again.

The London Conference discussed many WCA subjects collected during the
last months. One of them was communication, and I am content that I
could convince the participants of a major change. For someone who is
interested in the WCA it has been very difficult to follow the
proceedings, plans and results. When e.g. a Council Member wanted to
talk to others or discuss something, he or she used one of the several
mailing lists the movement has, or Meta Wiki, or private email
addresses. I believe that this has been a fundamental problem with the
regard to the perception of the WCA, and that the participation even
from Council Members suffered also because of this kind of
communication.

After the election of a new Chair, the Chair of the WCA Council will
issue a Bulletin, a kind of short report, with a summary of what
happened recently and what are the plans for the near future. This
will be put on Meta Wiki, and, naturally, discussions will centre
around those Bulletins. For those who are interested it will be much
easier to follow and to participate. If someone wants to support the
WCA via translations, he or she can translate those Bulletins instead
of a lot of messages.

There will be a special list 'WCA-announcements. If you want to be
informed about Bulletins and discussions, join the list and you will
get links to Meta Wiki. It's a one-way-list, because the discussions
are supposed to be on Meta Wiki. This is a WCA service for Council
Members and non Council Members alike. In this way, nobody is obliged
to be on a heavy traffic list such as Wikimedia-l.

When we talked about the future and a possible new election of the
Chair I also asked about my position. If for any reason someone
believed that there should be a new election of the Deputy Chair, I
wanted to hear. The participants said that that is no issue and that
it is good to have continuity. The role of the Deputy Chair is to be
there for the case that at some moment there is no Chair, and then the
Deputy has to arrange the election.

The WCA continues to exist and will make some rearrangements - it's
exiting to follow the evolution.

Kind regards
Ziko van Dijk

-- 

---
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
---

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interesting research?

2013-02-19 Thread Andrew Gray
Delightfully, it turns out that someone had done exactly this months
ago, and is now running a contest to pick the best:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/02/19/vote-most-exciting-research-about-wikipedia/

Thanks for the other suggestions,

- Andrew.

On 18 February 2013 15:10, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
 Hi all,

 A speculative question: what's the most novel, thought-provoking, or
 otherwise interesting piece of research you've seen, either

 a) using information from Wikipedia (ie extracted text), or
 b) looking at Wikipedia itself as a subject?

 I'm giving a talk next month which will cover research about/with WP
 and other WM projects, and I'm curious to know what people think would
 be most interesting as examples. I've a few, but the things I find
 interesting are often unusual :-)

 Suggestions appreciated!

 Thanks,

 --
 - Andrew Gray
   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Big Fat Brussels Gathering

2013-02-19 Thread Jan Engelmann
tl;dr Issues like copyright are crucial for us. So let’s join forces
in Brussels to make a difference. All we need is a bunch of smart
people.

Dear fellow Wikimedians,

it’s been quite some time since we have talked on various occasions
about the need for the European Wikimedia chapters to join their
forces in the political arena. Regarding the threats for Free
Knowledge which derive from harmful legislation, it just might be the
right moment to reassess our current practices and take a huge step
forward, as a loose combination of chapter representatives and
volunteers.

An according EU policy project is already being prepared. User:Dimi z
[1], a Wikimedian currently based in Brussels, versed and active in
political affairs, did the hard job to gather the required amount of
information to finally get started. He created a document on Meta [2]
which might serve as a starting point to exchange and develop ideas.

== What’s at stake? ==

Concerning European regulations, we have to develop a clear and
unified position on major legislative and political changes affecting
our mission, which is to create a better environment for Free
Knowledge. Building upon the tremendous efforts of Brussels-based NGOs
like EDRI [3] and La Quadrature Du Net [4], we should take the job to
speak for the Wikimedia movement and its particular role in, let’s
say, the ongoing Copyright Wars.

To build a sustainable model for advocacy it is necessary to

* monitor EU policy proceedings and initiatives
* comprehensively inform the participating chapters and communities
about EU dossiers
* initiate discussions about what is desirable or might be risky for Wikimedia
* take action where necessary
* reach out to like-minded projects and communities

== OK, point taken. But HOW shall we do this? ==

Firstly, we are dedicated to a culture of sharing and a significant
level of transparency. So we need to work in Brussels in accordance to
our principles which differ remarkably from the “black box” approach
usually applied by industry representatives.

Secondly, we are searching for an organizational basis that follows
our capacities. So let’s come up with a smart, inclusive structure
that ensures easy access and leaves enough space for latecomers or
people that engage only occasionally.

Thirdly, we need someone on site. Since we have to give established
institutions and public officials a face, a name, and a direct way to
contact us, a specific contact person in Brussels would be more than
useful. S/he needs to know everything about the drafting process of
relevant directives and regulations, find access to political parties
and hangs out in the preferred bars of staff members working for
Neelie Kroes, Michael Barnier or Androulla Vassiliou.

== In a nutshell: Imagine a working group, which ==

* does lobbying - but in full disclosure, on the open stage
* seeks strategic alliances, but not only with affiliated organizations
* partly consists of full-time-employees, but heavily relies on
volunteer-engagement

== Interested in being a part of it? ==

Let’s get started and talk about this challenge! Your input and ideas
on the aforementioned Meta page are highly appreciated. To discuss the
working methods of an EU Policy Group and develop a project plan
together, we suggest to meet face-to-face in Brussels for one day and
a half. Wikimedia Deutschland would be happy to organize this
kick-off-gathering in March/April. We’d like to ask interested
Wikimedians to join us there. Please use the doodle below to identify
the most suitable date:

http://doodle.com/ntiz6gup7z49e7p5

(Please choose either a friday/saturday or saturday/sunday option.)

