Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

2015-10-19 Thread Pine W
If it's OK, I'd like to return to the subject of mentoring. I'm wondering
if Affcom might be able to facilitate a kind of matchmaking process where
some of the more established affiliates mentor some of the newer
affiliates. We have some very informal ways that this happens now, and I'm
wondering if a more proactive approach by Affcom in encouraging this kind
of mentoring would be helpful. Thoughts?

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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

2015-10-19 Thread Gregory Varnum
All affiliates are required to follow local laws, and that is checked when we 
are asked or it is needed.

Our affiliates are increasingly diverse, so much of this really applies more to 
chapters and thematic organizations than all user groups. A majority of user 
groups are not legal entities.

Manuel was speaking to the user group requirements set out in the affiliation 
models, which as he said, are meant to be easier and less time consuming than 
the requirements for chapters and thematic organizations. That is separate from 
the requirements involved with doing some types of activities. The programmatic 
need for one user group may far easier to manage than the programmatic needs of 
another user group, and the model is designed to allow for that diversity.

-greg


> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:45 AM, Gnangarra  wrote:
> 
> Every country is different, in Australia you cant have a bank account for a
> User group without being registered, you cant work with GLAM without having
> public liability insurance for which the UG needs to be registered to
> obtain. If you operate unregistered all members are personally legally
> liable for the activities of any person who operates under the name. Even
> grants from the WMF could be taxable as income if your not part of a
> registered organisation
> 
> I think care should be used when chosing terms to describe affiliates and
> their requirements especially terms like liability which have legal
> implications,
> 
> Does the WMF/Affliiates committee check if due diligence is done on the
> local legal aspects for UGs before recognising them?
> 
> On 19 October 2015 at 13:27, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> It is limited liability on both parts, meaning that user groups are not
>> required to become legal entities, or maintain the higher reporting and
>> capacity requirements that chapters and thematic organizations are required
>> to maintain.
>> 
>> The considerations that you are mentioning are tied to your activities and
>> not your status as a user group. It is a misleading and discouraging to
>> others to imply that running a user group in the United States requires all
>> of that liability and workload. User groups are not required to become
>> legal entities (which Cascadia has opted to do), and can be as simple as a
>> student club at a university. In other words, not all user groups are
>> alike. The level of liability is tied to the activities the group engages
>> in, not the affiliations model.
>> 
>> -greg (User:Varnent)
>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 12:56 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Manuel,
>>> 
>>> Can you clarify what you mean by "limited liability" for user groups? I
>>> think you mean limited responsibilities as far as WMF is concerned. As
>> far
>>> as the United States authorities are concerned, we have plenty of
>> paperwork
>>> that we're expected to deal with, particularly if we're handling funds
>>> and/or hosting public events. Most of the paperwork is the same whether
>>> there are 5 people or 500 people involved, so it's a pretty complex
>>> operation, particularly if volunteers are dealing with all of this with
>> no
>>> paid help. I had some experience with business law prior to my
>> involvement
>>> in Cascadia Wikimedians, and even with that background I'm finding that
>>> there is a lot to learn and a lot of paperwork to deal with in order to
>>> keep our user group on solid legal ground.
>>> 
>>> Pine
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Schneider, Manuel <
>>> manuel.schnei...@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi Ilario,
 
 it is the will of the board to make it easy to start a recognised body
>> to
 do work and it is totally acceptable if these bodies also die after
>> having
 fulfilled their purpose - or grow and develop into other affiliation
 models. So the criterium for us is easy entry.
 
 Anyway the user groups have limited liability and responsibilities,
>> access
 to ressources is controlled on a case by case basis eg. through the
>> Grant
 Avisory Committee and every year user groups must be renewed, for this
>> we
 want so see a simple report. So every ug with the minimum of activity -
>> a
 report written, having responded to our follow-up e-mail - is renewed.
 
 /Manuel
 
 --
 sent from mobile phoneAm 18.10.2015 4:46 nachm. schrieb Ilario Valdelli
>> <
 valde...@gmail.com>:
> 
> I personally think that the main concern, in this proliferation of
> groups, is an lack of the implementation of a "good governance".
> 
> A user group is like a body, it can born, can develop and can die.
> 
> At the moment there is an unclear guideline about the monitoring and
>> the
> development of these groups: they can only born.
> 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_user_groups
> 
> Basically the affiliation 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for July-September 2015

2015-10-19 Thread Toby Negrin
Sorry James -- I replied before I saw your email. Happy to continue this
discussion elsewhere Pine.

-Toby

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Toby Negrin  wrote:

