Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Toolserver-l] [TS logo] Fwd: Free as in Wikimedia Foundation

2013-03-20 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
well put. I think that clearly WMF legal department assumed that having the
trademark registered is such a good idea that it does not require a
dialogue with the community, while the symbolic beginnings and the history
of logo creation make such a move, especially without a prior discussion
and explanation, clearly awkward.

I believe that a lot of unnecessary ruckus and bad faith assumptions stem
from poor dialogue between WMF and the community at large...

dj


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Heather Ford heather.f...@oii.ox.ac.ukwrote:

 +1, Nathan. I think you very articulately pointed out the key problem
 that's been misidentified in this i.e. that the problem is *not* in WMF's
 protection of Wikimedia TM's generally (although I think there is still
 much to be improved about a process that results in stories like this
 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-) but rather
 where the WMF chose to register a logo that was specifically designed by a
 member of the community to be used by groups who do not purport to
 represent the WMF but want something they can remix for their own thematic
 projects or use for unaffiliated events.

 And I think it's unfair to suggest that any time someone complains about
 something the Foundation is doing they're exhibiting bad faith. If that was
 true, any critique would be an act of bad faith. We're all, in our own way,
 trying to help Wikimedia grow and flourish. The truth is that we have
 different ideas about how to get there.

 best,
 Heather.

 On Mar 19, 2013, at 9:00 PM, Nathan wrote:

 I won't argue the fact that there is value in protecting the
 iconography of the Wikimedia movement from abuse. What I argue with is
 the approach of the legal department - to unilaterally, and without
 notice, contradict the purpose of a set of logos by declaring
 ownership over them, and then to at the same time suggest the
 community hold a contest to create a whole new set of logos over which
 the WMF will supposedly not take the same action.

 To then frame the discussion with repeated notes about the distinction
 between copyright and trademark makes it sound like they see this as a
 problem of a lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of their
 critics', which simply isn't the case.

 The reality is if they had suggested last year that hey, the
 Foundation wants to make sure these marks are protected from abuse,
 would anyone mind if we registered them just to make sure they aren't
 abused? We'll allow them to be used with a standard permission set
 that doesn't require a request process. then the response would've
 been absolutely minimal and positive. But they didn't.

 If you're familiar with my posts to this list, I'm not normally on the
 anti-WMF side of debates (for instance, wrt WCA). But when they make a
 boob move, I don't think its bad faith to point it out. And, not for
 nothing, accusing others of bad faith is generally ill advised.
 Anyway, this is a small bore issue, and the consequences of any
 outcome are mild to say the least. But, a few posts on a wiki and on
 wikimedia-l don't cost much ;)

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Toolserver-l] [TS logo] Fwd: Free as in Wikimedia Foundation

2013-03-20 Thread Peter Gervai
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
 well put. I think that clearly WMF legal department assumed that having the
 trademark registered is such a good idea that it does not require a
 dialogue with the community,

My _general_ problem, however, that I have seen in the past some quite
awkward dance steps from the WMF (and other free software entities) to
protect their (our) intellectual property, sometimes referencing
legal requirements for trademark protection, which very much reminds
me of the Firefox trademark, where the community, (not a direct
quote) would very much like to share the trademark with all the world
for free but we cannot since if we would the unrestricted usage would
legally nullify the protection, so we must, very unfortunately,
immediately ask you to cease and desist and prefer to change the name
of your project as well thank you bye. Debian had to change the name
to Iceweasel to be able to actually patch and package the beast
(since patching was required to package the damn thing).

Wikipedia and Wikimedia logos (and plenty of them) are clearly a nice
example, where the community is generally forbidden to use them, apart
from some very strict cases. It's not a Wikimedia problem, same goes
for almost any protected logo of any open projects.

So protecting a logo means good intents but entering some dark legal
alley where anything might happen, including some possibly friendly
legal guy informing us that our use does not conform something so we
should please to choose another logo.

My 2 'cents.
Peter

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Toolserver-l] [TS logo] Fwd: Free as in Wikimedia Foundation

2013-03-20 Thread Tomasz Ganicz
2013/3/20 James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com:
 On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I won't argue the fact that there is value in protecting the
 iconography of the Wikimedia movement from abuse. What I argue with is
 the approach of the legal department - to unilaterally, and without
 notice, contradict the purpose of a set of logos by declaring
 ownership over them, and then to at the same time suggest the
 community hold a contest to create a whole new set of logos over which
 the WMF will supposedly not take the same action.


 I'll be the first to say I think the idea of having a contest to create a
 new logo is a bit silly. I think we should continue to use the
 meta/community logo and that it's allowed use for the community should be
 very very broad (much broader then we would allow for the Wikipedia Globe
 for example). I think we have enough issues with  branding given what I
 would consider mistakes in the past and present and we don't need 'yet
 another' for the community (given that we also use all of the other logos
 to represent the community at times).

I agree - it hardly make any sense, especially because the story may
happen again. If the new logo is popular it will be trademarked by WMF
as well :-)




 I don't, however, think that they did the wrong thing here. I've been
 around meta and the community for a long time and I would have honestly
 assumed long ago that the community logo was trademarked and the foundation
 was just very free in letting it be used. All of the foundations trademarks
 were going through registration processes around the world because they
 realized that our portfolio did not cover us very well. This made total
 sense to be included in it.

Well, actually the legal situation is defined by trademark policy of WMF:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy

According to this policy it applies to the following logos:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_official_marks

so it includes MediaWiki and community logos as well in similar way as
Wikipedia logo. You can read in the policy:

The following basic guidelines apply to almost any use of the
Wikimedia Marks in printed materials, including marketing, articles
and other publicity-related materials, and websites:

Proper Form - Wikimedia Marks should be used in their exact form —
neither abbreviated nor combined with any other word or words (e.g.,
Wiki or MyWikipedia rather than Wikipedia);
Notice - The following notice should appear somewhere nearby (at least
on the same page or on the credits page) the first use of a Wikimedia
Mark: [TRADEMARK] is a ['registered', if applicable] trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation;
Distinguishable - In at least the first reference, we ask that the
trademark should be set apart from surrounding text, either by
capitalizing it or by italicizing, bolding or underlining it. In
addition, we ask that your website avoid copying the look and feel of
the Wikimedia websites — again, we do not want the visitor to your
website to be confused about which company he/she is dealing with.
Attention Paid to Visual Guidelines - any use of the Wikimedia Marks
should substantially comply with our Trademark and Logo Usage Policy
and our Visual Identity Guidelines. 

