[Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
Hey,

Don't worry, we indeed have a lot of time till the next elections, but as
this issue had been raised during the last elections - and we decided that
we can't change the rules few weeks before the elections, now I want to
raise the discussion enough time before.

According to the current rules  [1], in order to influence and vote in the
elections, you need to be active editor, developer or WMF staff/contractor.

Last year this issue concern some of us. The foundation is not small
organizations as it been before, and by comparison, the number of people
participating in the elections every year is not high.

For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes. By comparison, the
number of WMF staff this days is 218, what makes there voting power 12% of
the total voters last year. This consider to be a great amount of power
when we are talking about elections (In the last election you would have
around 650 votes in order to be elected...)

Wikimedia thematic organizations staff and contractors for example don't
have the same privilege to vote only because they are employees of the
movement, only if they are editors as well. The question - what make the
WMF staff different, and if this is not a little bit problematic that the
staff have such power to decide on their direct board, but in general - the
board of the whole movement.

Do we need to give the same privilege also to all the staff in our
movement?
Should we limited the elections to staff (both WMF and chapters) that are
active editors or developers as additional to their work in the movement?

I'll be happy to hear yours input.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Vote_Questions

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results



*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Pine W
Hi Itzik,

If I understand you correctly, you are asking about whether WMF and
thematic organization bylaws should allow employees to vote in trustee
elections for their own orgs.

I can see how this could create interesting conflict-of-interest problems.

However, in all non-autocratic republics that I know about, government
employees can vote as any other citizens can. I'm also of the view that WMF
operates like a university, and a modest amount of staff involvement in
selecting their supervisors in that environment is ok.

Pine
On Oct 5, 2014 12:41 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel it...@wikimedia.org.il
wrote:

 Hey,

 Don't worry, we indeed have a lot of time till the next elections, but as
 this issue had been raised during the last elections - and we decided that
 we can't change the rules few weeks before the elections, now I want to
 raise the discussion enough time before.

 According to the current rules  [1], in order to influence and vote in the
 elections, you need to be active editor, developer or WMF staff/contractor.

 Last year this issue concern some of us. The foundation is not small
 organizations as it been before, and by comparison, the number of people
 participating in the elections every year is not high.

 For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes. By comparison, the
 number of WMF staff this days is 218, what makes there voting power 12% of
 the total voters last year. This consider to be a great amount of power
 when we are talking about elections (In the last election you would have
 around 650 votes in order to be elected...)

 Wikimedia thematic organizations staff and contractors for example don't
 have the same privilege to vote only because they are employees of the
 movement, only if they are editors as well. The question - what make the
 WMF staff different, and if this is not a little bit problematic that the
 staff have such power to decide on their direct board, but in general - the
 board of the whole movement.

 Do we need to give the same privilege also to all the staff in our
 movement?
 Should we limited the elections to staff (both WMF and chapters) that are
 active editors or developers as additional to their work in the movement?

 I'll be happy to hear yours input.

 [1]

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Vote_Questions

 [2]
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results



 *Regards,Itzik Edri*
 Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
 +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
 Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
 sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Quarterly review for Grantmaking

2014-10-05 Thread Pine W
Tilman, thanks for those notes.

There was discussion awhile ago about involving the community in quarterly
reviews, and I have some questions and comments about this review, mostly
for Lila.

However, I would like to see the notes from the group mentioned at the
end of the quarterly review before I make comments, or if there is an
opportunity for community participation in the group, I would like to
participate in a community capacity, if that is ok. (:

Thanks,
Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
Pine,

As far as I know, government employees in most of the countries can vote
only if they are citizens. So yes, of course we are not taking there
democratic voice. As I didn't said a staff member can't vote because he is
a staff member. Just saying that it is not enough to be a staff member in
order to get the vote privilege.

Itzik



*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Itzik,

 If I understand you correctly, you are asking about whether WMF and
 thematic organization bylaws should allow employees to vote in trustee
 elections for their own orgs.

 I can see how this could create interesting conflict-of-interest problems.

 However, in all non-autocratic republics that I know about, government
 employees can vote as any other citizens can. I'm also of the view that WMF
 operates like a university, and a modest amount of staff involvement in
 selecting their supervisors in that environment is ok.

 Pine
 On Oct 5, 2014 12:41 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel 
 it...@wikimedia.org.il
 wrote:

  Hey,
 
  Don't worry, we indeed have a lot of time till the next elections, but as
  this issue had been raised during the last elections - and we decided
 that
  we can't change the rules few weeks before the elections, now I want to
  raise the discussion enough time before.
 
  According to the current rules  [1], in order to influence and vote in
 the
  elections, you need to be active editor, developer or WMF
 staff/contractor.
 
  Last year this issue concern some of us. The foundation is not small
  organizations as it been before, and by comparison, the number of people
  participating in the elections every year is not high.
 