> Hi Pine --
>
> I can't speak for the other groups, but for your question on Reading and
> push notifications, we're having discussions with the echo folks about
> using this platform for push notifications for the apps. We're interested
> in combining this feature with feeds on the apps with the idea that it
> would land in the first quarter of 2016 but this is very preliminary.
>
> -Toby
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Tilman. I finally got around to skimming most of this. Questions &
>> Comments below:
>>
>> Communications: seems to be firing on all cylinders.
>>
>> Team Practices: seems to be making a difference in supporting other
>> individuals and teams. Some of the metrics chosen look great.
>>
>> Release engineering: great idea about the skill matrix; would HR and Team
>> Practices like to expand this to other teams?
>>
>> Grants restructuring: big job, thanks/congrats for how it was done,
>> looking
>> forward to execution
>>
>> TechOps: nice to see that OTRS upgrade is in progress; I believe that this
>> has been talked about for years
>>
>> Labs: I have a subjective impression of much improved reliability, so
>> thank
>> you
>>
>> Design research: University of Washington mentioned; what's the
>> connection?
>>
>> Performance: thank you for working on paint time
>>
>> Security: I have a suggestion for KPIs: maximum and median times for
>> resolution of critical and high priority bugs; and maximum and median time
>> for first response to bug reports on all channels (Phabricator, email,
>> etc)
>>
>> Reading: can we get an update on what's being done WRT push notifications?
>>
>> Partnerships: happy to see pre-install deal coming soon
>>
>> Editing: how is the community feedback about the split of Echo
>> notifications.
>>
>> Multimedia: yay for ability to upload to Commons from VE; excited that
>> Excel import is coming (this may stop my complaints to Grantmaking about
>> MediaWiki tables for budgets)
>>
>> High level comment: from these reports it looks like the Foundation is
>> generally making good progress. Going forward a theme that I'd really like
>> to see is closer integration of WMF priorities with community priorities.
>> I
>> hear from my colleagues at in-person meetings and online that there is a
>> sense that WMF's priorities may or may not be the community's priorities.
>> A
>> certain amount of that is understandable, but my subjective sense is that
>> there's a fair amount of frustration in the community and that the
>> situation could be better. Suggestion: take advantage of the Evaluation
>> team's enhanced survey capacity to run surveys like the one that WMIL ran,
>> and run them every 6 months. Prioritize the languages to maximize return
>> on
>> translation investment. Then adjust WMF quarterly priorities in alignment
>> with the priorities expressed in the community priorities survey. Also,
>> establish SLAs for all departments with regard to responses to community
>> questions.
>>
>> Thanks! I hope that other community members will write comments and
>> questions also.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Tilman Bayer 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Greetings everyone,
>> >
>> > the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
>> > past quarter (July-September, Q1 of the 2015-16 fiscal year) took
>> > place last week. Minutes and slides for those meetings are now
>> > available:
>> >
>> > Community Engagement:
>> >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Community_Engagement,_October_2015
>> >
>> > Discovery:
>> >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_October_2015
>> >
>> > Reading and Advancement (with Fundraising Tech):
>> >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading_and_Advancement,_October_2015
>> >
>> > Editing (comprising the Collaboration, Language Engineering,
>> > Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
>> >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_October_2015
>> >
>> > Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
>> > Services, TechOps, and Labs teams) and CTO (comprising the Design
>> > Research, Research & Data, Performance, and Security teams):
>> >
>> >
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure_and_CTO,_October_2015
>> >
>> > Legal, Talent & Culture (HR), Communications, Finance & Administration
>> > & Office IT, and Team Practices:
>> >
>> >
>> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for July-September 2015

2015-10-19 Thread Toby Negrin
Hi Pine --

I can't speak for the other groups, but for your question on Reading and
push notifications, we're having discussions with the echo folks about
using this platform for push notifications for the apps. We're interested
in combining this feature with feeds on the apps with the idea that it
would land in the first quarter of 2016 but this is very preliminary.

-Toby

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Thanks Tilman. I finally got around to skimming most of this. Questions &
> Comments below:
>
> Communications: seems to be firing on all cylinders.
>
> Team Practices: seems to be making a difference in supporting other
> individuals and teams. Some of the metrics chosen look great.
>
> Release engineering: great idea about the skill matrix; would HR and Team
> Practices like to expand this to other teams?
>
> Grants restructuring: big job, thanks/congrats for how it was done, looking
> forward to execution
>
> TechOps: nice to see that OTRS upgrade is in progress; I believe that this
> has been talked about for years
>
> Labs: I have a subjective impression of much improved reliability, so thank
> you
>
> Design research: University of Washington mentioned; what's the connection?
>
> Performance: thank you for working on paint time
>
> Security: I have a suggestion for KPIs: maximum and median times for
> resolution of critical and high priority bugs; and maximum and median time
> for first response to bug reports on all channels (Phabricator, email, etc)
>
> Reading: can we get an update on what's being done WRT push notifications?
>
> Partnerships: happy to see pre-install deal coming soon
>
> Editing: how is the community feedback about the split of Echo
> notifications.
>
> Multimedia: yay for ability to upload to Commons from VE; excited that
> Excel import is coming (this may stop my complaints to Grantmaking about
> MediaWiki tables for budgets)
>
> High level comment: from these reports it looks like the Foundation is
> generally making good progress. Going forward a theme that I'd really like
> to see is closer integration of WMF priorities with community priorities. I
> hear from my colleagues at in-person meetings and online that there is a
> sense that WMF's priorities may or may not be the community's priorities. A
> certain amount of that is understandable, but my subjective sense is that
> there's a fair amount of frustration in the community and that the
> situation could be better. Suggestion: take advantage of the Evaluation
> team's enhanced survey capacity to run surveys like the one that WMIL ran,
> and run them every 6 months. Prioritize the languages to maximize return on
> translation investment. Then adjust WMF quarterly priorities in alignment
> with the priorities expressed in the community priorities survey. Also,
> establish SLAs for all departments with regard to responses to community
> questions.
>
> Thanks! I hope that other community members will write comments and
> questions also.
>
> Pine
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Tilman Bayer 
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
> > past quarter (July-September, Q1 of the 2015-16 fiscal year) took
> > place last week. Minutes and slides for those meetings are now
> > available:
> >
> > Community Engagement:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Community_Engagement,_October_2015
> >
> > Discovery:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_October_2015
> >
> > Reading and Advancement (with Fundraising Tech):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading_and_Advancement,_October_2015
> >
> > Editing (comprising the Collaboration, Language Engineering,
> > Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_October_2015
> >
> > Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
> > Services, TechOps, and Labs teams) and CTO (comprising the Design
> > Research, Research & Data, Performance, and Security teams):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure_and_CTO,_October_2015
> >
> > Legal, Talent & Culture (HR), Communications, Finance & Administration
> > & Office IT, and Team Practices:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015
> >
> > As usual, much of this information will also be available in
> > consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q1,
> > which is planned to be published on October 19.
> >
> > See
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

2015-10-19 Thread Gnangarra
being able to seek assistance and advice from Affcom for specific needs is
good concept because no matter how large the organisation mentoring in an
invaluable service we can all use.  The issue will be in ensuring the
mentors have the skills, the knowledge and importantly the time(at the
right time) to be able to make positive impact.

One of the most common issues are that new groups tend spend a lot of
effort recreating the wheel because there is no central place find all of
the available materials, and share lessons learnt we could really do with a
WikiShed, or WikiLibrary where we can find the necessary tools whether its
for joining a WLE, WikiTakes, a WikiTown or just organising a group meetup
for the first time having the knowledge, the tools and how events relate to
each of the projects would be an invaluable service add to that a list of
mentors who have been successful with that event, including the languages
they speak, the time zone they are in would bring success to all groups

On 19 October 2015 at 19:05, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Ask yourself, you want more mentoring and in front of you are 50 user
> groups; you do not understand their language, you do not know their
> culture. They do the necessary self administration, the  minimal
> requirements to inform about whatever it is they do so well.
>
> They do describe that they are happy with their progress and tell you so in
> your language. What more is it that you can provide without taking away
> from the work that they do so well?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 19 October 2015 at 08:56, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > If it's OK, I'd like to return to the subject of mentoring. I'm wondering
> > if Affcom might be able to facilitate a kind of matchmaking process where
> > some of the more established affiliates mentor some of the newer
> > affiliates. We have some very informal ways that this happens now, and
> I'm
> > wondering if a more proactive approach by Affcom in encouraging this kind
> > of mentoring would be helpful. Thoughts?
> >
> > 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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

2015-10-19 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Ask yourself, you want more mentoring and in front of you are 50 user
groups; you do not understand their language, you do not know their
culture. They do the necessary self administration, the  minimal
requirements to inform about whatever it is they do so well.