And  - when you take a look at:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:MediaWiki_logos

and to:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Community_Logos

you see that all of them (except originaly trademarked) broke the
trademark policy rules :-) The are combined with other words and
graphs, they have no notice, they do not follow any visual guidelines
etc. :-)  So - in fact they should be deleted as a WMF trademark
policy violation - or trademark policy should be modified.  Bear in
mind that even toolserver logo - which is obviously a derivative work
of community logo - should not be used according the current WMF
trademark policy. I think it is not intended, and WMF will never do
any legal action towards the creators and users of this derivative
logos - but all this situation is unclear at the moment. I think this
is a job for WMF Board of Trustees to clarify the situation - for
example by excluding MediaWiki and community logos from the rules
forbiding creation of derivative logos and  Visual Identity
Guidelines.


-- 
Tomek Polimerek Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29title=tomasz-ganicz

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Info: Markus Glaser is elected Chair of the Wikimedia Chapters Association Council

2013-03-20 Thread Tonmoy Khan
Congratulations to Marcus!

Tonmoy
On Mar 19, 2013 4:52 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:

 Thanks Fae indeed for the hard work. It is a pity that things went as they
 went - and that you had to work under tough circumstances. Of course it is
 the council as a whole that bears responsibility, but when things go wrong,
 you get the heat of it...

 Best,
 Lodewijk

 2013/3/19 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com

  Hi Fae,
 
  Wikimedia Deutschland is thankful for Markus' election, and we will
  support him as best as we can in his future endeavours.
 
  But this email is more to you Fae. I wanted to thank you for the work
  done on the WCA so far. I know it hasn't been easy on you.
  Nevertheless you kept going forward, pushing and prodding and making
  sure things would happen, with sometimes great critic, other times
  hopefully great support. For this I am thankful. Sometimes politics is
  ungrateful to the hard working, and I am sorry it came to this, but I
  applaud how you managed all possible situations, and especially how
  you made sure that the WCA and the spirit of chapters working together
  live on. I strongly believe that Wikimedia's diversity is one of its
  biggest strengths, and I am convinced that working towards
  sustainability of chapters definitely is one way to make sure this
  diversity lives on.
 
  I look forward to working with you on all the tasks still to
  accomplish, within or outside the WCA.
 
  Best,
 
  Delphine
  
  Delphine Ménard
  Vice-president
  Wikimedia Deutschland
 
  On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
   Congratulations to Markus on becoming the Chair of the WCAC.
  
   The election results is available at
   
 
 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association/Elections/2013_Chair#Votes
  ,
   with an associated detailed QA from the candidates on the associated
   talk page.
  
   Thank you to all candidates for coming forward and taking part in the
   public debate so well.
  
   I look forward to supporting Markus in his role as our Chair, and the
   discussions with everyone at the Milan conference next month.
  
   Cheers,
   Fae
   --
   Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae...@gmail.com
   Chapters Association Council sChair/s
  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA
 
  Heh. ;)
 
  ___
  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 mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Toolserver-l] [TS logo] Fwd: Free as in Wikimedia Foundation

2013-03-20 Thread Lodewijk
This is indeed why I dislike the whole trademark move. Not because I don't
understand the difference between trademarks and copyright, but probably I
have different goals in mind. It is a natural state for a legal team to
play defensive, and protect. I can't blame them for that, although the
communication is in this case particularly poor (and being overloaded with
work should perhaps have meant postponing the request in the first place
until after community consultation).

We have had the same discussion about the Wiki Loves Monuments trademark
internally a while ago, and we decided as volunteers we didn't want to
trademark it at all - because it brings along all kind of bureaucracy and
we didn't consider that worth the 'benefits'. Using the logo/name would
mean you need to sign (and negotiate) a contract, it means you have to
create and follow silly policies as explained before (I mean, this whole
is a registered trademark of just doesn't work in many situations). The
downsides are clear.

Then you should consider what you're going to exactly winning with a
registration. It looks nice on the wall of registered marks of course, but
that protection you get, how helpful would that exactly be? That is a valid
discussion to have - but it should be had as a community. Especially since
this was ironically named a community logo.

In any case, we can still have this discussion. And if we agree to not like
the trademark, we could either ask the WMF to drop it, or we could simply
design a new one. But before we do that, we should probably create a good
RfC, and get a clear overview of what exactly are all the benefits and
downsides of a registered trademark versus an unregistered one.

Best,
Lodewijk

2013/3/20 Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com

 2013/3/20 James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com:
  On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  I won't argue the fact that there is value in protecting the
  iconography of the Wikimedia movement from abuse. What I argue with is
  the approach of the legal department - to unilaterally, and without
  notice, contradict the purpose of a set of logos by declaring
  ownership over them, and then to at the same time suggest the
  community hold a contest to create a whole new set of logos over which
  the WMF will supposedly not take the same action.
 
 
  I'll be the first to say I think the idea of having a contest to create a
  new logo is a bit silly. I think we should continue to use the
  meta/community logo and that it's allowed use for the community should be
  very very broad (much broader then we would allow for the Wikipedia Globe
  for example). I think we have enough issues with  branding given what I
  would consider mistakes in the past and present and we don't need 'yet
  another' for the community (given that we also use all of the other logos
  to represent the community at times).

 I agree - it hardly make any sense, especially because the story may
 happen again. If the new logo is popular it will be trademarked by WMF
 as well :-)




  I don't, however, think that they did the wrong thing here. I've been
  around meta and the community for a long time and I would have honestly
  assumed long ago that the community logo was trademarked and the
 foundation
  was just very free in letting it be used. All of the foundations
 trademarks
  were going through registration processes around the world because they
  realized that our portfolio did not cover us very well. This made total
  sense to be included in it.