  For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes. By comparison,
 the
  number of WMF staff this days is 218, what makes there voting power 12%
 of
  the total voters last year. This consider to be a great amount of power
  when we are talking about elections (In the last election you would have
  around 650 votes in order to be elected...)
 
  Wikimedia thematic organizations staff and contractors for example don't
  have the same privilege to vote only because they are employees of the
  movement, only if they are editors as well. The question - what make the
  WMF staff different, and if this is not a little bit problematic that the
  staff have such power to decide on their direct board, but in general -
 the
  board of the whole movement.
 
  Do we need to give the same privilege also to all the staff in our
  movement?
  Should we limited the elections to staff (both WMF and chapters) that are
  active editors or developers as additional to their work in the movement?
 
  I'll be happy to hear yours input.
 
  [1]
 
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Vote_Questions
 
  [2]
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results
 
 
 
  *Regards,Itzik Edri*
  Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
  +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
  Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
  sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] product roadmap

2014-10-05 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Article review is important. The argument presented is that it needs action
in the light of fewer people involved in article review. The reality is
that at present only a subset of the articles are reviewed and only in a
few Wikipedias. In addition to this, these people all use fixed positions
and the reality of new editors is very much mobile.

Article review is text review first and foremost. With the influx of data
in Wikidata from many sources, review of facts is increasingly possible. A
first example is available in a tool that allows for the comparison of
dates of death. Arguably when Wikidata and its sources, including en,wp
cannot agree, it means that we have a problem that can be resolved. This
new tool exists thanks to the work in pywikipedia by Amir Ladsgroup.

My point is very much that the exclusive attention to the needs of single
projects will not help Wikipedia as a whole. Yes, it makes sense that
article review gets attention but arguing that it is only for the WMF to do
AND is to concentrate on existing practices will only lead to more
stagnation for the totality that is Wikipedia.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 5 October 2014 01:17, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:

 Re the request for discussion about the product roadmap during the
 metrics meeting at
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJGC9zpbJpUt=1h06m30s

 Do Foundation officials intend to address supporting article accuracy
 review?

 I have asked several specific questions about

 https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Develop_systems_for_accuracy_review
 and I am certain that the proposal or something very similar is
 urgently needed for the transition from content creation to content
 maintenance on the largest projects. However at present there have
 been no response. Does the Foundation have an alternative contingency
 plan for article updating if active editors continue to decline? Or
 are all the eggs being put into the basket of hoping that someone
 thinks of something to reverse active editor decline, after at least a
 dozen such attempts have yielded zero results over the past half
 decade?

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

The title should be WMF Board of Trustee elections.

Itzik - Wikimedia Israel, 05/10/2014 09:40:

For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes.


And this is the issue we should be talking about: the ~99.5 % abstention 
rate.*



By comparison, the
number of WMF staff this days is 218, what makes there voting power 12% of
the total voters last year. This consider to be a great amount of power
when we are talking about elections (In the last election you would have
around 650 votes in order to be elected...)


Did you check how many actually voted?



Wikimedia thematic organizations staff and contractors for example don't
have the same privilege to vote only because they are employees of the
movement, only if they are editors as well. The question - what make the
WMF staff different, and if this is not a little bit problematic that the
staff have such power to decide on their direct board, but in general - the
board of the whole movement.


This unequality must indeed be rectified. It's not hard to do so.
1) Just remove the WMF staffers exception: after it was introduced, 
requirements have been greatly reduced and most staffers have at least 
one merged patch or 300 edits. There could be some minor 
discrimination for some administrative staff.
2) Extend it to any Wikimedia affiliates. This could cause some minor 
inequality in what different affiliates consider staff. Mostly, there 
would be some administrative overhead; but it's trivial to fix with 
standard electoral methods: publish the electors list beforehand and let 
interested voters report errors.
I wouldn't spend too much time discussing this topic, flipping a coin to 
pick either option is fine. :-)


Nemo

(*) No official numbers exist... but I already opened one thread on 
transparency this week.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Richard Symonds
Is there a way in which people who volunteer, but not through editing or
coding, can vote? For example, Wikimania volunteers from this year, or
those who volunteer time with financial or  administrative matters rather
than through adding content?
On 5 Oct 2014 11:44, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:

 The title should be WMF Board of Trustee elections.

 Itzik - Wikimedia Israel, 05/10/2014 09:40:

 For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes.


 And this is the issue we should be talking about: the ~99.5 % abstention
 rate.*

  By comparison, the
 number of WMF staff this days is 218, what makes there voting power 12% of
 the total voters last year. This consider to be a great amount of power
 when we are talking about elections (In the last election you would have
 around 650 votes in order to be elected...)


 Did you check how many actually voted?


