I should note it was a WMF design consultant that did this and not a
volunteer (well - that it was not a committee volunteer I can verify). My
understanding was they were working from UX team's guidelines as they
design other banners for WMF. The request that we received was to go with a
banner
On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
would not otherwise have had eligibility
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Eloquence~metawiki
Geekpoints, +2
*Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | : @Philippewiki
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Keegan Peterzell
kpeterz...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad.
Nicely done. :-) Kudos to you, Kunal everyone else involved in
finally bringing this one home.
Eloquence~metawiki
___
Really nicely done. Given how you spoke of this earlier I thought for sure
this would not be as seamless as it appears to have gone. Congrats again.
/a
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Erik Moeller
Aye, I asked a designer to give some nice options and presented them to the
committee. While there are certainly some people who have not liked the
banner I have generally heard good feedback overall from community members
(significantly more good then bad) and have made adjustments to the banner
I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from
several volunteers.
On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's horribly ugly, I expected more.
I don't want to de-value someone's work (a person or persons that I don't
know) but we had way
Looks fine to me.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk
tar.locesil...@gmail.com wrote:
I must agree with that. I've received clearly negative feedback from
several volunteers.
On 22 April 2015 at 13:18, Amir Ladsgroup ladsgr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's horribly ugly, I
To be clear by our banners I meant Wikimedia banners - not elections
banners. ;)
-greg
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com
wrote:
I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners.
Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every
I don't see why employees (no diff whether it's about WMF or affiliates) who
are not also volunteers should have the vote right. It's up to Wikimedia
movement to chose it's lead. The non-volunteering employees are outsiders who
are just hired to do some stuff for us since we tend to be lazy. If
Greetings,
Thank you for bringing up this important topic. I wanted to share some info
on where things stand right now with this year's elections.
1. The committee did discuss the issue of affiliate staff having a vote. It
appears that a number of affiliates (not all) allow their staff to
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on site
contributors is because they are too busy with a day job that is solely
focused on the
My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move. The chapters
already elect two members of the Board, and that's quite enough. When it
comes to matters concerning strategic direction chapters are the movement
equivalent of
I appreciate that there are basically always concerns with our banners.
Generally, I hear from volunteers on nearly every banner we use. ;)
That said, it would be helpful to have some more constructive feedback to
pass along to the next committee. What exactly would you suggest be
changed?
+1
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:51:25 -0400
From: aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections
My two cents: no, no, no, absolutely not, by all means no, never.
I am strongly, strongly, strongly opposed to such a move.
Oh, it's not about the idea of banners or about their usual performance,
it's about this particular ribbon. When I set anonnotice or sitenotice on a
big wiki, I aim the statement to be aligned with UX... discoveries. Don't
set extensive dark backgrounds (unless it's about to be
On Nov 11, 2004, at 03:27:00 UTC , Erik Moeller erik_moel...@gmx.de wrote
[1]:
Hi,
there's been some movement forward on the Single User Login (SUL) issue. I
ask the Board to review this mail carefully as this has significant long-
term implications and we need Board input to go ahead. I
Personally, I'm less concerned about staff votes than I am about having
only a relatively small number of community members vote. If there is a
substantial turnout of community votes then the enfranchisement of staff is
a non-issue. I think there would be more cause for concern if is only 1800
Two quick notes:
1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote.
2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one
of the ways they vary from other affiliate models. They are recognized by
the AffCom, but are not required to legally incorporate as
Re: Gregory. I did not mean incorporation in the legal sense, rather, I
meant it in the community sense, sorry for not being clear :). To clarify,
I am not opposed to lowering the barriers to entry, I am opposed to doing
both that and this, too.
I see two threads of thought here, automatically
Frankly, I think such views are naive idealism. There is a political
reality that would come about as a result of such a change, one at the
highest level, that need to be understood and addressed. I do not even
believe that this is a discussion that should occur at the community level.
This is a
I was speaking in support of keeping the current policy which allows WMF
staff to vote even if they do not meet the eligibility guidelines with a
volunteer account.
The issue of allowing staff in affiliated organizations who are not
volunteers vote is more complex because they could have minimal
That was three notes - not two - sorry. ;P
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com
wrote:
Two quick notes:
1. People with a block on more than one wiki are not eligible to vote.
2. Wikimedia User Groups generally are not incorporated - that is just one
of
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
So do I. :)
Perhaps the reason that many of them are not volunteering as on
The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors are members
of the community. So if we decide that employees of community
organizations, like the WMF, are part of the Wikimedia community... then
they should have the right to vote on community seats of the Board of
Trustees. Whether
Nice work, Kunal and Keegan. :-)
Dan
On 21 April 2015 at 23:34, Keegan Peterzell kpeterz...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Nov 11, 2004, at 03:27:00 UTC , Erik Moeller erik_moel...@gmx.de
wrote
[1]:
Hi,
there's been some movement forward on the Single User Login (SUL) issue.
I
ask the
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an inspiration to me with
their dedication to the mission to the global wikimedia movement.
Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the
decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for.
Yeah, no COI there *at all*.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The idea of community elected seats is just that; the electors
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Aleksey Bilogur aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Employees of WMDE, a large chunk of whose funding is dependent on the
decisions of the body they have just been enfranchised to vote for.
Yeah, no COI there *at all*.
Er, no more than any staff member of the
On 22 April 2015 at 19:26, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
...
At a time in our movement when we are reaching out to partner organization
(GLAM, universities, etc) to engage them in activities that are outside of
making on wiki edits, I think we need to expand our ideas about who is
Hi,
The case I found says:
- Registered: XX feb 2011 (4 years ago), which is actually the date when
the CentralAuth claims that the account was attached on.
But:
- First edit: XX may 2006
This dates do not match when an account was created locally and when an
account was created
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find the WMF staff who I interact with to be an
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Eduardo Testart etest...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I do not know if this is the right thread to post this (otherwise ignore
and please post me in the right direction).
I believe that there is a bug in the Central Auth, since I've seen at least
two users where
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Keegan Peterzell kpeterz...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
What you're likely seeing that's causing confusion is the difference
between when an account was created locally and when an account was created
globally. For example, on 16/17 March 1.4 million local accounts
Hi,
I do not know if this is the right thread to post this (otherwise ignore
and please post me in the right direction).
I believe that there is a bug in the Central Auth, since I've seen at least
two users where the information that appears about when they started
editing does not match the
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Keegan Peterzell kpeterz...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
This is now complete [2]. That wasn't too bad.
1.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2004-November/061327.html
2.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-April/077576.html
36 matches
Mail list logo