 Well, actually the legal situation is defined by trademark policy of WMF:

 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy

 According to this policy it applies to the following logos:

 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_official_marks

 so it includes MediaWiki and community logos as well in similar way as
 Wikipedia logo. You can read in the policy:

 The following basic guidelines apply to almost any use of the
 Wikimedia Marks in printed materials, including marketing, articles
 and other publicity-related materials, and websites:

 Proper Form - Wikimedia Marks should be used in their exact form —
 neither abbreviated nor combined with any other word or words (e.g.,
 Wiki or MyWikipedia rather than Wikipedia);
 Notice - The following notice should appear somewhere nearby (at least
 on the same page or on the credits page) the first use of a Wikimedia
 Mark: [TRADEMARK] is a ['registered', if applicable] trademark of the
 Wikimedia Foundation;
 Distinguishable - In at least the first reference, we ask that the
 trademark should be set apart from surrounding text, either by
 capitalizing it or by italicizing, bolding or underlining it. In
 addition, we ask that your website avoid copying the look and feel of
 the Wikimedia websites — again, we do not want the visitor to your
 website to be confused about which company he/she is dealing with.
 Attention Paid to Visual Guidelines - any use of the Wikimedia 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

2013-03-20 Thread Mathieu Stumpf

Le 2013-03-18 13:01, Fae a écrit :

I suggest you step away from the technology component before this
becomes a mantra. Given a span of 100 years, assumptions become 
rather

large. We can start to assume that within one or two decades,
*everyone* on the planet is data-connected, we can assume that
language barriers break down or become irrelevant, we can assume that
connection and hardware costs become vanishingly small and we can
assume that engagement with human knowledge is fully immersive.


Your assumptions seems really big to me.

I won't discuss the *everyone* on the planet is data-connected, I 
hope you are right, but to my mind it sounds like a very optimistic 
point of view. This depend a lot on the global economic developpement, 
as well as mankind ability to find a way to sustain such a huge energy 
requirement: electronic devices for everyone imply  electricity for 
everyone (hopefuly clean produced/stored/delivered).


Now language barriers break down or become irrelevant. That statement 
is so big that I am wondering wether I am misintrepreting an ironic 
statement as a serious one or not. After all I am not an english native 
speaker, so excuse me if you were ironic, but otherwise this is just a 
real case example of how huge the language barriers are.


They are many challenges on the language barriers. And to my mind we, 
as wikimedia contributors, can play an important role in this 
challenges. We know that many language are disapearing right now, 
impoverish human culture. Unfortunately I discovered that even on this 
present list some people were using metric like how many scientific 
papers where published in this language last year to evaluate wether it 
was an important language or something which we may let completely 
disapear (sum of all human knowledge?). So not only there is work to 
preserve language (and culture) diversity, but there's even work to do 
to convince people that it's important in the first place (for 
scientific-centric mind, think about what you need to realize works in 
anthropology and history, for example).


An other thing in which we will, to my mind, be really helpful, will be 
the wikiomega/wiktionnaries integration into wikidata. This will enable 
to see which concepts are covered into which languages, and possibly 
help to build equivalent neologisms with respect to the equivalent 
etymological path/construction in the target language. Moreover this 
could help build new languages, possibly yet another attempt for an 
international language. Not that I would be enthusiast with such a 
project, I'm fine with learning esperanto which as far as I know is the 
current most successful project in this category. Now, many linguistic 
critics (and also non-linguistic ones, not relevant here) where 
published on esperanto, so maybe some linguists may come with something 
better and that they could be helped with a the semantic cartography 
wikidata could become. It doesn't look like UNO and other international 
organsiation are realy interested to give ressources to build and 
promote an international language, so may be __we__ could do it.




Developing a strategy would require some big thinking of scenarios:
* Does Wikimedia get subsumed into a new ecology of open knowledge
organizations?
* Does operations become irrelevant as it will be naturally 
factored out?

* In a future of cheap as chips access, does access mean
socialization and education?

Classically, one might bounce around environmental scenarios such as
religious division, hyper-connection social instability (meme
threats), population crisis etc.

It's a big talk, and above was mentioned spending 5 years on this.
Consider how darn slow us unpaid Wikimedia volunteers are to nit-pick
our way forward, thinking of how we take longer than a year+ to reach
some conclusions is not unreasonable, and it is not as easy as saying
quote examples as if this was a discussion short-cut.


Are refering to something like Basic income guarantee ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

--
Association Culture-Libre
http://www.culture-libre.org/

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, February 2013

2013-03-20 Thread Mathieu Stumpf

Le 2013-03-18 21:45, Garfield Byrd a écrit :

Pine:

Our relationship with JP Morgan Chase is that they handle part of our
international banking.  This is a separate division of the bank from 
the
one that had the trading losses.  I agree with you that this type of 
news
report is not good news.  I have reviewed the information I have 
available,

and have determined that the money JP Morgan Chase is holding for the
Wikimedia Foundation is not at risk.

When we did a review of banks that can handle our international
banking, unfortunately  all of the banks we looked at were involved 
in some
sort scandal, from risky trades to LIBOR manipulation.  This is not 
an
ideal situation for a community based movement and I am continuing to 
look

at options for all or some parts of our international banking needs.


Interesting, do you plane to make a public report on this topic?

--
Association Culture-Libre
http://www.culture-libre.org/

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] open positions at WMF

2013-03-20 Thread Terry Chay
Daniel,

On Mar 19, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Daniel Zahn dz...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 BTW, why is WMF looking for a WordPress Developer?
 
 So is it just design or is it developing? If it is actual software
 development, i'd have to think
 who is going to review and maintain that code after the super
 short-term contractor is gone.

The changes to the plugins and themes that would happen (have happenend) are 
and would continue to be in gerrit code review. Communications wants to simply 
update existing install, and while I can review, I don't really have time to 
code (or if I code, I can't self-review).

This would most likely be in the form of an update of the existing custom 
plugin and a new theme (to replace Victor).

 Remember it also has to be deployed to production somehow and  i'd
 already like to point out now
 that it should have reviews from other devs, not just asking ops to
 merge it, especially with Wordpress'
 history of exploits.