 Wikimedia thematic organizations staff and contractors for example don't
 have the same privilege to vote only because they are employees of the
 movement, only if they are editors as well. The question - what make the
 WMF staff different, and if this is not a little bit problematic that the
 staff have such power to decide on their direct board, but in general -
 the
 board of the whole movement.


 This unequality must indeed be rectified. It's not hard to do so.
 1) Just remove the WMF staffers exception: after it was introduced,
 requirements have been greatly reduced and most staffers have at least one
 merged patch or 300 edits. There could be some minor discrimination for
 some administrative staff.
 2) Extend it to any Wikimedia affiliates. This could cause some minor
 inequality in what different affiliates consider staff. Mostly, there
 would be some administrative overhead; but it's trivial to fix with
 standard electoral methods: publish the electors list beforehand and let
 interested voters report errors.
 I wouldn't spend too much time discussing this topic, flipping a coin to
 pick either option is fine. :-)

 Nemo

 (*) No official numbers exist... but I already opened one thread on
 transparency this week.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread James Alexander
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:

 (*) No official numbers exist... but I already opened one thread on
 transparency this week.


Just to clarify so that I know what you're looking and can try and
prioritize it. You are looking for the total number of eligible voters so
that we can determine the actual turn out percentage? It could be a bit of
a pain because of the lack of SUL and the fact that people can be eligible
on multiple wikis but if I assume that 'same name = duplicate' then it
shouldn't take too much manual jiggering after the scripts run. I will try
to do that this afternoon (Sunday).

I always intended to release more stats after the last election (and I know
you've asked before), sadly issues came up in the pipeline and other work
over came it priority wise so at the moment it would have to be in my
personal time I do still want too or to find someone else who is able too
:(.


James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Craig Franklin
I think the issue is that the employee vote is now a significant proportion
of the electorate.  When this was originally set up, nobody complained too
loudly about giving WMF staff the vote simply because their numbers were
small and they were too small a constituency to sway the result on their
own.  The number of voters choosing to exercise their suffrage is
decreasing, while the number of staff are increasing.  While this
illustrates a problem all on its own, it also means that WMF staff who may
not be participants on the projects may now have enough pull to decide a
closely fought election.

I know it's too late to change the rules for this year, but I'd really
recommend getting rid of the complex criteria for the next election, and
dialing it back to a simple X number of edits, or Y number of patches
rule.  Not only would this be simpler to administer and easier to
understand, but I would imagine most of the WMF staff who care enough to
actually vote would probably qualify through those criteria anyway.  A few
worthy folk might miss out on the chance to lodge a ballot, but then
that's going to be the case in any situation other than complete and
universal suffrage.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin

On 5 October 2014 18:04, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Itzik,

 If I understand you correctly, you are asking about whether WMF and
 thematic organization bylaws should allow employees to vote in trustee
 elections for their own orgs.

 I can see how this could create interesting conflict-of-interest problems.

 However, in all non-autocratic republics that I know about, government
 employees can vote as any other citizens can. I'm also of the view that WMF
 operates like a university, and a modest amount of staff involvement in
 selecting their supervisors in that environment is ok.

 Pine
 On Oct 5, 2014 12:41 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel 
 it...@wikimedia.org.il
 wrote:

  Hey,
 
  Don't worry, we indeed have a lot of time till the next elections, but as
  this issue had been raised during the last elections - and we decided
 that
  we can't change the rules few weeks before the elections, now I want to
  raise the discussion enough time before.
 
  According to the current rules  [1], in order to influence and vote in
 the
  elections, you need to be active editor, developer or WMF
 staff/contractor.
 
  Last year this issue concern some of us. The foundation is not small
  organizations as it been before, and by comparison, the number of people
  participating in the elections every year is not high.
 
  For example, last elections there were 1809 valid votes. By comparison,
 the
  number of WMF staff this days is 218, what makes there voting power 12%
 of
  the total voters last year. This consider to be a great amount of power
  when we are talking about elections (In the last election you would have
  around 650 votes in order to be elected...)
 
  Wikimedia thematic organizations staff and contractors for example don't
  have the same privilege to vote only because they are employees of the
  movement, only if they are editors as well. The question - what make the
  WMF staff different, and if this is not a little bit problematic that the
  staff have such power to decide on their direct board, but in general -
 the
  board of the whole movement.
 
  Do we need to give the same privilege also to all the staff in our
  movement?
  Should we limited the elections to staff (both WMF and chapters) that are
  active editors or developers as additional to their work in the movement?
 
  I'll be happy to hear yours input.
 
  [1]
 
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Vote_Questions
 
  [2]
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results
 
 
 
  *Regards,Itzik Edri*
  Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
  +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
  Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
  sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread James Alexander
A completely un deduped (and so is double+ counting anyone who is eligible
on multiple wikis because of activity there) number is 207911 for 2013.