They do describe that they are happy with their progress and tell you so in
your language. What more is it that you can provide without taking away
from the work that they do so well?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 19 October 2015 at 08:56, Pine W  wrote:

> If it's OK, I'd like to return to the subject of mentoring. I'm wondering
> if Affcom might be able to facilitate a kind of matchmaking process where
> some of the more established affiliates mentor some of the newer
> affiliates. We have some very informal ways that this happens now, and I'm
> wondering if a more proactive approach by Affcom in encouraging this kind
> of mentoring would be helpful. Thoughts?
>
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of Iraqi Wikimedians

2015-10-19 Thread Samir Elsharbaty
Congratulations guys!

--
Samir Elsharbaty,
Wikipedia Education Program
Wikimedia Foundation
+20.100.944.3478
education.wikimedia.org

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Nasir Khan  wrote:

> Congrats :D
>
>
> --
> *Nasir Khan Saikat*
> www.nasirkhn.com
>
>
> On 16 October 2015 at 04:18, Carlos M. Colina 
> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I am honoured to announce on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, the
> > recognition of Iraqi Wikimedians as a Wikimedia User Group [1]. Among
> their
> > goals are supporting the different Wikimedia projects in Iraq, supporting
> > Iraqi Wikimedians, and eventually becoming the recognized chapter in
> Iraq.
> > Recently, they have organized a series of workshops in Erbil to teach
> > people about Wikipedia and how to edit it, and are currently working on
> > flyers regarding Wikipedia and how important it is, in both Arabic and
> > Kurdish.
> >
> > Please, let's welcome our iraqi colleagues :-)
> >
> > Mabrouk!!!
> >
> > 1:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Wikimedians
> > --
> > "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
> > junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
> > Carlos M. Colina
> > Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> > 
> > Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > Twitter: @maor_x
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 
>
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for July-September 2015

2015-10-19 Thread Pine W
Thanks Tilman. I finally got around to skimming most of this. Questions &
Comments below:

Communications: seems to be firing on all cylinders.

Team Practices: seems to be making a difference in supporting other
individuals and teams. Some of the metrics chosen look great.

Release engineering: great idea about the skill matrix; would HR and Team
Practices like to expand this to other teams?

Grants restructuring: big job, thanks/congrats for how it was done, looking
forward to execution

TechOps: nice to see that OTRS upgrade is in progress; I believe that this
has been talked about for years

Labs: I have a subjective impression of much improved reliability, so thank
you

Design research: University of Washington mentioned; what's the connection?

Performance: thank you for working on paint time

Security: I have a suggestion for KPIs: maximum and median times for
resolution of critical and high priority bugs; and maximum and median time
for first response to bug reports on all channels (Phabricator, email, etc)

Reading: can we get an update on what's being done WRT push notifications?

Partnerships: happy to see pre-install deal coming soon

Editing: how is the community feedback about the split of Echo
notifications.

Multimedia: yay for ability to upload to Commons from VE; excited that
Excel import is coming (this may stop my complaints to Grantmaking about
MediaWiki tables for budgets)

High level comment: from these reports it looks like the Foundation is
generally making good progress. Going forward a theme that I'd really like
to see is closer integration of WMF priorities with community priorities. I
hear from my colleagues at in-person meetings and online that there is a
sense that WMF's priorities may or may not be the community's priorities. A
certain amount of that is understandable, but my subjective sense is that
there's a fair amount of frustration in the community and that the
situation could be better. Suggestion: take advantage of the Evaluation
team's enhanced survey capacity to run surveys like the one that WMIL ran,
and run them every 6 months. Prioritize the languages to maximize return on
translation investment. Then adjust WMF quarterly priorities in alignment
with the priorities expressed in the community priorities survey. Also,
establish SLAs for all departments with regard to responses to community
questions.

Thanks! I hope that other community members will write comments and
questions also.

Pine

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> Greetings everyone,
>
> the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
> past quarter (July-September, Q1 of the 2015-16 fiscal year) took
> place last week. Minutes and slides for those meetings are now
> available:
>
> Community Engagement:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Community_Engagement,_October_2015
>
> Discovery:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_October_2015
>
> Reading and Advancement (with Fundraising Tech):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading_and_Advancement,_October_2015
>
> Editing (comprising the Collaboration, Language Engineering,
> Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_October_2015
>
> Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
> Services, TechOps, and Labs teams) and CTO (comprising the Design
> Research, Research & Data, Performance, and Security teams):
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure_and_CTO,_October_2015
>
> Legal, Talent & Culture (HR), Communications, Finance & Administration
> & Office IT, and Team Practices:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015
>
> As usual, much of this information will also be available in
> consolidated form as part of the general WMF quarterly report for Q1,
> which is planned to be published on October 19.
>
> See
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
> for some general background about the Foundation's quarterly review
> process.
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Analyst
> 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,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation quarterly reviews for July-September 2015

2015-10-19 Thread James Alexander
Thanks for reading them Pine! I think it would be great if you reach out to
those teams (either on meta talk pages if they have them, other mailing
lists etc). I think leaving the questions here all as one pile is sadly a
recipe for non-response as not only are most staff members (like most
community members) not subscribed (for the best, it would be an enormous
amount of donor funds spent all combined with them reading it) it's also
rarely a productive use of a thread to try and throw it in so many
directions at once. That said, the high level comments seem perfect for the
thread.