Looking forward to seeing you all in Brussels,

Jan Engelmann

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dimi_z
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy
[3] http://www.edri.org/
[4] http://www.laquadrature.net/


--
Jan Engelmann
Leiter Politik  Gesellschaft
-
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin

Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0
www.wikimedia.de

Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

 Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes
digitales Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die
Online-Petition! http://wikipedia.de 

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-19 Thread Michael Peel

On 19 Feb 2013, at 19:57, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 19 February 2013 16:10, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
 
 There will be a special list 'WCA-announcements. If you want to be
 informed about Bulletins and discussions, join the list and you will
 get links to Meta Wiki. It's a one-way-list, because the discussions
 are supposed to be on Meta Wiki. This is a WCA service for Council
 Members and non Council Members alike. In this way, nobody is obliged
 to be on a heavy traffic list such as Wikimedia-l.
 
 
 Thanks Ziko, I'm happy to create this list for you on the Foundation
 servers, please follow the instructions at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists#Create_a_new_list to file a
 bug. I'd suggest WCA-Announce to match our similar announcement lists for
 MediaWiki, WLM, Toolserver etc and to keep it relatively short.

Is there a reason why wikimediaannounce-l can't be used here?

Thanks,
Mike
(Personal viewpoint)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community-Driven Video Production

2013-02-19 Thread Victor Grigas
I moved this conversation to Meta  Manuel Schneider had an interesting
comment:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Community-Driven_Video_Production_portalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Community-Driven_Video_Production_Portal




On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 The discussion should take place on Meta or Outreach, certainly.

 Finding people to encourage to share their ideas could involve looking
 beyond the current active Commons/Meta/Outreach contributors

 SJ

 On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
 rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com wrote:
  Why not on Meta, or Outreach?
 
 
 
  On 16 February 2013 02:24, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Victor- a lovely idea.  Perhaps there are some subcommunities of
  wikimedians on youtube and other video-sites who could help with not
  just topical suggestions but potential videography suggestions...
 
  SJ
 
  On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.org
  wrote:
   Hello everyone on Wikimedia-l
  
   My name is Victor, I am storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation in San
   Francisco, and I've been a volunteer editor since 2005:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas
  
   I have an idea that I'd like to propose:
  
   Since Wikipedia is open and collaborative, I thought that video
   collaboration should also be left open to the community, so I just
 wrote
   this on the Village Pump Idea Lab:
  
  
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Community-Driven_Video_Production_Portal
  
   It is a proposal to create a forum where anyone can propose ideas that
   should be made into video. Those ideas can be polished and then a
  producer
   who is willing to volunteer (Wikipedian or otherwise) can read through
   scripts and produce the content they want to.
  
   This forum would serve video production on Wikipedia generally, not
 just
   for the work that i'm doing.
  
   Thanks for reading  I'd be happy to know your thoughts.
  
   --
  
   *Victor Grigas*
   Storyteller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Knv6D6Thi0
   Wikimedia Foundation
   vgri...@wikimedia.org
   +1 (415) 839-6885 x 6773
   149 New Montgomery Street 6th floor
   San Francisco, CA 94105
   https://donate.wikimedia.org/
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 
 
  --
  Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529
 4266
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 
 
 
  --
  Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
  rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com
  +55 11 97 97 18 884
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



 --
 Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 

*Victor Grigas*
Storyteller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Knv6D6Thi0
Wikimedia Foundation
vgri...@wikimedia.org
+1 (415) 839-6885 x 6773
149 New Montgomery Street 6th floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-19 Thread Jan-Bart de Vreede
yeah, I was going to suggest the same thing, why make a different list with 
different membership? 

Jan-Bart (personally agreeing with mike's personal viewpoint… please don't take 
it personally)


On Feb 19, 2013, at 9:09 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

 
 On 19 Feb 2013, at 19:57, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 19 February 2013 16:10, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
 
 There will be a special list 'WCA-announcements. If you want to be
 informed about Bulletins and discussions, join the list and you will
 get links to Meta Wiki. It's a one-way-list, because the discussions
 are supposed to be on Meta Wiki. This is a WCA service for Council
 Members and non Council Members alike. In this way, nobody is obliged
 to be on a heavy traffic list such as Wikimedia-l.
 
 
 Thanks Ziko, I'm happy to create this list for you on the Foundation
 servers, please follow the instructions at
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists#Create_a_new_list to file a
 bug. I'd suggest WCA-Announce to match our similar announcement lists for
 MediaWiki, WLM, Toolserver etc and to keep it relatively short.
 
 Is there a reason why wikimediaannounce-l can't be used here?
 
 Thanks,
 Mike
 (Personal viewpoint)
 
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] New proposal for a wiki Project!

2013-02-19 Thread Marc A. Pelletier

On 02/19/2013 03:08 PM, Victor Grigas wrote:

Does language constrain our thinking? I think it does.


Let's try to avoid starting a debate on the relevance of the Sapir-Whorf 
hypothesis on-list?  :-)


-- Coren / Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Feedback wanted on Individual Engagement Grant proposals

2013-02-19 Thread ENWP Pine
Reminder to all that feedback is welcome on Individual Engagement Grant 
proposals. The public comment phase ends on February 22. 