Caveats:

This number is quick and dirty and 'reasonable' as a starting point but far
from perfect, among other things:

   - It doesn't include 100% of the staff or developers, only the staff who
   had staff rights or asked and developers who asked because they couldn't
   vote in other ways). This is a relatively small amount of missing people.
   - It still includes bots and blocked users, because that was checked
   later in the process. I, again, think this is a relatively small amount
   given number of bots + blocked users with more then 300 edits relative to
   the total. It is possible some of the bots are very active across the board
   though which will be helped by the de dupping.
   - It is not de dupped meaning it double+ counts people who were active
   on many wikis or accounts, sometimes a lot (for example there are 7 entries
   for my personal account, 7 for my work account, and 69 for the steward
   DerHexer given global work). Sorting through the crap that the script spat
   out is more then I'm willing to do at 5am but I will try to do this later
   today and get this number down. My guess is this is in the 10k range.


James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:36 AM, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org
wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 (*) No official numbers exist... but I already opened one thread on
 transparency this week.


 Just to clarify so that I know what you're looking and can try and
 prioritize it. You are looking for the total number of eligible voters so
 that we can determine the actual turn out percentage? It could be a bit of
 a pain because of the lack of SUL and the fact that people can be eligible
 on multiple wikis but if I assume that 'same name = duplicate' then it
 shouldn't take too much manual jiggering after the scripts run. I will try
 to do that this afternoon (Sunday).

 I always intended to release more stats after the last election (and I
 know you've asked before), sadly issues came up in the pipeline and other
 work over came it priority wise so at the moment it would have to be in my
 personal time I do still want too or to find someone else who is able too
 :(.


 James Alexander
 Legal and Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation
 (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
it...@wikimedia.org.il wrote:
 Pine,

 As far as I know, government employees in most of the countries can vote
 only if they are citizens. So yes, of course we are not taking there
 democratic voice. As I didn't said a staff member can't vote because he is
 a staff member. Just saying that it is not enough to be a staff member in
 order to get the vote privilege.

IMO the minimum thresholds should be set at levels such that any staff
member who has employed for a reasonable period of time is likely to
be eligible, if they are engaging with the community on public
projects, which is how a person becomes part of 'the community', and
would be a suitable voter for community seats on the board.

e.g. Danny Horn joined in April 2014, and now has 284 edits globally,
albeit spread across seven projects.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/DannyH_(WMF)

Danny will no doubt hit the 300 global edit mark by the cutoff date
which would be ~March 2014., roughly one year after he started.  I
suspect he may also meet any sensible criteria established for merged
patches, but havent checked that.

If we include the wikitech and foundation wikis in the edit counts,
many more staff and contractors will likely reach the thresholds we
set.

I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more
than a year, and many dont look likely to reach the 300 threshold,
even with wikitech and foundation wikis included.  Maybe they are
editing on a private wiki?  Maybe those private wiki edits can be
imported to meta??

We could include different criteria geared more towards including
staff, based around edits per year.  e.g. 50 contributions per year
during employment at an approved movement entity, sounds to me like a
reasonable expectation of most roles at WIkimedia organisations.  That
would be inclusive of staff like Anna Lantz, whose role includes
documentation of our movement, using our public wiki projects.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:ALantz_(WMF)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/ALantz_(WMF)

(sorry Danny and Anna for using you as examples)

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread James Alexander
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net
wrote:

 I think the issue is that the employee vote is now a significant proportion
 of the electorate.  When this was originally set up, nobody complained too
 loudly about giving WMF staff the vote simply because their numbers were
 small and they were too small a constituency to sway the result on their
 own.  The number of voters choosing to exercise their suffrage is
 decreasing, while the number of staff are increasing.  While this
 illustrates a problem all on its own, it also means that WMF staff who may
 not be participants on the projects may now have enough pull to decide a
 closely fought election.

 I know it's too late to change the rules for this year, but I'd really
 recommend getting rid of the complex criteria for the next election, and
 dialing it back to a simple X number of edits, or Y number of patches
 rule.  Not only would this be simpler to administer and easier to
 understand, but I would imagine most of the WMF staff who care enough to
 actually vote would probably qualify through those criteria anyway.  A few
 worthy folk might miss out on the chance to lodge a ballot, but then
 that's going to be the case in any situation other than complete and
 universal suffrage.

 Cheers,
 Craig Franklin


First off, setting aside the question about what I (personally) think
should be the requirements I would say that it is in no way too late to
change the rules. The election is not until mid year next year (I think we
usually do it in June?) The election committee hasn't even been sat yet and
they will be the ones to decide that in the end (that is not to say that we
shouldn't have the discussion now too if people want, just that the
decision makers aren't even decided yet).