James Alexander
Manager
Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:35 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> Thanks Tilman. I finally got around to skimming most of this. Questions &
> Comments below:
>
> Communications: seems to be firing on all cylinders.
>
> Team Practices: seems to be making a difference in supporting other
> individuals and teams. Some of the metrics chosen look great.
>
> Release engineering: great idea about the skill matrix; would HR and Team
> Practices like to expand this to other teams?
>
> Grants restructuring: big job, thanks/congrats for how it was done, looking
> forward to execution
>
> TechOps: nice to see that OTRS upgrade is in progress; I believe that this
> has been talked about for years
>
> Labs: I have a subjective impression of much improved reliability, so thank
> you
>
> Design research: University of Washington mentioned; what's the connection?
>
> Performance: thank you for working on paint time
>
> Security: I have a suggestion for KPIs: maximum and median times for
> resolution of critical and high priority bugs; and maximum and median time
> for first response to bug reports on all channels (Phabricator, email, etc)
>
> Reading: can we get an update on what's being done WRT push notifications?
>
> Partnerships: happy to see pre-install deal coming soon
>
> Editing: how is the community feedback about the split of Echo
> notifications.
>
> Multimedia: yay for ability to upload to Commons from VE; excited that
> Excel import is coming (this may stop my complaints to Grantmaking about
> MediaWiki tables for budgets)
>
> High level comment: from these reports it looks like the Foundation is
> generally making good progress. Going forward a theme that I'd really like
> to see is closer integration of WMF priorities with community priorities. I
> hear from my colleagues at in-person meetings and online that there is a
> sense that WMF's priorities may or may not be the community's priorities. A
> certain amount of that is understandable, but my subjective sense is that
> there's a fair amount of frustration in the community and that the
> situation could be better. Suggestion: take advantage of the Evaluation
> team's enhanced survey capacity to run surveys like the one that WMIL ran,
> and run them every 6 months. Prioritize the languages to maximize return on
> translation investment. Then adjust WMF quarterly priorities in alignment
> with the priorities expressed in the community priorities survey. Also,
> establish SLAs for all departments with regard to responses to community
> questions.
>
> Thanks! I hope that other community members will write comments and
> questions also.
>
> Pine
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Tilman Bayer 
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings everyone,
> >
> > the Wikimedia Foundation's quarterly reviews of teams' work in the
> > past quarter (July-September, Q1 of the 2015-16 fiscal year) took
> > place last week. Minutes and slides for those meetings are now
> > available:
> >
> > Community Engagement:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Community_Engagement,_October_2015
> >
> > Discovery:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Discovery,_October_2015
> >
> > Reading and Advancement (with Fundraising Tech):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Reading_and_Advancement,_October_2015
> >
> > Editing (comprising the Collaboration, Language Engineering,
> > Multimedia, Parsing, and VisualEditor teams):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Editing,_October_2015
> >
> > Infrastructure (comprising the Analytics, Release Engineering,
> > Services, TechOps, and Labs teams) and CTO (comprising the Design
> > Research, Research & Data, Performance, and Security teams):
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Infrastructure_and_CTO,_October_2015
> >
> > Legal, Talent & Culture (HR), Communications, Finance & Administration
> > & Office IT, and Team Practices:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews/Legal,_HR,_Finance,_Communications,_TPG,_October_2015
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

2015-10-19 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
The difference is in being able to get support when you need it and a model
where support is pushed on you.

Yes, support may be helpful but when it is given for all the wrong reasons,
it is counter productive.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 19 October 2015 at 13:41, Gnangarra  wrote:

> being able to seek assistance and advice from Affcom for specific needs is
> good concept because no matter how large the organisation mentoring in an
> invaluable service we can all use.  The issue will be in ensuring the
> mentors have the skills, the knowledge and importantly the time(at the
> right time) to be able to make positive impact.
>
> One of the most common issues are that new groups tend spend a lot of
> effort recreating the wheel because there is no central place find all of
> the available materials, and share lessons learnt we could really do with a
> WikiShed, or WikiLibrary where we can find the necessary tools whether its
> for joining a WLE, WikiTakes, a WikiTown or just organising a group meetup
> for the first time having the knowledge, the tools and how events relate to
> each of the projects would be an invaluable service add to that a list of
> mentors who have been successful with that event, including the languages
> they speak, the time zone they are in would bring success to all groups
>
> On 19 October 2015 at 19:05, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Ask yourself, you want more mentoring and in front of you are 50 user
> > groups; you do not understand their language, you do not know their
> > culture. They do the necessary self administration, the  minimal
> > requirements to inform about whatever it is they do so well.
> >
> > They do describe that they are happy with their progress and tell you so
> in
> > your language. What more is it that you can provide without taking away
> > from the work that they do so well?
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > On 19 October 2015 at 08:56, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > > If it's OK, I'd like to return to the subject of mentoring. I'm
> wondering
> > > if Affcom might be able to facilitate a kind of matchmaking process
> where
> > > some of the more established affiliates mentor some of the newer
> > > affiliates. We have some very informal ways that this happens now, and
> > I'm
> > > wondering if a more proactive approach by Affcom in encouraging this
> kind
> > > of mentoring would be helpful. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > 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,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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,
> 
>
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Carlos M. Colina
Like Greg explained, the request to have such a list came *from the 
affiliates* themselves. So why force it to become another wikimedia-l?


M.

El 19/10/2015 a las 09:21 p.m., Gregory Varnum escribió:

There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue 
(including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.

I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list 
would like to do.

I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One 
of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial 
or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice 
on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that 
there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their 
comments are up for public discussion.

If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be 
something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists 
already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. 
That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.

Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, 
and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that 
and allow them to discuss it more.

I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth 
doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by 
imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience 
of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result 
would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a 
separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.

-greg



On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:

+1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
public later, even where there's no need for privacy.

A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
(archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.

The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
archives should be public.

Gregory Varnum writes:

the whole point of creating it would be defeated.

Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
publicly visible or archived.

The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a formal
recognition process) will be walled out.

SJ

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:


Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good
number of people on it.

Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for
them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is
imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole
point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the
list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make
changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee



On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:

I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require

more

than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and

create

yet another walled garden away from the community.

--Ed
On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:


Got it. Thanks Varnent.

Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really

want

to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be

run

outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if

the

purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in

a

smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees

to a

limited degree, then the 

[Wikimedia-l] Global Wikipedia Open Access Editathon Happening NOW

2015-10-19 Thread Jake Orlowitz
All week, in celebration of #OAWeek, SPARC and Wikipedia Library are
hosting a global, virtual, week-long, open access editathon.