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG#ieg-reviewing

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-19 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,
Just to keep in mind: it has been no secret, from the beginning, that the
WCA planned to hire somebody. The WMF board is supported by employees too,
and I guess that the WMF has a number of regulations. Enough room for views
to evolve.
But it sounds good to focus on getting things started instead of focusing
on process, structure etc. - I will remember that when the WMF asks again
report after report from the chapters' volunteers...
Ziko




2013/2/19 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org:
 Hey

 So just to add my perspective on the mail below (as one of the two board
members that were present).

 As mentioned before the board has several big issues with the WCA where
it was going (as outlined on the meta discussion page and our statement:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#WMF_Board_letter_regarding_the_Chapters_Association
)

 We felt that our statement was needed at the time, and some good debate
has taken place. If we were inconsistent in our behaviour (in the eyes of
Ziko) this was simply because things increasingly seemed to be going the
wrong way and views evolve over time.

 The discussion we had was a very useful one, and you can read a pretty
accurate transcript at: http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/WCA/ (and I see that
minutes are being worked on as I type this, so a formal report is likely to
be announced here soon I guess)

 The main focus that I tried to bring across is that the people working on
the Chapter Association stop focusing on process, structure, incorporation,
hiring and strategy but rather focus on getting things started and trying
to develop things that work and can grow. Rather than focus on membership
and voting, focus on getting an exchange of knowledge, experience and
skills between all the chapters (members or not).

 And though it might not come across right now without seeing the results,
 I feel that the weekend was very useful. There was a lot of energy in the
room and a willingness to re-assess where the CA is, and where it needs to
go (thank you for that everyone, and thank you to Fae for helping create
this open environment). Public discussion on meta, along with open exchange
and notes are a good start, and I am sure that a lot of things will be
happening the next months. Hopefully this will grow into the potential that
chapter cooperation has always had.

 Jan-Bart de Vreede
 Wikimedia Board of Trustees


 On Feb 19, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:

 Dear Council Members and everyone interested in the WCA,

 On 16/17th February 2013 a number of Council Members visited the
 London Conference I had proposed in mid January to talk about the way
 of the WCA and to prepare the Wikimedia Conference in Milan. We are
 happy that the London Conference did happen, and, in spite of the
 debatable WMF board statement of 5th February, that two WMF board
 members still agreed to join us.

 Because in 2012/2013 the signals from the WMF were not very consistent
 I tried to receive more clarity about the relationship between
 Foundation and Association. This was only partially successful, but I
 understand that the two present WMF board members were as open as it
 was possible within the constraints of the WMF board unity. We very
 much appreciated the commitment of Alice and Jan-Bart and were happy
 not to hear certain allegations from the board statement again.

 The London Conference discussed many WCA subjects collected during the
 last months. One of them was communication, and I am content that I
 could convince the participants of a major change. For someone who is
 interested in the WCA it has been very difficult to follow the
 proceedings, plans and results. When e.g. a Council Member wanted to
 talk to others or discuss something, he or she used one of the several
 mailing lists the movement has, or Meta Wiki, or private email
 addresses. I believe that this has been a fundamental problem with the
 regard to the perception of the WCA, and that the participation even
 from Council Members suffered also because of this kind of
 communication.

 After the election of a new Chair, the Chair of the WCA Council will
 issue a Bulletin, a kind of short report, with a summary of what
 happened recently and what are the plans for the near future. This
 will be put on Meta Wiki, and, naturally, discussions will centre
 around those Bulletins. For those who are interested it will be much
 easier to follow and to participate. If someone wants to support the
 WCA via translations, he or she can translate those Bulletins instead
 of a lot of messages.

 There will be a special list 'WCA-announcements. If you want to be
 informed about Bulletins and discussions, join the list and you will
 get links to Meta Wiki. It's a one-way-list, because the discussions
 are supposed to be on Meta Wiki. This is a WCA service for Council
 Members and non Council Members alike. In this way, nobody is obliged
 to be on a heavy traffic 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-19 Thread Balázs Viczián
Hi,

sorry, no offense meant, but all of you are keep saying the same things
again and again. At least a dozen times I've read lines, like don't focus
on this, focus on that or let me say WCA recruiting athough you dropped
that idea about two weeks ago (really?)

I'd like to help you with focusing: It wouls be lovely to see those
things mentioned above explained as detailed as possible what is much
more than that list of ideas (tasks) you may think of right now linking
here.

sorry, just got a little bit annoyed reading the very same discussion for
at least the fifth or sixths time and it is still not differing from the
previous ones.

uff

Vince
2013.02.19. 23:14, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl ezt írta:

 Hello,
 Just to keep in mind: it has been no secret, from the beginning, that the
 WCA planned to hire somebody. The WMF board is supported by employees too,
 and I guess that the WMF has a number of regulations. Enough room for views
 to evolve.
 But it sounds good to focus on getting things started instead of focusing
 on process, structure etc. - I will remember that when the WMF asks again
 report after report from the chapters' volunteers...
 Ziko




 2013/2/19 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org:
  Hey
 
  So just to add my perspective on the mail below (as one of the two board
 members that were present).
 
  As mentioned before the board has several big issues with the WCA where
 it was going (as outlined on the meta discussion page and our statement:

 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#WMF_Board_letter_regarding_the_Chapters_Association
 )
 
  We felt that our statement was needed at the time, and some good debate
 has taken place. If we were inconsistent in our behaviour (in the eyes of
 Ziko) this was simply because things increasingly seemed to be going the
 wrong way and views evolve over time.
 