I don't have exact numbers, but I do remember that there are already very
few people who wanted to vote, were only eligible as staff, and couldn't.
Most of them were developers and so would be eligible via patches anyway
(and most of THEM were eligible by edit count as well), among the non
developers people like myself and Philippe refrained from voting because we
were working with the election committee and felt that most appropriate. I
don't believe there was an overwhelming vote of staff members in proportion
to the total.


Voter turn out is something I really want to see better though, it's
something that I know we've discussed in the office and I'm sure that the
election committee will have as a top priority. The biggest things I see
right now is finishing SUL unification which will allow us to have '1
click' voting (and not sending people to meta first to learn about the
election/candidates then to their undefined 'home wiki' to see if they can
vote) completely anecdotally that seems to have consistently scared a lot
of voters off and confused even some of our more experienced users (it also
seems to be a bigger complaint each year) SUL will allow us to just have
everyone click a start voting button on Meta and not have to go back to
their home wiki. I also seriously wonder about the joint FDC/Board ballot
giving people too much to look at, we know for example that over 500 people
'saw' the ballot but never submitted their vote.

I also really think notifications could be incredibly helpful to get the
word out, but so far that does not seem very likely to be available by then.


James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly review for Grantmaking

2014-10-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
(For other readers: Pine appears to refer to the publication of the
minutes from the quarterly review meeting for the Wikimedia
Foundation's Grantmaking team, announced in a separate thread at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-October/074824.html
)

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
 Tilman, thanks for those notes.

As mentioned at the top of the page, these minutes were actually taken
by Anna Koval and Maria Cruz. (I had been unable to attend this
particular review due to a conflicting meeting.) So the thanks should
go to them ;)

 There was discussion awhile ago about involving the community in quarterly
 reviews,
I don't recall that discussion, do you have a link?

 and I have some questions and comments about this review, mostly
 for Lila.
Sure! Feel free to leave them on the talk page - as community members
have already been doing with other reviews this week.


 However, I would like to see the notes from the group mentioned at the end
 of the quarterly review before I make comments, or if there is an
 opportunity for community participation in the group, I would like to
 participate in a community capacity, if that is ok. (:

Well, again, I wasn't at the meeting myself, but my interpretation of
that sentence is that to group about this simply was a somewhat
colloquial expression meaning to have a smaller followup meeting
between staff from the Product team and from the Grantmaking team,
including Erik and possibly Lila, about the particular issue in
question - technical support for grantmaking work which would need
dedicated time from WMF software developers in the Product team. I'm
not sure what you meant by the notes - please be aware that not
every WMF staff meeting has a designated minute-taker - and in any case
group was a verb here, not a noun ;)


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] First Wikipedia Article has been Formally Peer Reviewed and Published

2014-10-05 Thread Lila Tretikov
James -- this is really great, thank you for sharing.

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Article published by the journal Open Medicine
 http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564

 Will soon be pubmed indexed. Editorial regarding the efforts are here
 http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/652/565

 Hope these sorts of efforts will improve the reputation of Wikipedia and
 the number of contributors. I guess we will see.

 --
 James Heilman
 MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

 The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
 www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Pine W
How are we doing on SUL finalization anyway? If I remember correctly the
lead on this is Dan so I'm pinging him.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On 05.10.2014 14:24, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
it...@wikimedia.org.il wrote:

Pine,




IMO the minimum thresholds should be set at levels such that any staff
member who has employed for a reasonable period of time is likely to
be eligible, if they are engaging with the community on public
projects, which is how a person becomes part of 'the community', and
would be a suitable voter for community seats on the board.

e.g. Danny Horn joined in April 2014, and now has 284 edits globally,
albeit spread across seven projects.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/DannyH_(WMF)



I think most of the staff (not sure specifically about Danny) have 
normal (not WMF) accounts which are eligible to vote, and they should 
not be voting from two accounts anyway.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Risker
On 5 October 2014 13:35, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:

 On 05.10.2014 14:24, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
 it...@wikimedia.org.il wrote:

 Pine,


  IMO the minimum thresholds should be set at levels such that any staff
 member who has employed for a reasonable period of time is likely to
 be eligible, if they are engaging with the community on public
 projects, which is how a person becomes part of 'the community', and
 would be a suitable voter for community seats on the board.

 e.g. Danny Horn joined in April 2014, and now has 284 edits globally,
 albeit spread across seven projects.

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/DannyH_(WMF)


 I think most of the staff (not sure specifically about Danny) have
 normal (not WMF) accounts which are eligible to vote, and they should not
 be voting from two accounts anyway.

 Cheers
 Yaroslav




Speaking as one of the election monitors for the last election,
we specifically checked for those types of duplicate votes, and would have
de-activated the earliest vote(s) keeping only the last one.  As it
happens, nobody did that; the only votes we needed to strike were test
votes.[1]

Risker/Anne

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013/Results
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly review for Grantmaking

2014-10-05 Thread Risker
I do not think it is a good idea to have community members directly
involved in these meetings.  First off, any community member who
participates is in no way representative of the broad international
community as a whole, so granting individuals access gives them a radically
disproportionate influence on the outcome of these meetings.

