"Peter Southwood" wrote:
> 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
I'd like to comment on what Ryan has written about the responsibility of WMF to the
community. Many of us aren't just anonymous editors of an encyclopedia - we also play a
rather different role in the Wikimedia movement, spreading word about our goals and
publicly raising awareness about
Thank you for that statement, James.
I am principally concerned about an allegation that James leaked
confidential information. If that is true, then that could be a serious
problem and I can see how that would lead other trustees to feel that the
"least bad" option is to remove James from the
First of all, a happy new year to everyone!
Thank you, James, for bringing at least some light into this blurriness.
For some more light, all board members, please do me a favor and explain
briefly how you see the relationship between transparency and our movement,
especially in your work as
For those who may be interested in interactive visualizations.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Pine W
Date: Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] New tutorial for interactive graphics on Wiki
To: Wikimedia developers
Happy new year to you!
I thought your mail to the list was very thoughtful.
I've replied inline below.
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:50:16AM +0100, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many
> businesses already have deals with other
On 1 Jan 2016 21:56, "Joseph Fox" wrote:
> I imagine it would take something quite extraordinary for the board to
> reject the community election result outright, as it happens. I would
> assume the "nomination v selection" differential is to allow the board to
On 2016-01-01, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
>> This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
>> Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
I imagine it would take something quite extraordinary for the board to
reject the community election result outright, as it happens. I would
assume the "nomination v selection" differential is to allow the board to
remove members without fear of breaking Florida law, rather than some
I have been accused of three things:
Giving staff unrealistic expectations regarding potential board
decisions. I have always stated to staff that I only represented 10% of the
board and have never given assurances that I could convince other trustees.
I would be
Hi all -
What concerns me as much as anything about James' removal is his final
statement - "I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests
movement and the WMF." James has been active in the movement for a long
time in a variety of roles, and we have no reason to believe
On 31 December 2015 at 13:02, Patricio Lorente
> We are working with the 2015 Elections Committee to fill this vacancy with
> a member of the Wikimedia community. This is a top priority. More
> information will be available once the Board has had a chance to
On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
> This decision creates an open seat for a community-selected Trustee. The
> Board is committed to filling this open community seat as quickly as
> possible. We will reach out to the 2015 election committee
Jimmy Wales stated that the Board would work with James to provide a
statement. Could you please make clear if the final statement issued is
something he agreed to?
On Jan 1, 2016 1:15 AM, "geni" wrote:
> On 31 December 2015 at 13:02, Patricio Lorente
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
> 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
Mail list logo