  The discussion we had was a very useful one, and you can read a pretty
 accurate transcript at: http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/WCA/ (and I see that
 minutes are being worked on as I type this, so a formal report is likely to
 be announced here soon I guess)
 
  The main focus that I tried to bring across is that the people working on
 the Chapter Association stop focusing on process, structure, incorporation,
 hiring and strategy but rather focus on getting things started and trying
 to develop things that work and can grow. Rather than focus on membership
 and voting, focus on getting an exchange of knowledge, experience and
 skills between all the chapters (members or not).
 
  And though it might not come across right now without seeing the results,
  I feel that the weekend was very useful. There was a lot of energy in the
 room and a willingness to re-assess where the CA is, and where it needs to
 go (thank you for that everyone, and thank you to Fae for helping create
 this open environment). Public discussion on meta, along with open exchange
 and notes are a good start, and I am sure that a lot of things will be
 happening the next months. Hopefully this will grow into the potential that
 chapter cooperation has always had.
 
  Jan-Bart de Vreede
  Wikimedia Board of Trustees
 
 
  On Feb 19, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl
 wrote:
 
  Dear Council Members and everyone interested in the WCA,
 
  On 16/17th February 2013 a number of Council Members visited the
  London Conference I had proposed in mid January to talk about the way
  of the WCA and to prepare the Wikimedia Conference in Milan. We are
  happy that the London Conference did happen, and, in spite of the
  debatable WMF board statement of 5th February, that two WMF board
  members still agreed to join us.
 
  Because in 2012/2013 the signals from the WMF were not very consistent
  I tried to receive more clarity about the relationship between
  Foundation and Association. This was only partially successful, but I
  understand that the two present WMF board members were as open as it
  was possible within the constraints of the WMF board unity. We very
  much appreciated the commitment of Alice and Jan-Bart and were happy
  not to hear certain allegations from the board statement again.
 
  The London Conference discussed many WCA subjects collected during the
  last months. One of them was communication, and I am content that I
  could convince the participants of a major change. For someone who is
  interested in the WCA it has been very difficult to follow the
  proceedings, plans and results. When e.g. a Council Member wanted to
  talk to others or discuss something, he or she used one of the several
  mailing lists the movement has, or Meta Wiki, or private email
  addresses. I believe that this has been a fundamental problem with the
  regard to the perception of the WCA, and that the participation even
  from Council Members suffered also because of this kind of
  communication.
 
  After the election of a new Chair, the Chair of the WCA Council will
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Big Fat Brussels Gathering

2013-02-19 Thread rupert THURNER
hi jan,

nice to hear that! i am wondering how such very active advocacy fits
with wikimedia's educational, non-political mission statement, and how
you plan to work with dedicated platforms like lobbyplag [1][2]

[1] http://lobbyplag.eu/
[2] http://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2013-02/lobbyplag-plattform-ausbau
(de)

rupert

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Jan Engelmann
jan.engelm...@wikimedia.de wrote:
 tl;dr Issues like copyright are crucial for us. So let’s join forces
 in Brussels to make a difference. All we need is a bunch of smart
 people.

 Dear fellow Wikimedians,

 it’s been quite some time since we have talked on various occasions
 about the need for the European Wikimedia chapters to join their
 forces in the political arena. Regarding the threats for Free
 Knowledge which derive from harmful legislation, it just might be the
 right moment to reassess our current practices and take a huge step
 forward, as a loose combination of chapter representatives and
 volunteers.

 An according EU policy project is already being prepared. User:Dimi z
 [1], a Wikimedian currently based in Brussels, versed and active in
 political affairs, did the hard job to gather the required amount of
 information to finally get started. He created a document on Meta [2]
 which might serve as a starting point to exchange and develop ideas.

 == What’s at stake? ==

 Concerning European regulations, we have to develop a clear and
 unified position on major legislative and political changes affecting
 our mission, which is to create a better environment for Free
 Knowledge. Building upon the tremendous efforts of Brussels-based NGOs
 like EDRI [3] and La Quadrature Du Net [4], we should take the job to
 speak for the Wikimedia movement and its particular role in, let’s
 say, the ongoing Copyright Wars.

 To build a sustainable model for advocacy it is necessary to

 * monitor EU policy proceedings and initiatives
 * comprehensively inform the participating chapters and communities
 about EU dossiers
 * initiate discussions about what is desirable or might be risky for Wikimedia
 * take action where necessary
 * reach out to like-minded projects and communities

 == OK, point taken. But HOW shall we do this? ==

 Firstly, we are dedicated to a culture of sharing and a significant
 level of transparency. So we need to work in Brussels in accordance to
 our principles which differ remarkably from the “black box” approach
 usually applied by industry representatives.

 Secondly, we are searching for an organizational basis that follows
 our capacities. So let’s come up with a smart, inclusive structure
 that ensures easy access and leaves enough space for latecomers or
 people that engage only occasionally.

 Thirdly, we need someone on site. Since we have to give established
 institutions and public officials a face, a name, and a direct way to
 contact us, a specific contact person in Brussels would be more than
 useful. S/he needs to know everything about the drafting process of
 relevant directives and regulations, find access to political parties
 and hangs out in the preferred bars of staff members working for
 Neelie Kroes, Michael Barnier or Androulla Vassiliou.