Secondly, this is the team's ONE chance per quarter to have the undivided
attention of the Executive Director, and they need to be able to
communicate directly with her for the purpose of evaluation of their work.
They have one hour, and they have to be able to ensure that they cover
the essential points of their message.  Even a few off-point
questions can have a significantly adverse effect on their ability
to update the ED on their progress on the responsibilities within their
portfolio.  This is part of the evaluation of the performance of the teams
and its individual members, which is directly a responsibility of the ED
and the executives, and is absolutely not a responsibility of the
community.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask community members to put their
questions on the talk pages of the minutes, and for the community to expect
that questions relevant to the responsibility of the team will receive a
response.

Risker/Anne







On 5 October 2014 14:13, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Tilman,

 Thanks for redirecting the thanks to Anna and Maria.

 Erik mentioned quarterly reviews accounting for community feedback:
 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/471142. Involving
 community members directly in meetings could be interesting if done
 carefully, and/or there could also be ways of amplifying the weight given
 to community feedback already received about projects like Flow when
 conducting quarterly reviews. I believe that Communications already wants
 to find someone who will perform sentiment analysis, and perhaps
 summarizing community sentiment for quarterly reviews could be part of
 their job.

 Let me quote the end of the notes from this quarterly review of
 Grantmaking:

 Anasuya: As we are. If we are moving to a much more proactive structure, we
 are going to need much more tech support internally. There needs to be a
 larger long term strategy around that.
 Lila: it should show success and then Product can invest. We need to
 integrate these projects in the communities. Let's say the library is a
 good one, someone in product needs to look at it and see what is the
 threshold of success and how much staffing do we need so that we can match
 it. And it seems like Growth may be the place to evaluate these things.
 Erik: We also need to look at your team's short term needs. Like I did on
 Friday with Frank Schulenburg and Floor with regard to the education
 program's needs.
 Lila: I think the next steps is to group about this and determine next
 steps.

 To me it sounds like there is further significant business to be discussed
 that is effectively a part of this quarterly review but time expired for
 this particular meeting, so I am hoping that there will be notes from the
 discussion that follows. In order for me to comment usefully, it would be
 good to know if that follow up discussion has already happened and if so
 what was decided in that discussion, or if that discussion is planned for
 the near future.

 Thanks,

 Pine







 On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  (For other readers: Pine appears to refer to the publication of the
  minutes from the quarterly review meeting for the Wikimedia
  Foundation's Grantmaking team, announced in a separate thread at
 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-October/074824.html
  )
 
  On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
   Tilman, thanks for those notes.
  
  As mentioned at the top of the page, these minutes were actually taken
  by Anna Koval and Maria Cruz. (I had been unable to attend this
  particular review due to a conflicting meeting.) So the thanks should
  go to them ;)
 
   There was discussion awhile ago about involving the community in
  quarterly
   reviews,
  I don't recall that discussion, do you have a link?
 
   and I have some questions and comments about this review, mostly
   for Lila.
  Sure! Feel free to leave them on the talk page - as community members
  have already been doing with other reviews this week.
 
  
   However, I would like to see the notes from the group mentioned at
 the
  end
   of the quarterly review before I make comments, or if there is an
   opportunity for community participation in the group, I would like to
   participate in a community capacity, if that is ok. (:
  
  Well, again, I wasn't at the meeting myself, but my interpretation of
  that sentence is that to group about this simply was a somewhat
  colloquial expression meaning to have a smaller followup meeting
  between staff from the Product team and from the Grantmaking team,
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly review for Grantmaking

2014-10-05 Thread Pine W
I agree to a point. I think if we had some carefully chosen people
involved, like a representative from the FDC in the case of Grantmaking, or
a representative from the proposed Technology Committee in the case of a
Product or Engineering team, there might be some value. I agree though that
the handling of this might prove to be more effort than it's worth.

This particular discussion with Grantmaking was 1.5 hours.

Here's another thought: there could be a live broadcast of the quarterly
review for 1.5 hours, and have a half hour after that made available for
community QA through IRC, including questions and comments that are queued
during the first 1.5 hours.

Pine

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 I do not think it is a good idea to have community members directly
 involved in these meetings.  First off, any community member who
 participates is in no way representative of the broad international
 community as a whole, so granting individuals access gives them a radically
 disproportionate influence on the outcome of these meetings.