The blog is already deployed in production (by you and RobH), so I assume 
you've firewalled it already as much as possible, so the main concern if 
exploited would would be privacy leak from *.wikimedia.org

As for updating it, I'm open to ideas on how we can handle this. I can ask 
around in Features for someone willing to help. Right now the process is ad hoc 
and ends up being a pain to keep up to date from Ops's side (basically someone 
notices the plugins and core are out of date and requests an update).
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] open positions at WMF

2013-03-20 Thread Terry Chay

On Mar 19, 2013, at 7:06 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 We're really interested in wiki-fying the blog at some point too, or
 at least marrying more of the technologies. I'd love to us to use a
 wiki-based system, but that's a bit further down the pipeline. I'd
 like to see us incorporate SUL so Wikimedia project usernames could be
 used for comments and posting. I think that will be a question of
 using our very limited resources, but I'm super interested in that.
 
 MediaWiki + LQT (or the likes) for the comments and you are basically
 there. In addition you have less to worry about in regards to the
 WordpRess exploits (as pointed out by Daniel) and you open up to a
 whole new ecocycle of developers we already have.

That's an interesting idea (after all, WordPress and MediaWiki's are redundant 
CMSs), and it would fix some annoying issues of the blog workflow (signon for 
commenting/publishing, and the redundant cycle comm takes on drafting on wiki 
and translating for WordPress), but it sounds like a larger scope of work than 
a temporary WordPress contractor (and a longer review cycle). I can't commit 
that much resources out of Features for anything beyond reviews of tweaks to 
the blog and Communications budget for developing this is very modest.

Are you suggesting that we add this to next fiscal year's plan and repurpose 
one of our teams for this? Right now I'm assuming the priorities of Visual 
Editor, Parsoid, Editor Engagement (Echo, Flow), and E3 take precedence and are 
pretty much set well into 2013-14. If I had extra room, I'd probably prioritize 
global profile and affiliations/wikiprojects support moving the blog to 
MediaWiki. :-(


terry chay  최태리
Director of Features Engineering
Wikimedia Foundation
“Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum 
of all knowledge. That's our commitment.”

p: +1 (415) 839-6885 x6832
m: +1 (408) 480-8902
e: tc...@wikimedia.org
i: http://terrychay.com/
w: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tychay
aim: terrychay

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


[Wikimedia-l] Mid-Year Financial Statements

2013-03-20 Thread Gayle Karen Young
Hi Pine!

*We overtly recruit outside of SF. I think our latest hire was from Texas!
Last year 23% were remote employees, and that percentage has increased to
31% this year. Of that 31%, 17% live abroad. **As of February 2013, 27% of
staff is female, 28% minority, 34% are foreign nationals, and 69% have
lived or worked abroad. ** We'd like more. :) If anyone knows interested
candidates, current jobs can be found at jobs.wikimedia.org.*
*
*
*Warmest regards, Gayle*
*
*


--
From: *ENWP Pine* deyntest...@hotmail.com
Date: 11 March 2013 13:06
To: gb...@wikimedia.org gb...@wikimedia.org, 
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org





Garfield,

Thanks for the report.

Congrats again to the fundraising team for what they accomplished this for
this round of fundraising.

The QA for the mid-year report talks about a hiring pace that is slower
than planned, and says We attribute this to the fact that the market for
engineers is extremely competitive in San Francisco right now. I'd like to
ask you or Gayle about how aggressive WMF is about recruiting outside of
SF. I think there are probably engineers at large tech companies outside of
SF who would enjoy a change of culture from their current employers to WMF
if they're willing to take a pay cut. I think that they would be good
candidates for the recruiting team, so I'd strongly encourage aggressive
recruiting outside of San Francisco.

Thanks,

Pine

-- 
Gayle Karen K. Young
Chief Talent and Culture Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.310.8416
www.wikimediafoundation.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] open positions at WMF

2013-03-20 Thread David Gerard
On 20 March 2013 02:06, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 We're really interested in wiki-fying the blog at some point too, or
 at least marrying more of the technologies. I'd love to us to use a
 wiki-based system, but that's a bit further down the pipeline. I'd
 like to see us incorporate SUL so Wikimedia project usernames could be
 used for comments and posting. I think that will be a question of
 using our very limited resources, but I'm super interested in that.

 MediaWiki + LQT (or the likes) for the comments and you are basically
 there. In addition you have less to worry about in regards to the
 WordpRess exploits (as pointed out by Daniel) and you open up to a
 whole new ecocycle of developers we already have.


Cobbling together blog software is a one-man project; having a
versatile, well-maintained and mature blog engine with ubiquitous
third-party support is another matter. You could turn WordPress into
an encyclopedia CMS too, but it would be well below optimum.

WordPress has all manner of problems (I am painfully aware of this, I
have to hit it with a hammer in my day job) but it is basically the
best available for the job. MediaWiki has all manner of problems (you
are painfully aware of this, I'm certain) but, similarly, there's
nothing better for the job.

It's possible we could do better with something adapted, but not from
MediaWiki. For one thing, WordPress's visual editor works ...


- d.


- d.

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


[Wikimedia-l] Tomorrow: Office hour inside out (program evaluation)

2013-03-20 Thread Frank Schulenburg
Hi folks,

Tomorrow at 17:00 UTC, I will be holding an office hour about program
evaluation on #wikimedia-office. The target audience for this office
hour will be chapter representatives and volunteers who are currently
running (or planning to run) programs and programmatic activities.
You'll find some background information about why program evaluation
might be worth talking about in my most recent blog post on the
Foundation's blog:

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/01/lets-start-talking-about-program-evaluation/

As we all know, most office hours follow a certain rule: there's one
poor staffer who is getting grilled by the people on the IRC channel –
people ask a variety of questions and the staff person tries to answer
every question in a limited amount of time. It's a lot of fun (I
guess, at least for the people who're asking the questions) and it has
been a good way of direct communication between WMF employees and the
community.

