Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Matt, here , Jimmy says this was a removal for cause. Anthony Cole On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Matthew Flaschen < matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu> wrote:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell

Answering your questions: 1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not matter.) The full reference is http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836 2. No, discussion threads are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Mailing List Barnstar?

You don't need permission or consensus to create or award barnstars. Be bold. A. On Dec 30, 2015 6:39 PM, "Tito Dutta" wrote: > Just now I was talking to User:Pine on-wiki and I informed him that I > thoroughly enjoyed some of his posts on this mailing list. I also

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Matt, here > , > Jimmy says this was a removal for cause. > > Anthony Cole > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I would vote for him if a satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming, just as a matter of principle. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:07 PM To:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Patricio, Thanks. Could you explain to us the scope of "board confidentiality", and how and where it is defined for both current and former members? Best, Andreas On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > Dear Patricio, > > Thank you for your response.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Patricio, > Thanks. Could you explain to us the scope of "board confidentiality", and > how and where it is defined for both current and former members? > Best, > Andreas Anyone who has had trustee training can answer this.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 2015-12-31 14:44, Fæ wrote: On 31 December 2015 at 13:31, Andreas Kolbe wrote: If James can be bothered to run again for election back on the WMF board of trustees, he'll be getting my vote. As far as I can make out, being kicked off the board for woolly, secretive or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion. I wanted to provide you with some additional information in response to the discussions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to respond. However if they don't we are free to vote with our feet - or not. The fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line, whatever they do is going to annoy somebody. Cheers, Peter

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

-Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rjd0060 Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2015 4:12 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark

Re: [Wikimedia-l] We need to talk about the WMF Board Pledge of personal commitment

That's a very good point. Bringing the two pledges in line with each other in the way Cristian suggests would make sense to me. Board members should be free to act in line with their conscience. It shouldn't be the case that they cannot speak openly about any issue in which they disagreed with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Dear Patricio, Thank you for your response. However, I don't quite read an explanation in this email. You elaborate a little bit on process (nothing new or surprising there), and the only reason I can extract from your email is this: "Ultimately, the majority of the Trustees came to the opinion

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause, or not!? On 1 Jan 2016 12:03 am, "Patricio Lorente" wrote: > Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent > decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Hi Patricio, a little question to understand. Does it means that the majority of the board can dismiss the minority for some reasons? I understand the effectiveness, but this sentence is a little bit critical. Kind regards On 31.12.2015 14:02, Patricio Lorente wrote: Under the Wikimedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause, > or not!? > If they'd like to. But if not, no. So people who keep demanding things, after what I personally believe between Jimmy's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please stick to the 30-post limit

The 30 post limit came about in a different era, when the list had problems at a greater scale. I don't see any issues with post frequency recently that should have received moderator response. You are referring to GerardM, but the majority of his posts have been to a single thread. I can't speak

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

"Peter Southwood" wrote: > You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to > respond. However if they don't we are free to vote with our > feet - or not. The fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do > not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line, >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > I would vote for him if a satisfactory explanation is not forthcoming, > just as a matter of principle. > Cheers, > Peter > According to applicable Florida law,[1] (f) Any director who is removed from the

[Wikimedia-l] Please stick to the 30-post limit

The 30-post soft limit for this email is not being applied. I recall in the past that individuals were warned and even put on moderation; ensuring that no individual overwhelms this list with their one viewpoint. I raised this with the list moderators on 4th December, but have yet to receive a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please stick to the 30-post limit

I very much agree with Fae on this. Certainly, some people will always post more than others, e.g. because they have a specific task in the movement. But often I wonder whether a post on this list was really necessary. For example, sometimes it makes sense not to react immediately to another post

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

But then again, these are not direct elections. The elections we have are just recommendations, and the board appoints community trustees based on those recommendations. Techman224 > On Dec 31, 2015, at 11:52 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:05 PM,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Regarding: "at the moment there is not even a clone that provides just the same data.": creating an alternative host for a fork of Wikipedia is possible, although labor-intensive and a bit capital-intensive, and it's far from ideal. I feel that at this time the information available about the

[Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Patricio - I understand that the final decision likely wasn't predecided going in to the meeting, however, communications responses should have been prepared for all likely outcomes, including a prepared statement to disseminate immediately following the removal from the board of Jame Heilman.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

TLDR version: We are not yet convinced James was not removed for doing what he was elected to do. I have good faith in everyone involved, and the capacity and intent to withhold judgement for a while, but the explanations so far have not helped. This is not transparent enough. As everyone

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I just want to echo this. James, I do know you personally, and am better for it. Thank you for your tireless efforts to improve information and health around the world, and for the thought you give to how the projects can flourish and multiply. Warmly, Sj On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Anna

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

On 2015-12-31, Milos Rancic wrote: > Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such > initiative. > > I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously. You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia Zero initiative. Saper

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 12/31/2015 08:02 AM, Patricio Lorente wrote: Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting Trustee, and that has led to questions and perhaps some confusion. I wanted to provide you with some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On 12/31/2015 04:07 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: Matt, here , Jimmy says this was a removal for cause. Thanks, I appreciate you forwarding this. Matt Flaschen ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Jimbo has stated on Jimbo-talk that this was a removal for cause: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales=prev=697407200 He also mentions on that page that he and others tried to talk Heilman into resigning quietly, but he chose to make the BoT push him:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Hi Patricio, I am saddened to hear that the discussions about governance had to result in removal of a board member. On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Patricio Lorente < patricio.lore...@gmail.com> wrote: > Over the course of the past few months, the Trustees had > multiple conversations

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Marcin Cieslak wrote: > You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia Zero > initiative. From my perspective, there is significant difference between Wikipedia Zero (along with similar, free of charge services) and Free

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

Hi, Indian netizens, specially the open source activists, are severely criticizing Internet.org and Free basics right from the beginning on the violation of net neutrality issue. In response to that, TRAI has asked Reliance Communication to hold Facebook Free Basics service.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

I agree. The situation may well be metastable, in that the WMF may get away with alienating the crowd for a long time, until it reaches a tipping point, when the reaction becomes catastrophic and non-reversible. At which point there will be a large number of people who will say they told them