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

2016-01-01 Thread Tim Landscheidt
"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 there will
> be a large number of people who will say they told them so,
> but it may well be too late to reassemble the
> debris. Something will survive , but maybe not Wikipedia as
> we know it. How far we are from the tipping point is
> anybody's guess. At present the vast majority of the crowd
> are probably totally unaware of the problems, but I
> personally would not bet the survival of Wikipedia against
> them staying and continuing to produce for free if there was
> a major walkout by the volunteers who currently keep the
> show on the road. Will the level of donations remain viable
> if the general public witnesses a meltdown? Would you bet on
> it?
> […]

That is irrelevant for threatening WMF.  If at some point in
time WMF would no longer raise enough funds, its staff would
just have to pick new jobs somewhere else (just like all
other employees do in a similar situation).  Working at WMF
probably has some amenities, but noone bases their decisions
on fears that as an effect their contract might be termi-
nated in ten or twenty years.  Even less so do trustees plan
that they can replace their summer holiday with a trip to
Wikimania till eternity.

And it's also irrelevant for writing an online encyclopedia.
You don't need the current level of funding as only a frac-
tion actually goes to expenditures necessary for /that/, and
if you have viewers, you will have (more than sufficient)
donations.

So while a reaction may be "catastrophic and non-re-
versible", if the possible effect is a minor nuisance at
worst, then it cannot be a motivating factor.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-01 Thread Vojtěch Dostál

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 Wikipedia. Usually, having a strong and capable 
Foundation behind our backs is an enormous advantage for many reasons and we are happy to 
be sharing the "Wikimedia" brand with it. In fact, I am so convinced of the 
importance of our movement that I voluntarily devote my whole free time working for it. 
For this reason, I am also extremely sensitive to actions which may harm the good name of 
the broader Wikimedia movement - such as, in this case, a lack of transparency in 
organizational governance, which opens doors to speculations. 
 
 

Vojtěch Dostál
Wikimedia Czech Republic
 
 
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg http://redir.netcentrum.cz/?noaudit=https%3A%2F%2Flists%2Ewikimedia%2Eorg%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwikimedia%2Dl>>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 comment and 
others, we canput a lot (no, not all) of pieces to get ourselves.We edit a website.  This may surprise a lot of 
people, but that entitlesyou to nothing outside of that domain.  It doesn't get you a discount atMcDonalds, it 
doesn't get you out of traffic violations and probably won'tget you your next job.  Yes - our position as 
volunteers is important (ifnot critical) to the Foundation and its overall message.  But the so 
called"community" needs to realize their boundaries.People who keep demanding such things (such as a 
detailed report of whathappened) are showi
ng a lack of knowledge on the non-profit board structure- and perhaps other 
things.  Just my two cents, since everybody else ispiling on in opposition.-- 
RyanUser:Rjd0060
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-01 Thread Pine W
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 Board. Also, if that
accusation is true, I think we as a community would be concerned about
James' suitability for other roles in the community that involve
confidentiality.

On the other hand, the Board's handling of this situation is a cause of
significant concern. Some of the Board's actions to this point have been
inconsistent with the standards of professionalism that I feel that the
employees, donors, and community would reasonably expect from one of the
world's most visible open-knowledge organizations.

I would propose an investigation into the facts and circumstances of this
situation by an outside party which has expertise in governance matters.

It seems to me that the alternative to an external investigation is to have
(another) long-running dispute about governance at WMF, which I think would
be a far worse outcome than anything resulting from an external
investigation that leads to public knowledge of the facts and appropriate
steps being taken to address any issues that come to light in the report.

I regret that we are dealing with this difficult situation on New Year's. I
hope that this is a learning opportunity for all of us.

Pine


> 2016-01-02 1:31 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :
>
> > Dear all
> >
> > I have been accused of three things:
> >
> >
> >1.
> >
> >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 interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation
> but I
> >consider it unfounded.
> >
> >
> >
> >1.
> >
> >Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
> >board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed
> for
> >greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I
> > have
> >made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and
> > community
> >members and used independent judgement.
> >
> >
> >
> >1.
> >
> >Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
> >asked by other board members at any time before its publication to
> > produce
> >a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put
> > together a
> >few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by
> > myself
> >here
> >
> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
> >I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
> >purpose of producing such a statement.
> >
> >
> > I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
> > movement and the WMF.
> >
> > --
> > James Heilman
> > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >
> > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-01 Thread Thomas Goldammer
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 board members. And of course, please include how
this opinion is in line with your decision in James's case. I'd really like
to know what each of you thinks about that. Thanks. :)

Th.

2016-01-02 1:31 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :

> Dear all
>
> I have been accused of three things:
>
>
>1.
>
>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 interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I
>consider it unfounded.
>
>
>
>1.
>
>Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
>board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for
>greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I
> have
>made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and
> community
>members and used independent judgement.
>
>
>
>1.
>
>Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
>asked by other board members at any time before its publication to
> produce
>a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put
> together a
>few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by
> myself
>here
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
>I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
>purpose of producing such a statement.
>
>
> I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
> movement and the WMF.
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] New tutorial for interactive graphics on Wiki

2016-01-01 Thread Pine W
For those who may be interested in interactive visualizations.