 == In a nutshell: Imagine a working group, which ==

 * does lobbying - but in full disclosure, on the open stage
 * seeks strategic alliances, but not only with affiliated organizations
 * partly consists of full-time-employees, but heavily relies on
 volunteer-engagement

 == Interested in being a part of it? ==

 Let’s get started and talk about this challenge! Your input and ideas
 on the aforementioned Meta page are highly appreciated. To discuss the
 working methods of an EU Policy Group and develop a project plan
 together, we suggest to meet face-to-face in Brussels for one day and
 a half. Wikimedia Deutschland would be happy to organize this
 kick-off-gathering in March/April. We’d like to ask interested
 Wikimedians to join us there. Please use the doodle below to identify
 the most suitable date:

 http://doodle.com/ntiz6gup7z49e7p5

 (Please choose either a friday/saturday or saturday/sunday option.)

 Looking forward to seeing you all in Brussels,

 Jan Engelmann

 [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dimi_z
 [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy
 [3] http://www.edri.org/
 [4] http://www.laquadrature.net/


 --
 Jan Engelmann
 Leiter Politik  Gesellschaft
 -
 Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
 Obentrautstr. 72
 10963 Berlin

 Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0
 www.wikimedia.de

 Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
 Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
 http://spenden.wikimedia.de/

  Helfen Sie mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes
 digitales Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichnen Sie die
 Online-Petition! http://wikipedia.de 

 Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
 Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-19 Thread James Alexander
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nlwrote:

 Hello,
 Just to keep in mind: it has been no secret, from the beginning, that the
 WCA planned to hire somebody. The WMF board is supported by employees too,
 and I guess that the WMF has a number of regulations. Enough room for views
 to evolve.
 But it sounds good to focus on getting things started instead of focusing
 on process, structure etc. - I will remember that when the WMF asks again
 report after report from the chapters' volunteers...
 Ziko





I just want to point out something that I think gets lost frequently... yes
the WMF is supported by staff etc but it wasn't really when it was created.
They had Brion working for Bomis but he was the only one for quite a while,
 then it had 2-3 for a while. The large amount of staff was only relatively
recently when it was decided that it was beneficial and necessary for the
goals that it had. It's first full year (2004) the TOTAL expenses were
$23,463 , in 2005 it was $177,670 (only $16,930 being wages, the majority
of it was hosting charges). You can argue that you don't agree with the
increase in staff or with the goals but they waited until they had that
before they grew, it wasn't out of the blue and it wasn't just because they
had money. The evidence is pretty clear on that.

I also think the idea that The WMF has staff so clearly the WCA should (or
even the Chapters) and you're being a hypocrite by not wanting it  is a
disingenuous response that keeps getting repeated. They are different
animals. The only ways this would be a fair comparison is if you think the
chapters and/or the WCA should be the same as the WMF and/or similar. I
don't think that's what most people want in the community and most chapter
members involved have been quick to say it isn't what THEY want. If the aim
of the WCA is supposed to be another WMF or an Anti-WMF then ... sure... I
guess I can see why it's hypocritical for them to say you don't need it
while they have staff but... that doesn't seem to be the case and if it
is lets discuss THAT because I think that's a really bad idea.

Groups should grow naturally, they should incorporate only when necessary
and get staff only when necessary, trying to push them before they are
ready only makes things worse.  We have been having a long standing habit
within the meta movement to rush towards organizations and staff long
before it's necessary, pissing away money and good will.

James
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Luis Villa joins WMF as Deputy General Counsel

2013-02-19 Thread Geoff Brigham
*Hi everyone, *
* *
*I’m simply thrilled to welcome Luis Villa to the Foundation as our new
Deputy General Counsel.*
*
Thanks to Kat Walsh, I met Luis during my first months at the Foundation.
 Kat loves Luis, and it is no wonder why.  In addition to being a superb
lawyer, Luis is an open source developer, has worked with leaders in our
Internet legal circles, and has a great personality that embraces our
culture.*
*
His most recent adventure took place at the Palo Alto office of Greenberg
Traurig, one of the top  global law firms.  There he worked with well-known
Internet lawyers like Ian Ballon and Heather Meeker.   Luis focused on
technology transactions, helping clients create solutions to licensing
problems, with a particular emphasis on open source and software standards.
His clients included Mozilla, the Open Compute Project, and a variety of
clients large and small.  Luis successfully defended Google in the
Oracle-Google/Android lawsuit, primarily working on the question of API
copyrightability. I hired Luis as outside counsel to work on a tough legal
matter for us, and his answers were on point, clear, and practical. *
*
Luis’ first contact with free software came was when he was in college at
Duke University. There he studied political science and computer science,
began using Linux, and helped triage Mozilla's bugzilla. A professor paid
him to play with Lego, resulting in brief maintainership of the GPL’d LegOS
operating system and co-authorship of the book Extreme Mindstorms. *
*
After graduation, Luis worked at Ximian, a Linux desktop startup, doing
quality assurance and eventually managing the desktop team. As part of
that, he got heavily involved in the GNOME desktop project, becoming
bugmaster and then getting elected to the board of directors. After Ximian
was acquired, Luis became geek in residence at Harvard Law School's
Berkman Center. At Berkman, he translated from lawyer to geek, and managed,
maintained, and developed several software projects.*
*
After Berkman, Luis started his legal ventures in life at Columbia Law
School, where he was Editor in Chief of the Science and Technology Law
Review, was awarded honors each year, and was co-recipient of the class
prize for excellence in intellectual property scholarship. His thesis dealt
with the use of software standards as part of antitrust enforcement.
Outside of class, he participated in the GPL revision process, worked in
the General Counsel's office at Red Hat, and developed a surprisingly
strong attachment to New York City.*
*
After law school, Luis worked in the legal department at Mozilla, where his
major project was revising the Mozilla Public License. The license got over
a thousand words shorter, and gained stronger patent protections and
compatibility with the Apache and GPL licenses. Luis also worked on
privacy, contracts, standards bodies, and other issues.*
*
Outside of work, Luis is an invited expert to the World Wide Web
Consortium's Patents and Standards Interest Group, and a board member and
chair of the Licensing Committee at the Open Source Initiative. He also
enjoys biking, photography, history, Duke basketball (men's and women's),
and eating.*
*
Luis's first Wikipedia edit under his current user name dates to Feb. 2007.
Like any good pedant, he has also been making minor spelling and grammar
corrections anonymously for many years.*
*
So, as you can tell, we are extremely excited about having Luis on our team
and wish him a warm welcome. *
* *
*Cheers, *
* *
*Geoff*
-- 
Geoff Brigham
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Luis Villa joins WMF as Deputy General Counsel