You can jump right in with a full guide and easy entry points for making
your first contribution to the event.

We're aiming for *1000* improvements and tracking the progress of everyone
involved.

Please check it out, spread the word, add your name as a participant, and
make one change to bring us closer to a world of Open Access!

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Library/OA_week

Best,
Jake Orlowitz
The Wikipedia Library
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Ilario Valdelli

Hi all,
I support Chris' arguments and I would add some points.

As administrator of the chapters mailing list I think that the best is 
to recover some "historical memory", which is never regrettable. 
Considering that we are going to celebrate several year of birthday of 
Wikipedia or of Wikimedia projects, I think that the "historical memory" 
is more than an asset.


I personally can support the creation of a mailing list like this for 
several reasons:


1) the chapters mailing list is closed for a specific reason
2) users groups cannot be accepted for a specif reason, even if there is 
a strong pressure
3) The chapters mailing list is hard to maintain because, as closed 
mailing list, the update and the verification requires time and 
workload, and this workload is manageable only if there is a limited 
number of subscriptions


The chapters mailing list exists *only* to assure a neutral (and this 
word makes sense) and a "demilitarized zone" to discuss and to announce 
the selection of the WMF's board members assigned to the chapters.


I would not open here a long discussion about the process or about the 
assignments to the chapters of these two seats (not all WMF board 
members are selected by the community), the chapters are considered as a 
stakeholder and the chapters asked to have a place like this. So please 
discuss in other places this item.


So the point 1) is justified.

The users groups cannot be accepted until the users groups cannot 
participate in this selection because the main aim of the mailing list 
is exactly that. So the point 2) is justified.


I personally can assure that to keep this place "neutral" there is a 
long verification of the eligibility of the members and it requires a 
lot of time.


The chapters mailing list has very low traffic because is used also to 
make some announcements (for instance the Wikimedia Conference) because 
not all chapters members follow Wikimedia-l.


Except these two utilization, there are nothing else.

At this point I would correct my sentence and I would say that: "I 
personally can support the creation of a mailing list" but I would add 
"not a twin of the chapters mailing list".


A closed and limited mailing list will be a simple replication of the 
chapters mailing list except the big workload to manage more 
subscriptions. It makes sense and can complete the chapters mailing list 
only if it is "open" and "transparent". Anyone who would open an user 
group can follow it, any chapters who would use the chapters mailing 
list for a use different to the main one, would be addressed to the open 
mailing list.


And as personal hint I suggest to keep it open because the management of 
a close mailing list with a high number of eligible subscribers may 
require a lot of time and verification.


Kind regards


On 19.10.2015 21:12, Chris Keating wrote:

Looking at the current (private) chapters' list, for at least a year 90%+
of the traffic has been announcements that were cross-posted to
Wikimedia-l. The other 10% is invitations and requests addressed to
"chapters people" that might be boring to most people on wikimedia-l but
could have been publically archived with no problem.

The last "private" thing to happen on that list was discussion of the 2014
Affiliate Selected Board Seats process - actually not so much the process
itself but how to deal with an intemperate email from someone from the
English Wikipedia Signpost who was threatening to write an article about
the process being an undemocratic sham.  Apart from that we are stretching
back into 2013 and the death throes of the WCA before anyone said anything
interesting on the list.

On the subject of email lists, internal-l which is meant to be "chapters
plus WMF staff" has had virtually no traffic for literally years. There was
at one point a limit on the number of representatives of chapters that
could be on internal-l (and IIRC on the chapters list) but that never
really served any purpose (it certainly didn't improve the signal to noise
ratio...)

What does all of this mean? I think it's pretty clear that broad-based
private-access lists aren't serving any purpose. My preferred option would
be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only,
scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an "affiliates" list that is open.

Chris





--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Gregory Varnum
Again - I do not feel comfortable making this decision on behalf of the 
affiliates. I will pass all of this along to them when we have a list going 
enough to discuss such things.

If the consensus from the community is that a change be imposed on this list, 
which I agree is the right of the community, my personal hunch is that a new 
list will be created elsewhere and used instead. Keep in mind that chapters-l 
was maintained off WMF servers in part to protect privacy and prevent it from 
being subject to such changes. Again, if the goal is for the list to be used by 
affiliates, I question the reason to impose change on them, especially when it 
was something they specifically requested.

-greg

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
> 
> You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal.
> This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be
> discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling the
> list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going
> to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone there
> is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?
> 
> Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues" occurring
> in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be
> private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed
> on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.
> 
> If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the broader
> community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden
> they're already in.
> 
> --Ed
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue
>> (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
>> 
>> I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the
>> list would like to do.
>> 
>> I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy.
>> One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include
>> financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the
>> WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
>> understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
>> discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
>> 
>> If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
>> might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several
>> private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
>> requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
>> private, which seems reasonable.
>> 
>> Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
>> affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like
>> to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
>> 
>> I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
>> worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose)
>> by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target
>> audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The
>> end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or
>> create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to
>> avoid that.
>> 
>> -greg
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
>>> public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
>>> 
>>> A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
>>> (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
>>> list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
>>> list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
>>> can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
>>> discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
>>> 
>>> The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
>>> decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
>>> And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
>>> archives should be public.
>>> 
>>> Gregory Varnum writes:
 the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
>>> 
>>> Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
>>> discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
>> affiliates
>>> who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
>>> you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
>>> publicly visible or archived.
>>> 
>>> The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
>>> people who 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Gregory Varnum
There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue 
(including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.

I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the list 
would like to do.

I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy. One 
of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include financial 
or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the WMF, or advice 
on discussing an issue with the broader community. My understanding is that 
there is a fear people may be more reserved in discussing topics if their 
comments are up for public discussion.

If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation might be 
something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several private lists 
already in use, and as stated, this is in response to requests from affiliates. 
That request included that the list be made private, which seems reasonable.

Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the affiliates, 
and since they initially requested it be private, I would like to respect that 
and allow them to discuss it more.

I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is worth 
doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose) by 
imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target audience 
of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The end result 
would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or create a 
separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to avoid that.