Now, this office hour will be different. Not that I don't enjoy being
grilled for one hour :-) I've done IRC office hours several times
before and I always enjoyed answering questions. The reason for this
office hour to be different is that I want to _listen to you in the
first place_. I would like to learn more about

* _your_ thoughts about why evaluation might be important
* _your_ experiences with making evaluation a part of program design
* _your_ hopes and fears when it comes to increasingly evaluating
programs and programmatic activities in the future
* _your_ ideas and feedback on evaluation practices

Ideally, we would have some people in the room tomorrow who have done
some kind evaluation in the past or who are planning to embark on
evaluation work in the near future. With that said – if you have no
idea about what program evaluation is and you'd like to learn more
about it, you're invited as well! Or maybe you're just curious to see
if this office hour inside out is going to play out well ;-)

I'm looking forward to meeting you tomorrow at 17:00 UTC,

Frank

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] open positions at WMF

2013-03-20 Thread Isarra Yos
On the other hand, how hard could it be to just write an extension to 
integrate a wordpress database and interface into a mediawiki? Call it a 
new namespace on the mediawiki end, and... uh... horrible things on the 
wordpress end...


I was going to say that if I had enough spare time I could probably pull 
that off, but putting this down in text it now occurs to me how utterly 
insane that is, especially considering how hard a time I had just making 
my own wordpress and mediawiki installs look the same.


Even so, it definitely could be done, and it'd probably be easier to 
maintain and update than making something from scratch. I mean, they're 
both php, with somewhat similar structures...


On 20/03/13 18:57, David Gerard wrote:

On 20 March 2013 02:06, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:

We're really interested in wiki-fying the blog at some point too, or
at least marrying more of the technologies. I'd love to us to use a
wiki-based system, but that's a bit further down the pipeline. I'd
like to see us incorporate SUL so Wikimedia project usernames could be
used for comments and posting. I think that will be a question of
using our very limited resources, but I'm super interested in that.

MediaWiki + LQT (or the likes) for the comments and you are basically
there. In addition you have less to worry about in regards to the
WordpRess exploits (as pointed out by Daniel) and you open up to a
whole new ecocycle of developers we already have.


Cobbling together blog software is a one-man project; having a
versatile, well-maintained and mature blog engine with ubiquitous
third-party support is another matter. You could turn WordPress into
an encyclopedia CMS too, but it would be well below optimum.

WordPress has all manner of problems (I am painfully aware of this, I
have to hit it with a hammer in my day job) but it is basically the
best available for the job. MediaWiki has all manner of problems (you
are painfully aware of this, I'm certain) but, similarly, there's
nothing better for the job.

It's possible we could do better with something adapted, but not from
MediaWiki. For one thing, WordPress's visual editor works ...


- d.


- d.

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



--
-— Isarra


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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] open positions at WMF

2013-03-20 Thread James Alexander
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:

 On the other hand, how hard could it be to just write an extension to
 integrate a wordpress database and interface into a mediawiki? Call it a
 new namespace on the mediawiki end, and... uh... horrible things on the
 wordpress end...

 I was going to say that if I had enough spare time I could probably pull
 that off, but putting this down in text it now occurs to me how utterly
 insane that is, especially considering how hard a time I had just making my
 own wordpress and mediawiki installs look the same.

 Even so, it definitely could be done, and it'd probably be easier to
 maintain and update than making something from scratch. I mean, they're
 both php, with somewhat similar structures...



I actually don't think it would be. Mediawiki is an awesome tool for many
things but we really shouldn't be using it for things it isn't good
for/meant for. Wordpress is a very good, modular, option for bogs in
particular and is, in my opinion, a perfectly acceptable thing to use for
that. In order to have any good design setup for the blog on mediawiki we
would have to be using a fair bit of rawhtml (something that mediawiki
allows but was never really meant for) and very complicated templates. We
would also need to have a much more understandable comment system then
mediawiki has right now. Liquid threads isn't meant for this type of
conversation, mediawiki itself sucks horribly for a comment type system and
while flow type stuff may be helpful it is down the road and not really in
scope currently from my understanding.

In order to make it flexible enough for those running the blog on the front
end (Staff / Volunteers etc) we  would have to make it relatively easy to
understand that rawhtml/template system at least at some level which is, in
my opinion, too much to ask of them. They should be focused on what they
are writing and other work, not trying to work around the page itself. Our
current visual editor is also unlikely to be workable with
that complicated of a template system in any near future. It would create
an enormous amount of complication for something that doesn't need it.
Dogfooding our product is great but shouldnt' be done just because it
should be done where the product makes sense for the task.

James


James Alexander
Manager, Merchandise
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Toolserver-l] [TS logo] Fwd: Free as in Wikimedia Foundation

2013-03-20 Thread Luis Villa
Hi, Nathan-

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 I won't argue the fact that there is value in protecting the
 iconography of the Wikimedia movement from abuse. What I argue with is
 the approach of the legal department


You're right that we could have communicated this better, and I apologize
for that on behalf of legal.


 If you're familiar with my posts to this list, I'm not normally on the
 anti-WMF side of debates (for instance, wrt WCA). But when they make a
 boob move, I don't think its bad faith to point it out.


I agree, and I'm glad your email gives the legal team the same benefit of
the doubt.

I've posted a much more extensive discussion of each of these points (and
several others Nathan and other people have raised) on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo#Follow_up_on_discussion_here_and_on_wikimedia-l

In the interests of keeping things in one place, I'd ask that we move the
discussion there.

Thanks-
Luis

-- 
Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810

NOTICE: *This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] open positions at WMF

2013-03-20 Thread Isarra Yos

On 20/03/13 21:09, James Alexander wrote:

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:


On the other hand, how hard could it be to just write an extension to
integrate a wordpress database and interface into a mediawiki? Call it a
new namespace on the mediawiki end, and... uh... horrible things on the
wordpress end...

I was going to say that if I had enough spare time I could probably pull
that off, but putting this down in text it now occurs to me how utterly
insane that is, especially considering how hard a time I had just making my
own wordpress and mediawiki installs look the same.

Even so, it definitely could be done, and it'd probably be easier to
maintain and update than making something from scratch. I mean, they're
both php, with somewhat similar structures...




I actually don't think it would be. Mediawiki is an awesome tool for many
things but we really shouldn't be using it for things it isn't good
for/meant for. Wordpress is a very good, modular, option for bogs in
particular and is, in my opinion, a perfectly acceptable thing to use for
that. In order to have any good design setup for the blog on mediawiki we
would have to be using a fair bit of rawhtml (something that mediawiki
allows but was never really meant for) and very complicated templates. We
would also need to have a much more understandable comment system then
mediawiki has right now. Liquid threads isn't meant for this type of
conversation, mediawiki itself sucks horribly for a comment type system and
while flow type stuff may be helpful it is down the road and not really in
scope currently from my understanding.