2013-02-19 Thread James Alexander
Responding to this to to make sure it gets to Wikimedia-l and to be the
first to say on Wikimedia-l \o/ WELCOME!

Luis seems like the perfect dGC for us with his experience and background.
Watch out for Geoff he's dangerous and crafty!

James

Copying in Luis since I'm not sure if he's on here yet or not :)

James Alexander
Manager, Merchandise
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Geoff Brigham gbrig...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 *Hi everyone, *
  * *
 *I’m simply thrilled to welcome Luis Villa to the Foundation as our new
 Deputy General Counsel.*
 *
 Thanks to Kat Walsh, I met Luis during my first months at the Foundation.
  Kat loves Luis, and it is no wonder why.  In addition to being a superb
 lawyer, Luis is an open source developer, has worked with leaders in our
 Internet legal circles, and has a great personality that embraces our
 culture.
 *
 *
 His most recent adventure took place at the Palo Alto office of Greenberg
 Traurig, one of the top  global law firms.  There he worked with well-known
 Internet lawyers like Ian Ballon and Heather Meeker.   Luis focused on
 technology transactions, helping clients create solutions to licensing
 problems, with a particular emphasis on open source and software standards.
 His clients included Mozilla, the Open Compute Project, and a variety of
 clients large and small.  Luis successfully defended Google in the
 Oracle-Google/Android lawsuit, primarily working on the question of API
 copyrightability. I hired Luis as outside counsel to work on a tough
 legal matter for us, and his answers were on point, clear, and practical.
 *
 *
 Luis’ first contact with free software came was when he was in college at
 Duke University. There he studied political science and computer science,
 began using Linux, and helped triage Mozilla's bugzilla. A professor paid
 him to play with Lego, resulting in brief maintainership of the GPL’d LegOS
 operating system and co-authorship of the book Extreme Mindstorms.
 *
 *
 After graduation, Luis worked at Ximian, a Linux desktop startup, doing
 quality assurance and eventually managing the desktop team. As part of
 that, he got heavily involved in the GNOME desktop project, becoming
 bugmaster and then getting elected to the board of directors. After Ximian
 was acquired, Luis became geek in residence at Harvard Law School's
 Berkman Center. At Berkman, he translated from lawyer to geek, and managed,
 maintained, and developed several software projects.
 *
 *
 After Berkman, Luis started his legal ventures in life at Columbia Law
 School, where he was Editor in Chief of the Science and Technology Law
 Review, was awarded honors each year, and was co-recipient of the class
 prize for excellence in intellectual property scholarship. His thesis dealt
 with the use of software standards as part of antitrust enforcement.
 Outside of class, he participated in the GPL revision process, worked in
 the General Counsel's office at Red Hat, and developed a surprisingly
 strong attachment to New York City.
 *
 *
 After law school, Luis worked in the legal department at Mozilla, where
 his major project was revising the Mozilla Public License. The license got
 over a thousand words shorter, and gained stronger patent protections and
 compatibility with the Apache and GPL licenses. Luis also worked on
 privacy, contracts, standards bodies, and other issues.
 *
 *
 Outside of work, Luis is an invited expert to the World Wide Web
 Consortium's Patents and Standards Interest Group, and a board member and
 chair of the Licensing Committee at the Open Source Initiative. He also
 enjoys biking, photography, history, Duke basketball (men's and women's),
 and eating.
 *
 *
 Luis's first Wikipedia edit under his current user name dates to Feb.
 2007. Like any good pedant, he has also been making minor spelling and
 grammar corrections anonymously for many years.
 *
 *
 So, as you can tell, we are extremely excited about having Luis on our
 team and wish him a warm welcome.
 *
 * *
 *Cheers, *
 * *
 *Geoff*
 --
 Geoff Brigham
 General Counsel
 Wikimedia Foundation


 ___
 Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
 directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
 community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ___
 WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
 wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Luis Villa joins WMF as Deputy General Counsel

2013-02-19 Thread Luis Villa
I subscribed while still interviewing, admittedly under a different
address. :) Thanks for the warm welcome, James- I look forward to working
with everyone.

Luis


On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:49 PM, James Alexander
jalexan...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 Responding to this to to make sure it gets to Wikimedia-l and to be the
 first to say on Wikimedia-l \o/ WELCOME!

 Luis seems like the perfect dGC for us with his experience and background.
 Watch out for Geoff he's dangerous and crafty!