-greg


> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
> 
> +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
> public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
> 
> A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
> (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
> list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
> list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
> can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
> discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
> 
> The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
> decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
> And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
> archives should be public.
> 
> Gregory Varnum writes:
>> the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
> 
> Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
> discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging affiliates
> who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
> you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
> publicly visible or archived.
> 
> The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
> people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
> new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
> forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
> communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a formal
> recognition process) will be walled out.
> 
> SJ
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good
>> number of people on it.
>> 
>> Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for
>> them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is
>> imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole
>> point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the
>> list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make
>> changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.
>> 
>> -greg (User:Varnent)
>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
>> more
>>> than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
>> create
>>> yet another walled garden away from the community.
>>> 
>>> --Ed
>>> On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
>>> 
 Got it. Thanks Varnent.
 
 Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
>> want
 to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
>> run
 outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if
>> the
 purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in
>> a
 smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
>> to a
 limited degree, then the hosting 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Chris Keating
Looking at the current (private) chapters' list, for at least a year 90%+
of the traffic has been announcements that were cross-posted to
Wikimedia-l. The other 10% is invitations and requests addressed to
"chapters people" that might be boring to most people on wikimedia-l but
could have been publically archived with no problem.

The last "private" thing to happen on that list was discussion of the 2014
Affiliate Selected Board Seats process - actually not so much the process
itself but how to deal with an intemperate email from someone from the
English Wikipedia Signpost who was threatening to write an article about
the process being an undemocratic sham.  Apart from that we are stretching
back into 2013 and the death throes of the WCA before anyone said anything
interesting on the list.

On the subject of email lists, internal-l which is meant to be "chapters
plus WMF staff" has had virtually no traffic for literally years. There was
at one point a limit on the number of representatives of chapters that
could be on internal-l (and IIRC on the chapters list) but that never
really served any purpose (it certainly didn't improve the signal to noise
ratio...)

What does all of this mean? I think it's pretty clear that broad-based
private-access lists aren't serving any purpose. My preferred option would
be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only,
scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an "affiliates" list that is open.

Chris


On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue
> (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
>
> I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the
> list would like to do.
>
> I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy.
> One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include
> financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the
> WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
> understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
> discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
>
> If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
> might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several
> private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
> requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
> private, which seems reasonable.
>
> Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
> affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like
> to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
>
> I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
> worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose)
> by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target
> audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The
> end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or
> create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to
> avoid that.
>
> -greg
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
> >
> > +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
> > public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
> >
> > A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
> > (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
> > list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
> > list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
> > can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
> > discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
> >
> > The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
> > decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
> > And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
> > archives should be public.
> >
> > Gregory Varnum writes:
> >> the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
> >
> > Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
> > discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
> affiliates
> > who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
> > you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
> > publicly visible or archived.
> >
> > The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
> > people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
> > new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
> > forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
> > communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Ed Erhart
You've set up a strawman argument, Greg, and your solution is suboptimal.
This is a community issue, as SJ correctly notes, and it should be
discussed with the community. Leaving it private "for now" and polling the
list affiliates (or going back to a virtually unknown Meta page) is going
to result in the list staying closed—do we really believe that anyone there
is going to vote to publicize their own discussions?

Are there specific examples of these "affiliate-specific issues" occurring
in the past? There are very few things that I can think of that should be
private, and one of those is privacy issues, which shouldn't be discussed
on any mailing lists (open or closed). Leaks can and do happen.

If a chapter needs private advice "on discussing an issue with the broader
community", they might want to look into breaking down the walled garden
they're already in.

--Ed

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue
> (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
>
> I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the
> list would like to do.
>
> I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy.
> One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include
> financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the
> WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
> understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
> discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
>
> If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
> might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several
> private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
> requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
> private, which seems reasonable.
>
> Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
> affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like
> to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
>
> I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
> worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose)
> by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target
> audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The
> end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or
> create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to
> avoid that.
>
> -greg
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
> >
> > +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
> > public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
> >
> > A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
> > (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
> > list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
> > list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
> > can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
> > discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
> >
> > The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
> > decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
> > And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
> > archives should be public.
> >
> > Gregory Varnum writes:
> >> the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
> >
> > Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
> > discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging
> affiliates
> > who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
> > you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
> > publicly visible or archived.
> >
> > The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
> > people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
> > new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
> > forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
> > communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a
> formal
> > recognition process) will be walled out.
> >
> > SJ
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum <
> gregory.var...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good
> >> number of people on it.
> >>
> >> Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best
> for
> >> them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is
> >> imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole
> >> point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for
> the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Gregory Varnum
Chris - and I suspect others - who are already welcome to join this list - are 
why I think it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be kept private.

Remember that we have a diverse group of 80+ affiliates. It may in fact not be 
that the will of the ones who requested it represents the will of everyone. 
However, I am not personally comfortably declaring that on their behalf. I 
would prefer to allow them to discuss it and go from there.