In order to make it flexible enough for those running the blog on the front
end (Staff / Volunteers etc) we  would have to make it relatively easy to
understand that rawhtml/template system at least at some level which is, in
my opinion, too much to ask of them. They should be focused on what they
are writing and other work, not trying to work around the page itself. Our
current visual editor is also unlikely to be workable with
that complicated of a template system in any near future. It would create
an enormous amount of complication for something that doesn't need it.
Dogfooding our product is great but shouldnt' be done just because it
should be done where the product makes sense for the task.

James


James Alexander
Manager, Merchandise
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


MediaWiki is good for revision control and some forms of categorisation 
and has all our users. Wordpress works for blog displaying and 
organising pages and tagging stuff and generally throwing it at the 
readers. What I am suggesting would take both of those, stuff the -admin 
interface and editing and revisions into mediawiki, but have wordpress 
handle the content and displaying it to readers (just dealing with the 
current revisions on that end)... in a mediawiki skin, even, and then... 
well, explode, probably.


I dunno, if it didn't explode I know plenty of folks who would use this, 
but it probably wouldn't actually help Wikimedia that much, considering 
what they're apparently looking for specifically.


--
-— Isarra


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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Report, February 2013

2013-03-20 Thread Garfield Byrd
Mathieu:

As I make progress on this issue, I will be reporting to the Wikimedia
Foundation Audit Committee.  Any significant changes, on this topic, will
be included as part of the scheduled reports of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Regards,

Garfield


On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Mathieu Stumpf 
psychosl...@culture-libre.org wrote:

 Le 2013-03-18 21:45, Garfield Byrd a écrit :

  Pine:

 Our relationship with JP Morgan Chase is that they handle part of our
 international banking.  This is a separate division of the bank from the
 one that had the trading losses.  I agree with you that this type of news
 report is not good news.  I have reviewed the information I have
 available,
 and have determined that the money JP Morgan Chase is holding for the
 Wikimedia Foundation is not at risk.

 When we did a review of banks that can handle our international
 banking, unfortunately  all of the banks we looked at were involved in
 some
 sort scandal, from risky trades to LIBOR manipulation.  This is not an
 ideal situation for a community based movement and I am continuing to look
 at options for all or some parts of our international banking needs.


 Interesting, do you plane to make a public report on this topic?

 --
 Association Culture-Libre
 http://www.culture-libre.org/


 __**_
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l




-- 
Garfield Byrd
Chief of Finance and Administration
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext 6787
415.882.0495 (fax)
www.wikimediafoundation.org

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!

*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] [Wikitech-l] open positions at WMF

2013-03-20 Thread Samuel Klein
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dogfooding our product is great but shouldnt' be done just because it
 should be done where the product makes sense for the task.

Supporting more flexible designs - particularly in the realm of
extensions - would be good for Mediawiki in the long term, however.

 MediaWiki is good for revision control and some forms of categorisation and
 has all our users. Wordpress works for blog displaying and organising pages
 and tagging stuff and generally throwing it at the readers. What I am
 suggesting would take both of those, stuff the -admin interface and editing
 and revisions into mediawiki, but have wordpress handle the content and
 displaying it to readers (just dealing with the current revisions on that
 end)... in a mediawiki skin, even, and then... well, explode, probably.

 I dunno, if it didn't explode I know plenty of folks who would use this, but
 it probably wouldn't actually help Wikimedia that much, considering what
 they're apparently looking for specifically.

And there are already extensions such as
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WPMW  and
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WordPress_Comments

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia (Foundation) endowment

2013-03-20 Thread Garfield Byrd
SJ:

I have been asked by the Audit Committee to do a report on the Endowment
Issue and present the report at their next meeting, which will take place
in this summer.

Regards,

Garfield


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:53 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
  Nathan wrote:
 To return to the endowment again as the main topic, I think there are
 some risks we need to consider in an endowment. In general I think
 having an endowment is a good idea for a charitable institution,

 Yes and yes.

  I suggested quite recently that the Board pass a resolution creating a
  committee to examine the points you raise and additional questions
  outlined here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Endowment/Questions.
 
  I continue to think that we (as a community) are still not at a place
  where we can make good judgments about whether to set up an endowment.
  There simply isn't enough information available to make a sound decision,
  in my opinion. That said, the idea of creating an endowment does seem
 like
  an idea that has broad support for further consideration and exploration,
  which is why I think an investigative or exploratory committee would make
  a lot of sense here and now. Thoughts?

 More information is certainly needed.  It is bound up in other
 strategic thinking, as others have noted.

 I think we should set up a strategy committee, with a subgroup focused
 on an endowment and long-term investment options.

 SJ

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




-- 
Garfield Byrd
Chief of Finance and Administration
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext 6787
415.882.0495 (fax)
www.wikimediafoundation.org

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!

*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] Mid-Year Financial Statements

2013-03-20 Thread Garfield Byrd
Thomas:

Our plans for the reserve are included in the WMF Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs) for the 2010-11 Audited Financial Statements:

*The cash balance has increased from $12 million to over $21 million. What
is the *
*Wikimedia Foundation's view on its increasing cash reserve?*
*
*
*The Wikimedia Foundation wants to have an appropriate amount of cash in
reserve.  *
*This is important for stability and the overall financial health of the
organization. *
*A nonprofit wants to ensure it has a sufficient amount of cash available
to it, so that it doesn't *
*face a crisis in the event that unforeseen costs arise, or that an
external or internal event hurts its ability to fund-raise.*
*Different non-profits have different levels of reserves: it is common for
young or very *
*small non-profits to have as little as a few months' spending available in
their reserve *
*fund and while others may have as much as three years' spending in theirs.
There is no *
*generally accepted consensus on what size of reserve is appropriate but
the Wikimedia *
*Foundation has been able to grow its reserve over time. The current
reserve represents *
*less than one year of funding, at our current spending level. We believe
that's *
*appropriate for a growing non-profit of our size and age, with our goal to
have one year *
*of operating funding available over time.*

Each of our annual plans, including the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan
for 2012 - 
2013http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf
on
page 54, show that the reserves of the Wikimedia Foundation are built up
intentionally consistent with the above statement. Any surplus from
operations are in addition to the planned growth in the reserves of the
Wikimedia Foundation.