 Secondly, this is the team's ONE chance per quarter to have the undivided
 attention of the Executive Director, and they need to be able to
 communicate directly with her for the purpose of evaluation of their work.
 They have one hour, and they have to be able to ensure that they cover
 the essential points of their message.  Even a few off-point
 questions can have a significantly adverse effect on their ability
 to update the ED on their progress on the responsibilities within their
 portfolio.  This is part of the evaluation of the performance of the teams
 and its individual members, which is directly a responsibility of the ED
 and the executives, and is absolutely not a responsibility of the
 community.

 I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask community members to put their
 questions on the talk pages of the minutes, and for the community to expect
 that questions relevant to the responsibility of the team will receive a
 response.

 Risker/Anne







 On 5 October 2014 14:13, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

  Hi Tilman,
 
  Thanks for redirecting the thanks to Anna and Maria.
 
  Erik mentioned quarterly reviews accounting for community feedback:
  http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/471142. Involving
  community members directly in meetings could be interesting if done
  carefully, and/or there could also be ways of amplifying the weight given
  to community feedback already received about projects like Flow when
  conducting quarterly reviews. I believe that Communications already wants
  to find someone who will perform sentiment analysis, and perhaps
  summarizing community sentiment for quarterly reviews could be part of
  their job.
 
  Let me quote the end of the notes from this quarterly review of
  Grantmaking:
 
  Anasuya: As we are. If we are moving to a much more proactive structure,
 we
  are going to need much more tech support internally. There needs to be a
  larger long term strategy around that.
  Lila: it should show success and then Product can invest. We need to
  integrate these projects in the communities. Let's say the library is a
  good one, someone in product needs to look at it and see what is the
  threshold of success and how much staffing do we need so that we can
 match
  it. And it seems like Growth may be the place to evaluate these things.
  Erik: We also need to look at your team's short term needs. Like I did on
  Friday with Frank Schulenburg and Floor with regard to the education
  program's needs.
  Lila: I think the next steps is to group about this and determine next
  steps.
 
  To me it sounds like there is further significant business to be
 discussed
  that is effectively a part of this quarterly review but time expired for
  this particular meeting, so I am hoping that there will be notes from the
  discussion that follows. In order for me to comment usefully, it would be
  good to know if that follow up discussion has already happened and if so
  what was decided in that discussion, or if that discussion is planned for
  the near future.
 
  Thanks,
 
  Pine
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
 
   (For other readers: Pine appears to refer to the publication of the
   minutes from the quarterly review meeting for the Wikimedia
   Foundation's Grantmaking team, announced in a separate thread at
  
 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-October/074824.html
   )
  
   On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Tilman, thanks for those notes.
   
   As mentioned at the top of the page, these minutes were actually taken
   by Anna Koval and Maria Cruz. (I had been unable to attend this
   particular review due to a conflicting meeting.) So the thanks should
   go to them ;)
  
There was discussion awhile ago about involving the community in
   quarterly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Core features (Flow) team are now available at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Core_features/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives

2014-10-05 Thread Tilman Bayer
Minutes and slides from Wednesday's quarterly review meeting of the
Foundation's Editing (formerly VisualEditor) team can now be found at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing/October_2014
.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 Hi folks,

 to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course
 corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me
 and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process,
 starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according
 to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the
 Board [1]:

 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero)
 - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams)
 - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity

 I'm proposing the following initial schedule:

 January:
 - Editor Engagement Experiments

 February:
 - Visual Editor
 - Mobile (Contribs + Zero)

 March:
 - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects)
 - Funds Dissemination Committee

 We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly
 metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on
 their recent progress, which will help set some context that would
 otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will
 also create open opportunities for feedback and questions.

 My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly
 review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as
 meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this
 discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here
 which we can use to discuss the concept further:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews

 The internal review will, at minimum, include:

 Sue Gardner
 myself
 Howie Fung
 Team members and relevant director(s)
 Designated minute-taker

 So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual
 Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker.

 I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a
 duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks:

 - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter,
 compared with goals
 - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would?
 - Review of challenges, blockers and successes
 - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other
 action items
 - Buffer time, debriefing

 Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved
 structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases
 where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world.

 In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be
 to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than
 a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews
 may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally
 to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in
 engineering.

 As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can
 help inform and support reviews across the organization.

 Feedback and questions are appreciated.

 All best,
 Erik

 [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus
 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising reports after 2011

2014-10-05 Thread Lisa Gruwell
Thanks for the timely question!  We are actually just double checking the
numbers in our FY 2013-14 Fundraising Report right now.  We are aiming to
publish it toward the end of the week.

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 6:56 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com
wrote:

 that would be indeed valuable information.

 rupert


 On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
  Since 2012 it's almost impossible to get information about the WMF
  fundraising... Does someone have insight in how WMF could be made again
  interested in fundraising transparency? Poking doesn't help.
 