-greg

> On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Chris Keating  wrote:
> 
> Looking at the current (private) chapters' list, for at least a year 90%+
> of the traffic has been announcements that were cross-posted to
> Wikimedia-l. The other 10% is invitations and requests addressed to
> "chapters people" that might be boring to most people on wikimedia-l but
> could have been publically archived with no problem.
> 
> The last "private" thing to happen on that list was discussion of the 2014
> Affiliate Selected Board Seats process - actually not so much the process
> itself but how to deal with an intemperate email from someone from the
> English Wikipedia Signpost who was threatening to write an article about
> the process being an undemocratic sham.  Apart from that we are stretching
> back into 2013 and the death throes of the WCA before anyone said anything
> interesting on the list.
> 
> On the subject of email lists, internal-l which is meant to be "chapters
> plus WMF staff" has had virtually no traffic for literally years. There was
> at one point a limit on the number of representatives of chapters that
> could be on internal-l (and IIRC on the chapters list) but that never
> really served any purpose (it certainly didn't improve the signal to noise
> ratio...)
> 
> What does all of this mean? I think it's pretty clear that broad-based
> private-access lists aren't serving any purpose. My preferred option would
> be to either ditch the Chapters mailing list or make it announce-only,
> scrap Internal-l entirely, and have an "affiliates" list that is open.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> There has already been discussion amongst some affiliates about this issue
>> (including one on Meta-Wiki) - which is where this comes from.
>> 
>> I suggest we leave it private for now and see what the affiliates on the
>> list would like to do.
>> 
>> I disagree with your sentiment that none of the 10 points require privacy.
>> One of them is discussing affiliate-specific issues - which might include
>> financial or privacy issues facing an affiliates, an interaction with the
>> WMF, or advice on discussing an issue with the broader community. My
>> understanding is that there is a fear people may be more reserved in
>> discussing topics if their comments are up for public discussion.
>> 
>> If private lists or wikis were a new concept, I think the expectation
>> might be something more fair to proceed with. However, there are several
>> private lists already in use, and as stated, this is in response to
>> requests from affiliates. That request included that the list be made
>> private, which seems reasonable.
>> 
>> Ultimately, I do not feel comfortable making this decision for the
>> affiliates, and since they initially requested it be private, I would like
>> to respect that and allow them to discuss it more.
>> 
>> I agree that having a discussion about how we achieve transparency is
>> worth doing. However, starting that discussion (or restarting it I suppose)
>> by imposing a new measure that was specifically not wanted by the target
>> audience of that resource is not the best way to move things forward. The
>> end result would likely be that they wind up not using the list as much, or
>> create a separate list to fulfill their initial request. I would like to
>> avoid that.
>> 
>> -greg
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
>>> 
>>> +1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
>>> public later, even where there's no need for privacy.
>>> 
>>> A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
>>> (archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
>>> list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
>>> list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
>>> can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
>>> discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.
>>> 
>>> The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
>>> decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
>>> And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
>>> archives should be public.
>>> 
>>> Gregory Varnum writes:
 the whole point of creating it would be defeated.
>>> 
>>> Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Keegan Peterzell
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Chris - and I suspect others - who are already welcome to join this list -
> are why I think it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be kept
> private.
>
> Remember that we have a diverse group of 80+ affiliates. It may in fact
> not be that the will of the ones who requested it represents the will of
> everyone. However, I am not personally comfortably declaring that on their
> behalf. I would prefer to allow them to discuss it and go from there.
>
> -greg


​I feel it's now time for the obligatory "Please discuss this on meta if we
want to talk about transparency" post.

<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list>
​



-- 
~Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan

This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
is in a personal capacity.
___
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Sam Klein
+1 for public archives to start.  Private lists are almost never made
public later, even where there's no need for privacy.

A more transparent alternative is to make any list publicly-archived
(archives world-readable, even if membership and ability to post to the
list is restricted), while setting it up and discussing its purpose.  If
list members have specific uses that would require privacy, that purpose
can drive a decision to make it private. Then at least those founding
discussions and the reason for list privacy are visible to others.

The converse doesn't happen.  The only people whose voices count in a
decision to make a list public are generally those already on the list.
And they have access, so they have no pressing need to review whether its
archives should be public.

Gregory Varnum writes:
> the whole point of creating it would be defeated.

Well, Carlos mentioned 10 uses for the list, none of which need private
discussion. It sounds like you're saying an 11th is "encouraging affiliates
who don't currently write about their work and experiences, to do so" and
you think a significant number will only do so if their messages are not
publicly visible or archived.

The downside is that you defined the list very broadly, also encouraging
people who currently write about their work publicly to start using this
new list: so now those thoughts will be lost to the larger community
forever.  And the majority of outreach projects, event organizers, local
communities, and groups (which aren't interested in going through a formal
recognition process) will be walled out.

SJ

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Gregory Varnum 
wrote:

> Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good
> number of people on it.
>
> Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for
> them to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is
> imposed on them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole
> point of creating it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the
> list to be private, it seemed easier to start from that point and make
> changes based on the consensus of those we hope will utilize the list most.
>
> -greg (User:Varnent)
> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
> >
> > I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require
> more
> > than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and
> create
> > yet another walled garden away from the community.
> >
> > --Ed
> > On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
> >
> >> Got it. Thanks Varnent.
> >>
> >> Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really
> want
> >> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be
> run
> >> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if
> the
> >> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in
> a
> >> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees
> to a
> >> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally,
> I
> >> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally
> >> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as
> >> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation
> >> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for
> working
> >> on this.
> >>
> >> Pine
> >> On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hey Pine,
> >>>
> >>> As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some
> discussions
> >>> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
> >> We
> >>> did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that
> list
> >>> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However,
> ultimately,
> >>> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
> >>>
> >>> The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to
> >>> AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming
> >>> increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority
> of
> >>> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My
> personal
> >>> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but
> that
> >> is
> >>> not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help
> >>> manage.
> >>>
> >>> -greg (User:Varnent)
> >>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> 
>  Hi Carlos,
> 
>  Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
>  list? (Also, please see the discussion at
> 
> >>>
> >>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
>  ).
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Gregory Varnum
There was already a discussion on this list and its privacy:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
 


I suggest building on that rather than starting a whole new one.

-greg


> On Oct 19, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Gregory Varnum 
> wrote:
> 
>> Chris - and I suspect others - who are already welcome to join this list -
>> are why I think it is not a foregone conclusion that it will be kept
>> private.
>> 
>> Remember that we have a diverse group of 80+ affiliates. It may in fact
>> not be that the will of the ones who requested it represents the will of
>> everyone. However, I am not personally comfortably declaring that on their
>> behalf. I would prefer to allow them to discuss it and go from there.
>> 
>> -greg
> 
> 
> ​I feel it's now time for the obligatory "Please discuss this on meta if we
> want to talk about transparency" post.
> 
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list>
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ~Keegan
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> 
> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email address
> is in a personal capacity.
> ___
> 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, 
> 

___
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, 


[Wikimedia-l] New blog roundup needs your input

2015-10-19 Thread Ed Erhart
Hi all,

As part of ongoing attempts to improve the Wikimedia blog,[1] we're going
to trial a digest/roundup of stories from around the Wikimedia movement. As
I'm not omnipresent, this will require input from you.

Please send any timely and interesting story ideas you have to me via email
or on my talk pages (on meta or en.wp[2]) by this Wednesday, 21 October.

[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Erhart_(WMF) /
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Erhart_(WMF)

-- 
Ed Erhart
Editorial Associate
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Number of new User Groups

2015-10-19 Thread Kacie Harold
Hi Pine,

I recall that several representatives at the User Group meetup at the WMCON
last spring noted that they would like to see more sessions that focused on
the needs of smaller affiliates, and I am glad that you brought it up.  It
would be great to start a list of the kinds of session topics or training
that smaller affiliates would like to see, as well as ways in which the WMF
can provide the attention or support you felt was lacking in previous
years.