Regards,

Garfield


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 18 March 2013 20:00, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  Thomas:
 
  The Wikimedia Foundation is looking at its capacity to hire and is
  reviewing how many positions we can hire next fiscal year.  We are
 working
  overall to have a good annual plan that matches our outcomes, but with a
  dynamic movement like this one, variance from plan is a part of the
 process
  as we want to make sure we are spending money prudently and not just to
  meet plan.

 In statistics we don't call it variance if it is always in the same
 direction - we call it bias. A high variance is often unavoidable,
 but bias is generally a bad thing. You'll note, my question wasn't
 about changing the spending, it was about changing the planning
 process. You shouldn't spend money just to meet your plan, certainly,
 but you should plan as accurately as possible. Prudence should be
 explicitly allowed for in reserves or a contingencies budget, it
 shouldn't appear accidentally due to biased planning.

  In addition, since unspent money goes into the Wikimedia Foundation
  reserves, which we are still in process of building, we have some time to
  calibrate the the annual planning process to the needs of the Wikimedia
  Movement and the Wikimedia Foundation.

 Can you elaborate on your plans for the reserves? When I search for
 reserves policy on the foundation wiki, it doesn't find anything.
 That is extremely worrying...

 Reserves should be built up intentionally, not as a result of
 accidental underspends. Either you need the reserves, in which case
 you should plan to save the money, or you don't, in which case you
 should either spend the money or not raise it in the first place.

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




-- 
Garfield Byrd
Chief of Finance and Administration
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext 6787
415.882.0495 (fax)
www.wikimediafoundation.org

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!

*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] Mid-Year Financial Statements

2013-03-20 Thread Thomas Dalton
Yes, I've seen the mentions in the FAQs. That doesn't constitute a reserve
policy and is very vague.

In the absence of a reserve policy, we must assume your policy is to have
the planned level of reserves. If you underspend and put the extra in
reserves, that means you have too much in reserves.

If you have some long-term target and you simply reach that target earlier
by underspending, that could be reasonable, but you don't seem to have
long-term plans for your reserves.
On Mar 21, 2013 12:31 AM, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Thomas:

 Our plans for the reserve are included in the WMF Frequently Asked
 Questions (FAQs) for the 2010-11 Audited Financial Statements:

 *The cash balance has increased from $12 million to over $21 million. What
 is the *
 *Wikimedia Foundation's view on its increasing cash reserve?*
 *
 *
 *The Wikimedia Foundation wants to have an appropriate amount of cash in
 reserve.  *
 *This is important for stability and the overall financial health of the
 organization. *
 *A nonprofit wants to ensure it has a sufficient amount of cash available
 to it, so that it doesn't *
 *face a crisis in the event that unforeseen costs arise, or that an
 external or internal event hurts its ability to fund-raise.*
 *Different non-profits have different levels of reserves: it is common for
 young or very *
 *small non-profits to have as little as a few months' spending available in
 their reserve *
 *fund and while others may have as much as three years' spending in theirs.
 There is no *
 *generally accepted consensus on what size of reserve is appropriate but
 the Wikimedia *
 *Foundation has been able to grow its reserve over time. The current
 reserve represents *
 *less than one year of funding, at our current spending level. We believe
 that's *
 *appropriate for a growing non-profit of our size and age, with our goal to
 have one year *
 *of operating funding available over time.*

 Each of our annual plans, including the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan
 for 2012 - 2013
 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/4/4f/2012-13_Wikimedia_Foundation_Plan_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf
 
 on
 page 54, show that the reserves of the Wikimedia Foundation are built up
 intentionally consistent with the above statement. Any surplus from
 operations are in addition to the planned growth in the reserves of the
 Wikimedia Foundation.

 Regards,

 Garfield


 On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  On 18 March 2013 20:00, Garfield Byrd gb...@wikimedia.org wrote:
   Thomas:
  
   The Wikimedia Foundation is looking at its capacity to hire and is
   reviewing how many positions we can hire next fiscal year.  We are
  working
   overall to have a good annual plan that matches our outcomes, but with
 a
   dynamic movement like this one, variance from plan is a part of the
  process
   as we want to make sure we are spending money prudently and not just to
   meet plan.
 
  In statistics we don't call it variance if it is always in the same
  direction - we call it bias. A high variance is often unavoidable,
  but bias is generally a bad thing. You'll note, my question wasn't
  about changing the spending, it was about changing the planning
  process. You shouldn't spend money just to meet your plan, certainly,
  but you should plan as accurately as possible. Prudence should be
  explicitly allowed for in reserves or a contingencies budget, it
  shouldn't appear accidentally due to biased planning.
 
   In addition, since unspent money goes into the Wikimedia Foundation
   reserves, which we are still in process of building, we have some time
 to
   calibrate the the annual planning process to the needs of the Wikimedia
   Movement and the Wikimedia Foundation.
 
  Can you elaborate on your plans for the reserves? When I search for
  reserves policy on the foundation wiki, it doesn't find anything.
  That is extremely worrying...
 
  Reserves should be built up intentionally, not as a result of
  accidental underspends. Either you need the reserves, in which case
  you should plan to save the money, or you don't, in which case you
  should either spend the money or not raise it in the first place.
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 



 --
 Garfield Byrd
 Chief of Finance and Administration
 Wikimedia Foundation
 415.839.6885 ext 6787
 415.882.0495 (fax)
 www.wikimediafoundation.org

 Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
 the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!