  For instance: me, Perohanych and Mike Peel have been waiting 16 months
 for
  two simple and crucial pieces of information: how many times the
 fundraising
  banners have been displayed; what are the totals raised per country.
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising_2012/Report
 
  Nemo
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 10/05/2014 08:24 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
 I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more
 than a year, and many dont look likely to reach the 300 threshold,
 even with wikitech and foundation wikis included.

An interesting question, I think, is /whether/ anyone from the
Foundation ever voted that would not otherwise have had sufferage from
the edits requirement?

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Risker
On 5 October 2014 20:51, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:

 On 10/05/2014 08:24 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
  I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more
  than a year, and many dont look likely to reach the 300 threshold,
  even with wikitech and foundation wikis included.

 An interesting question, I think, is /whether/ anyone from the
 Foundation ever voted that would not otherwise have had sufferage from
 the edits requirement?


Pretty sure they have, Marc.  It's difficult to tell for certain, because
some of the applicable wikis where people might be posting are not included
in the SUL grouping (for example, FDC wiki or other non-public wikis,
Foundation wiki, etc).

Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Dan Garry
On 5 October 2014 10:00, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 How are we doing on SUL finalization anyway? If I remember correctly the
 lead on this is Dan so I'm pinging him.

Hey Pine,

Progress is pretty good. As noted in Erik's presentation at Monthly Metrics
last Thursday, we're wrapping up the necessary engineering work and
starting to figure out a date that makes sense to perform the finalisation.
The engineering work is mostly feature complete (with the notable exception
of one half of one of the initiatives, which is half finished). The work
still needs rigorous testing, which I can arrange by getting everything
deployed to testwiki once we're finished developing it all.

We're not quite at where I had hoped we would be (I'd hoped the engineering
work would be totally featured complete), which was noted by Erik colouring
the SUL box yellow rather than green during Metrics. That said, the
progress we've made towards the SUL finalisation this quarter has been more
than the progress in all previous quarters combined... at least, while I've
been at the WMF. So I'm pretty pleased.

Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Pine W
Thanks Dan. Can you share an approximate completion date?

(What is with half of the WMF staff responding to routine emails on
weekends? All you workaholics and overachievers...)  :)

Pine
On Oct 5, 2014 8:55 PM, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On 5 October 2014 10:00, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 How are we doing on SUL finalization anyway? If I remember correctly the
 lead on this is Dan so I'm pinging him.

 Hey Pine,

 Progress is pretty good. As noted in Erik's presentation at Monthly
 Metrics last Thursday, we're wrapping up the necessary engineering work and
 starting to figure out a date that makes sense to perform the finalisation.
 The engineering work is mostly feature complete (with the notable exception
 of one half of one of the initiatives, which is half finished). The work
 still needs rigorous testing, which I can arrange by getting everything
 deployed to testwiki once we're finished developing it all.

 We're not quite at where I had hoped we would be (I'd hoped the
 engineering work would be totally featured complete), which was noted by
 Erik colouring the SUL box yellow rather than green during Metrics. That
 said, the progress we've made towards the SUL finalisation this quarter has
 been more than the progress in all previous quarters combined... at least,
 while I've been at the WMF. So I'm pretty pleased.

 Dan

 --
 Dan Garry
 Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
 Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Dan Garry
On 5 October 2014 22:08, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks Dan. Can you share an approximate completion date?

Not at this stage, I'm afraid. I will only give a date when I can say with
some confidence that we can meet it, and there are too many free variables
for me to be able to say that right now.

What I can say with confidence is that the SUL finalisation will not happen
in 2014. :-)

 (What is with half of the WMF staff responding to routine emails on
 weekends? All you workaholics and overachievers...)  :)

The weekend is when we're free from all the meetings and we actually get to
focus on our work. ;-)

Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

2014-10-05 Thread Dan Garry
Just to reiterate, the engineering work is almost done. We do plan to begin
the community engagement and announcements in 2014, but it's going to take
a while to make sure everyone's contacted and to give them time to digest
the announcement and act accordingly.

As we're almost done with the engineering work it's not really a matter of
engineering resources anymore (which is why SUL no longer features in the
engineering top 5 priorities in Q2), it's just about making sure we do the
communications right, and that takes time.

Dan

On 5 October 2014 22:19, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 On 5 October 2014 22:08, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Thanks Dan. Can you share an approximate completion date?

 Not at this stage, I'm afraid. I will only give a date when I can say with
 some confidence that we can meet it, and there are too many free variables
 for me to be able to say that right now.

 What I can say with confidence is that the SUL finalisation will not
 happen in 2014. :-)

 (What is with half of the WMF staff responding to routine emails on
 weekends? All you workaholics and overachievers...)  :)

 The weekend is when we're free from all the meetings and we actually get
 to focus on our work. ;-)

 Dan

 --
 Dan Garry
 Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
 Wikimedia Foundation




-- 
Dan Garry
Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe