[Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