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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hour inside out (program evaluation)

2013-03-20 Thread ENWP Pine

 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:31:57 -0700
 From: Frank Schulenburg frank.schulenb...@gmail.com
 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Tomorrow: Office hour inside out (program
   evaluation)
 Message-ID:
   cakoobqbk6rcui1bthp41mbvjtdzdqvvsjrlgsfywxuuogap...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
 
 Hi folks,
 
 Tomorrow at 17:00 UTC, I will be holding an office hour about program
 evaluation on #wikimedia-office. The target audience for this office
 hour will be chapter representatives and volunteers who are currently
 running (or planning to run) programs and programmatic activities.
 You'll find some background information about why program evaluation
 might be worth talking about in my most recent blog post on the
 Foundation's blog:
 
 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/01/lets-start-talking-about-program-evaluation/
 
 As we all know, most office hours follow a certain rule: there's one
 poor staffer who is getting grilled by the people on the IRC channel –
 people ask a variety of questions and the staff person tries to answer
 every question in a limited amount of time. It's a lot of fun (I
 guess, at least for the people who're asking the questions) and it has
 been a good way of direct communication between WMF employees and the
 community.
 
 Now, this office hour will be different. Not that I don't enjoy being
 grilled for one hour :-) I've done IRC office hours several times
 before and I always enjoyed answering questions. The reason for this
 office hour to be different is that I want to _listen to you in the
 first place_. I would like to learn more about
 
 * _your_ thoughts about why evaluation might be important
 * _your_ experiences with making evaluation a part of program design
 * _your_ hopes and fears when it comes to increasingly evaluating
 programs and programmatic activities in the future
 * _your_ ideas and feedback on evaluation practices
 
 Ideally, we would have some people in the room tomorrow who have done
 some kind evaluation in the past or who are planning to embark on
 evaluation work in the near future. With that said – if you have no
 idea about what program evaluation is and you'd like to learn more
 about it, you're invited as well! Or maybe you're just curious to see
 if this office hour inside out is going to play out well ;-)
 
 I'm looking forward to meeting you tomorrow at 17:00 UTC,
 
 Frank
 
 
 

I'd encourage people who are interested in this subject
to read up on program management and related subjects. 
This sort of management has been studied extensively in 
academia and in business, and in some ways I feel that
WMF has catch-up work to do and lacks expertise, 
although I'm hopeful that WMF is trying to improve
in this area.

I'd also suggest that people read the report about 
projects that encountered significant problems at 
WMF, particularly the IEP, and a more recent example 
is the mixed reception to AFT5. I hope that program 
managers at WMF learn both good practices and what 
to avoid. I also hope that WMF ties program metrics 
to evaluations for the responsible supervisors when 
considering whether to continue or renew 
employment contracts, as well as when
considering promotions.

Cheers,

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Mid-Year Financial Statements

2013-03-20 Thread ENWP Pine
Thomas, I agree with you that it would make sense to have a more
thoroughly defined reserve policy, but I also caution against
micromanaging the reserve. I believe that I said in my previous 
email directed to Erik that I'm wondering what the downside is
of having some underspend for payroll due to hiring that happens
later than planned. Unless the underspend is significant enough
that it should impact the targets used by the Annual Fundraiser
in a significant way, believe that the underspend isn't much of
a concern. The issue that worries me about delayed hiring is the 
possibility of delays or disruptions to program schedules.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Toolserver-l] [TS logo] Fwd: Free as in Wikimedia Foundation

2013-03-20 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 21 March 2013 00:32, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
 ...
  +1.  Thanks to all who commented on this thread.

 Nice to know you don't believe in marginalizing those commenting as
 alarmist hippie crap.

 Thanks,
 Fae


That actually made me laugh.  I couldn't imagine SJ calling anyone an
alarmist hippie.

-- 
~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] Office hour inside out (program evaluation)

2013-03-20 Thread Samuel Klein
I hope the Grants Retrospective comes up as one possible model for
evaluation.   Its output had some useful features and side effects.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:48 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:31:57 -0700
 From: Frank Schulenburg frank.schulenb...@gmail.com
 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Tomorrow: Office hour inside out (program
   evaluation)
 Message-ID:
   cakoobqbk6rcui1bthp41mbvjtdzdqvvsjrlgsfywxuuogap...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 Hi folks,

 Tomorrow at 17:00 UTC, I will be holding an office hour about program
 evaluation on #wikimedia-office. The target audience for this office
 hour will be chapter representatives and volunteers who are currently
 running (or planning to run) programs and programmatic activities.
 You'll find some background information about why program evaluation
 might be worth talking about in my most recent blog post on the
 Foundation's blog:

 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/03/01/lets-start-talking-about-program-evaluation/

 As we all know, most office hours follow a certain rule: there's one
 poor staffer who is getting grilled by the people on the IRC channel –
 people ask a variety of questions and the staff person tries to answer
 every question in a limited amount of time. It's a lot of fun (I
 guess, at least for the people who're asking the questions) and it has
 been a good way of direct communication between WMF employees and the
 community.

 Now, this office hour will be different. Not that I don't enjoy being
 grilled for one hour :-) I've done IRC office hours several times
 before and I always enjoyed answering questions. The reason for this
 office hour to be different is that I want to _listen to you in the
 first place_. I would like to learn more about

 * _your_ thoughts about why evaluation might be important
 * _your_ experiences with making evaluation a part of program design
 * _your_ hopes and fears when it comes to increasingly evaluating
 programs and programmatic activities in the future
 * _your_ ideas and feedback on evaluation practices

 Ideally, we would have some people in the room tomorrow who have done
 some kind evaluation in the past or who are planning to embark on
 evaluation work in the near future. With that said – if you have no
 idea about what program evaluation is and you'd like to learn more
 about it, you're invited as well! Or maybe you're just curious to see
 if this office hour inside out is going to play out well ;-)

 I'm looking forward to meeting you tomorrow at 17:00 UTC,

 Frank




 I'd encourage people who are interested in this subject
 to read up on program management and related subjects.
 This sort of management has been studied extensively in
 academia and in business, and in some ways I feel that
 WMF has catch-up work to do and lacks expertise,
 although I'm hopeful that WMF is trying to improve
 in this area.

 I'd also suggest that people read the report about
 projects that encountered significant problems at
 WMF, particularly the IEP, and a more recent example
 is the mixed reception to AFT5. I hope that program
 managers at WMF learn both good practices and what
 to avoid. I also hope that WMF ties program metrics
 to evaluations for the responsible supervisors when
 considering whether to continue or renew
 employment contracts, as well as when
 considering promotions.

 Cheers,

 Pine

 ___
 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