Cheers,

Kacie

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> It's nice to see the recent momentum in the formation of user groups. Can
> Affcom shed some light on what may be causing the burst of announced
> formations?
>
> Relatedly, I'm wondering if the number of UGs is now so high that the
> budget and/or programmatic capacity of WMCON will be a bit stretched to
> accomodate all of the UGs in addition to the larger affiliates. I was
> thinking that it would be good to have a track at WMCON devoted to small
> affiliates, but now I'm starting to wonder if there are so many of us, with
> interests and concerns hopefully now more visible on WMF's radar due to our
> increased numbers, that it would make sense to have separate conferences
> for the large and small affiliates so that undivided attention from WMF can
> be given more evenly to both size classes of affiliates for the duration of
> a conference. Any thoughts about those options, from Affcom, WMF, WMDE, or
> others?
>
> Pine
>



-- 

Kacie Harold
Interim Program Officer - Project and Event Grants
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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Ed Erhart
I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require more
than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and create
yet another walled garden away from the community.

--Ed
On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:

> Got it. Thanks Varnent.
>
> Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really want
> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run
> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if the
> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a
> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to a
> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I
> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally
> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as
> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation
> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for working
> on this.
>
> Pine
> On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey Pine,
> >
> > As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions
> > with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
> We
> > did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list
> > (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately,
> > we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
> >
> > The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to
> > AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming
> > increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of
> > our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My personal
> > hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but that
> is
> > not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help
> > manage.
> >
> > -greg (User:Varnent)
> > Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Carlos,
> > >
> > > Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
> > > list? (Also, please see the discussion at
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
> > > ).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
> > ma...@wikimedia.org.ve>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
> > >> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
> > place
> > >> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups)
> > to
> > >> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
> > >> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
> The
> > >> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
> movement,
> > >> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint
> > >> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
> > >> communications from affiliates.
> > >>
> > >> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
> > mailing
> > >> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request
> > >> additional spots if needed.
> > >>
> > >> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> > >>
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> > >> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Carlos
> > >> --
> > >> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
> wayuukanairua
> > >> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
> junain."
> > >> Carlos M. Colina
> > >> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
> > www.wikimedia.org.ve
> > >> 
> > >> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> > >> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> > >> Twitter: @maor_x
> > >> ___
> > >> 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
> ,
> > >> 
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-19 Thread Gregory Varnum
Our current plan is to bring this up with the list once there is a good number 
of people on it.

Given that the list is for affiliates, our feeling is that it is best for them 
to decide how they would like to use the list. If a structure is imposed on 
them, it is less likely they will use the list, and the whole point of creating 
it would be defeated. Since there were requests for the list to be private, it 
seemed easier to start from that point and make changes based on the consensus 
of those we hope will utilize the list most.

-greg (User:Varnent)
Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee


> On Oct 19, 2015, at 1:10 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
> 
> I too question the need for a private mailing list. We should require more
> than a just a "consistent request" before we reduce transparency and create
> yet another walled garden away from the community.
> 
> --Ed
> On Oct 16, 2015 12:07 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
> 
>> Got it. Thanks Varnent.
>> 
>> Regarding the privacy question: I'm sort of thinking that if we really want
>> to keep the new list private for legal or other reasons, it should be run
>> outside of WMF servers like the chapters list is. On the other hand, if the
>> purpose of the new list is to facilitate discussion among affiliates in a
>> smaller and less public group while still being open to WMF employees to a
>> limited degree, then the hosting proposed here makes sense. Personally, I
>> get the sense that the affiliate and WMF relationships have generally
>> (there are exceptions) warmed a bit over the past couple of years as
>> affiliate governance and leadership have evolved and as WMF's evaluation
>> capacity has improved, so I'm fine with the new design. Thanks for working
>> on this.
>> 
>> Pine
>> On Oct 15, 2015 8:55 PM, "Gregory Varnum" 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hey Pine,
>>> 
>>> As you know, AffCom started looking into this list after some discussions
>>> with affiliates in Berlin, Wikimania, and at that page you referred to.
>> We
>>> did talk with that list’s moderators about potentially reusing that list
>>> (largely why the creation of this list took awhile). However, ultimately,
>>> we decided to proceed with the creation of this list.
>>> 
>>> The old list is not on Wikimedia servers or officially connected to
>>> AffCom, so I cannot speak to its future. However, it has becoming
>>> increasingly inactive, is limited to chapters (so excludes a majority of
>>> our affiliates), and not something we have promoted recently. My personal
>>> hope is that this new broader list replaces that one over time, but that
>> is
>>> not something we can “force” as it’s not a resource we officially help
>>> manage.
>>> 
>>> -greg (User:Varnent)
>>> Vice Chair, Affiliations Committee
>>> 
>>> 
 On Oct 15, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Pine W  wrote:
 
 Hi Carlos,
 
 Can you clarify how this list relates to the existing chapters mailing
 list? (Also, please see the discussion at
 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Affiliates_Network#Mailing_list_request_for_comment
 ).
 
 Thanks,
 
 Pine
 
 On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Carlos M. Colina <
>>> ma...@wikimedia.org.ve>
 wrote:
 
> Dear all,
> 
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committe, I am pleased to introduce the
> launch of the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list, which is basically a
>>> place
> for all the affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups)
>>> to
> discuss issues related to affiliates, make announcements to other
> affiliates, and collaborate on activities and community-wide events.
>> The
> idea is to help facilitate the dialogue affiliates across our
>> movement,
> plus collaborative discussions like community-wide activities, joint
> edit-a-thons, regional conferences, blog/report posts, or other
> communications from affiliates.
> 
> Each Wikimedia movement affiliate is allocated three spots on the
>>> mailing
> list. All affiliates may contact the Affiliations Committee to request
> additional spots if needed.
> 
> Please find a bit more information on Meta:
> 
>>> 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Affiliates_mailing_list
> and do not hesitate contacting us if you have further questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Carlos
> --
> "*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee
>> wayuukanairua
> junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya
>> junain."
> Carlos M. Colina
> Socio, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
>>> www.wikimedia.org.ve
> 
> Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
> Phone: +972-52-4869915
> Twitter: @maor_x
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>