 James

 Copying in Luis since I'm not sure if he's on here yet or not :)

 James Alexander
 Manager, Merchandise
 Wikimedia Foundation
 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur


 On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Geoff Brigham gbrig...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 *Hi everyone, *
  * *
 *I’m simply thrilled to welcome Luis Villa to the Foundation as our new
 Deputy General Counsel.*
 *
 Thanks to Kat Walsh, I met Luis during my first months at the
 Foundation.  Kat loves Luis, and it is no wonder why.  In addition to
 being a superb lawyer, Luis is an open source developer, has worked with
 leaders in our Internet legal circles, and has a great personality that
 embraces our culture.
 *
 *
 His most recent adventure took place at the Palo Alto office of Greenberg
 Traurig, one of the top  global law firms.  There he worked with well-known
 Internet lawyers like Ian Ballon and Heather Meeker.   Luis focused on
 technology transactions, helping clients create solutions to licensing
 problems, with a particular emphasis on open source and software standards.
 His clients included Mozilla, the Open Compute Project, and a variety of
 clients large and small.  Luis successfully defended Google in the
 Oracle-Google/Android lawsuit, primarily working on the question of API
 copyrightability. I hired Luis as outside counsel to work on a tough
 legal matter for us, and his answers were on point, clear, and practical.
 *
 *
 Luis’ first contact with free software came was when he was in college
 at Duke University. There he studied political science and computer
 science, began using Linux, and helped triage Mozilla's bugzilla. A
 professor paid him to play with Lego, resulting in brief maintainership of
 the GPL’d LegOS operating system and co-authorship of the book Extreme
 Mindstorms.
 *
 *
 After graduation, Luis worked at Ximian, a Linux desktop startup, doing
 quality assurance and eventually managing the desktop team. As part of
 that, he got heavily involved in the GNOME desktop project, becoming
 bugmaster and then getting elected to the board of directors. After Ximian
 was acquired, Luis became geek in residence at Harvard Law School's
 Berkman Center. At Berkman, he translated from lawyer to geek, and managed,
 maintained, and developed several software projects.
 *
 *
 After Berkman, Luis started his legal ventures in life at Columbia Law
 School, where he was Editor in Chief of the Science and Technology Law
 Review, was awarded honors each year, and was co-recipient of the class
 prize for excellence in intellectual property scholarship. His thesis dealt
 with the use of software standards as part of antitrust enforcement.
 Outside of class, he participated in the GPL revision process, worked in
 the General Counsel's office at Red Hat, and developed a surprisingly
 strong attachment to New York City.
 *
 *
 After law school, Luis worked in the legal department at Mozilla, where
 his major project was revising the Mozilla Public License. The license got
 over a thousand words shorter, and gained stronger patent protections and
 compatibility with the Apache and GPL licenses. Luis also worked on
 privacy, contracts, standards bodies, and other issues.
 *
 *
 Outside of work, Luis is an invited expert to the World Wide Web
 Consortium's Patents and Standards Interest Group, and a board member and
 chair of the Licensing Committee at the Open Source Initiative. He also
 enjoys biking, photography, history, Duke basketball (men's and women's),
 and eating.
 *
 *
 Luis's first Wikipedia edit under his current user name dates to Feb.
 2007. Like any good pedant, he has also been making minor spelling and
 grammar corrections anonymously for many years.
 *
 *
 So, as you can tell, we are extremely excited about having Luis on our
 team and wish him a warm welcome.
 *
 * *
 *Cheers, *
 * *
 *Geoff*
 --
 Geoff Brigham
 General Counsel
 Wikimedia Foundation


 ___
 Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately
 directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia
 community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 ___
 WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
 wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-19 Thread Fae
On 19 February 2013 23:47, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
...
 Groups should grow naturally, they should incorporate only when necessary
 and get staff only when necessary, trying to push them before they are
 ready only makes things worse.  We have been having a long standing habit
 within the meta movement to rush towards organizations and staff long
 before it's necessary, pissing away money and good will.

 James

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I recall the WMUK strategy
weekend when the chapter board and staff all stood in the room to
indicate how important to the new charity fundraising was. I was the
Chair at the time, and I think I annoyed almost everyone there by
being the only one standing in the middle of the room, and saying that
I could do everything in our mission with a bag of crisps and money
for a coffee, while almost everyone else was putting fundraising as
the highest importance.

Money is not in our mission statement or our values. It's a burden and
a governance nightmare. I already have a track record of doing good
things relying on *other people's* money, it does not have to be in my
bank account in order to have institutions and others eventually agree
that:
* archives should be on a fully free license
* governments should support open knowledge for selfish reasons
* everyone should consider becoming immortal by releasing the
copyright on their creations in their wills
* publishers should stop worrying about being gatekeepers and become
knowledge facilitators
* academics should help their careers by sharing early rather than hoarding
* knowledge institutions should really mean their mission for the
public good, and make it happen in the real world

To change everything, all we need is time, perhaps a life-time, an
off-peak train ticket and maybe a cheap sandwich. With a bit of money
we can do a little more, but you know, it's not the most important
thing, what matters is the vision we have to share and not being let
down too many times by the hierarchy we have chosen to create.

Now, if you want it faster than folks like me, on our own, liberating
knowledge and having enormous fun talking to one person at a time and
evangelizing the bejesus out of them, we might need to talk about
using some donated money in smart ways and we might need to have
something more reliable and consistent than wacky volunteers like me
who tend to burn out all too quickly and all too often.

Cheers,
Fae
-- 
Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae...@gmail.com
Chapters Association Council Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-19 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 19 February 2013 23:47, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
 ...
  Groups should grow naturally, they should incorporate only when necessary
  and get staff only when necessary, trying to push them before they are
  ready only makes things worse.  We have been having a long standing habit
  within the meta movement to rush towards organizations and staff long
  before it's necessary, pissing away money and good will.
 
  James

 I don't disagree with the sentiment. I recall the WMUK strategy
 weekend when the chapter board and staff all stood in the room to
 indicate how important to the new charity fundraising was. I was the
 Chair at the time, and I think I annoyed almost everyone there by
 being the only one standing in the middle of the room, and saying that
 I could do everything in our mission with a bag of crisps and money
 for a coffee, while almost everyone else was putting fundraising as
 the highest importance.

 Money is not in our mission statement or our values. It's a burden and
 a governance nightmare.


Fae, thank you and Ziko for working on clearing this up.  The idea of money
is a bad taste.

I completely understand and sympathize with the necessity of finance to
fund a movement.  I've been there in a situation completely unrelated to
Wikimedia, and in working on Fundraising 2010 part-time as a contractor for
the WMF that rounded out my experience for the necessity of funds.

That being said, with the ear that I have to the ground of Wikimedia
without participation in any chapter or otherwise unaffiliated movement,
when the WCA was first proposed the number one thing that was spoken (or
whispered) was that this was going to require hiring at least one person as
the Secretary General.

Bureaucracy starts from the ground up, and from that way that the WCA was
presented, whether intentional or not, was just as the nightmare as you
mentioned.  Great, we're starting an organization to organize our
organizational outreach for the broader movement which is affiliated with
another organization but it's not at all.  Now, how can we pay for this?

I'm not saying this was the intent, I know better; this is how I read it as
a Wikimedia observer.  I believe that chapter organization, should chapters
chose to do so, is a good thing.  I believe that structure should be
created, as James Alexander explained, as it happens, just as everything
else on Wikimedia occurs.  Otherwise, doing the sensible  thing wouldn't
work.

By all means continue building the WCA, but please forget that its function
is as a bureaucracy.  With our spirit, it will never live.


-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looking back at the London Conference

2013-02-19 Thread Charles Andrès
Hello Ziko,

Because you want to hear:

1)Their is no census within the chapter whether we still want a deputy chair 
position

2)if we keep a chair and a deputy chair, it has always been planned that this 
position should be open to vote at the next WCA meeting

3) 7 council member connote decide on their own of keeping in place the deputy 
chair!!

4)The WCA do not need continuity, since ten month we haven't been able to 
provide something real , I don't see why we should continue this way


Charles




___
I use this email for mailing list only.

Charles ANDRES, Chairman
Wikimedia CH – Association for the advancement of free knowledge –
www.wikimedia.ch
Skype: charles.andres.wmch
IRC://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-ch

Le 19 févr. 2013 à 17:10, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl a écrit :

 Dear Council Members and everyone interested in the WCA,
 
 On 16/17th February 2013 a number of Council Members visited the
 London Conference I had proposed in mid January to talk about the way
 of the WCA and to prepare the Wikimedia Conference in Milan. We are
 happy that the London Conference did happen, and, in spite of the
 debatable WMF board statement of 5th February, that two WMF board
 members still agreed to join us.
 
 Because in 2012/2013 the signals from the WMF were not very consistent
 I tried to receive more clarity about the relationship between
 Foundation and Association. This was only partially successful, but I
 understand that the two present WMF board members were as open as it
 was possible within the constraints of the WMF board unity. We very
 much appreciated the commitment of Alice and Jan-Bart and were happy
 not to hear certain allegations from the board statement again.
 
 The London Conference discussed many WCA subjects collected during the
 last months. One of them was communication, and I am content that I
 could convince the participants of a major change. For someone who is
 interested in the WCA it has been very difficult to follow the
 proceedings, plans and results. When e.g. a Council Member wanted to
 talk to others or discuss something, he or she used one of the several
 mailing lists the movement has, or Meta Wiki, or private email
 addresses. I believe that this has been a fundamental problem with the
 regard to the perception of the WCA, and that the participation even
 from Council Members suffered also because of this kind of
 communication.
 
 After the election of a new Chair, the Chair of the WCA Council will
 issue a Bulletin, a kind of short report, with a summary of what
 happened recently and what are the plans for the near future. This
 will be put on Meta Wiki, and, naturally, discussions will centre
 around those Bulletins. For those who are interested it will be much
 easier to follow and to participate. If someone wants to support the
 WCA via translations, he or she can translate those Bulletins instead
 of a lot of messages.
 
 There will be a special list 'WCA-announcements. If you want to be
 informed about Bulletins and discussions, join the list and you will
 get links to Meta Wiki. It's a one-way-list, because the discussions
 are supposed to be on Meta Wiki. This is a WCA service for Council
 Members and non Council Members alike. In this way, nobody is obliged
 to be on a heavy traffic list such as Wikimedia-l.
 
 When we talked about the future and a possible new election of the
 Chair I also asked about my position. If for any reason someone
 believed that there should be a new election of the Deputy Chair, I
 wanted to hear. The participants said that that is no issue and that
 it is good to have continuity. The role of the Deputy Chair is to be
 there for the case that at some moment there is no Chair, and then the
 Deputy has to arrange the election.
 
 The WCA continues to exist and will make some rearrangements - it's
 exiting to follow the evolution.
 
 Kind regards
 Ziko van Dijk
 
 -- 
 
 ---
 Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
 dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
 http://wmnederland.nl/
 
 Wikimedia Nederland
 Postbus 167
 3500 AD Utrecht
 ---
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l