Pine

-- 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 


I've played with this more, and I like how it works. I can imagine people
using this map with other data sets like HDI, GDP per capita, inflation,
Wikipedia readership, and WMF fundraising (:

Pine

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Szymon Grabarczuk  wrote:

> Great! now, I think it should be marked for translation.
>
> On 31 December 2015 at 08:38, Pine W  wrote:
>
> > The tutorial looks nice! I will take a look when I am less distracted by
> > finance reports. Thank you for working on this.
> >
> > Pine
> > On Dec 30, 2015 22:37, "Yuri Astrakhan" 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I just finished writing a tutorial on how to build interactive Vega
> > graphs
> > > for Wikipedia. And yes, we could build video games this way too :)
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Graph/Interactive_Graph_Tutorial
> > > ___
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > ___
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Szymon Grabarczuk*
>
> Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU
> Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska
> pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tar_Lócesilion
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

2016-01-01 Thread Kim Bruning
Hi Milos, 
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 businesses to provide
> something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their
> infrastructure. 

Hmm, this example has little to do with net neutrality as I understand
it though. 

Net neutrality means that you pay your ISP to allow you to send and
receive packets to/from anyone without discrimination to source or
destination. (In other words you're paying for actual internet access
without let or hindrance).

Previously this is how the market worked.

Without going into details here, many sources tell us that the
market is now threatening to shift towards a winner-takes-all walled
garden model. (if not already there)

It's going to be a challenge to keep open source and open content
operating and relevant in such an increasingly hostile environment this
coming decade.

> Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent
> underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become
> richer and they won't need this kind of service.

We can ask them whether they want to continue having such a service at
any time. Or we can set some participation threshold above which we
would accept a petition to stop. (It is always wise to have
pre-prepared go/no-go safety checks at particular points in time)

> * Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
> one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should
> support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects
> are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further
> into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us
> and the rest of our global super-movement.

*Nod* We have to beware of fouling our own nest. Even though Wikipedia
zero appears to help our own cause now, we need to be careful we don't
hurt the people we depend on in turn.

People such as the open source community and internet standards
organisations might prove quite sensitive to changing Internet rules.
We should put our ears to the ground and listen carefully to what
representatives of these groups may be saying to us.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-01 Thread Chris Keating
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
> remove members without fear of breaking Florida law, rather than some
> nefarious ploy by the board to stick it to the man.

I agree.

This hasn't happened in the last 10 years of WMF history. The fact it's
happened once  doesn't necessarily indicate that it will happen again in
the next 10 years.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-01 Thread Marcin Cieslak
On 2016-01-01, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> 
>> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
>> steps.
>
> There needs to be a change in the terms used; it has become clear that
> this will not be an election, and that the trustee eventually approved
> by the rest of the board will not be "community selected", but
> "community nominated".

Until now many of us were under impression (supported by the Florida statutes 
it seems)
that they were "community elected".

Saper


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-01 Thread Joseph Fox
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
nefarious ploy by the board to stick it to the man.

Joe

On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 at 21:11 Marcin Cieslak  wrote:

> On 2016-01-01, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> > On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Committee
> >
> >> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
> >> steps.
> >
> > There needs to be a change in the terms used; it has become clear that
> > this will not be an election, and that the trustee eventually approved
> > by the rest of the board will not be "community selected", but
> > "community nominated".
>
> Until now many of us were under impression (supported by the Florida
> statutes it seems)
> that they were "community elected".
>
> Saper
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-01 Thread James Heilman
Dear all

I have been accused of three things:


   1.

   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 interested in hearing staff weigh in on this accusation but I
   consider it unfounded.



   1.

   Releasing private board information. I have not made public, private
   board discussions during my time on the board. I have however pushed for
   greater transparency both within the WMF and with our communities. I have
   made myself informed by discussing issues with trusted staff and community
   members and used independent judgement.



   1.

   Publishing the statement about my removal on Wikimedia-l. I was not
   asked by other board members at any time before its publication to produce
   a joint statement or to delay publishing the statement I had put together a
   few days prior. The first proposal to collaborate I believe was by myself
   here
   https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-December/080502.html
   I was also not informed that the meeting was going to continue for the
   purpose of producing such a statement.


I have always acted in what I believe are the best interests of the
movement and the WMF.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-01 Thread Kevin Gorman
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
of the
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 that this
statement is not true - in fact, even public statements from other trustees
so far have not contradicted it.  If James statements is to be taken at
face value, then he has in fact met his fiduciary duty to the WMF.
Trustees don't have an inherent duty of confidentiality - they have
inherent duties of loyalty, and inherent duties of care.  They *often* have
a derived duty of confidentiality, but that's a derived duty - disclosing
information related to an ongoing lawsuit to another party in a way that
would be harmful to WMF would violate the board member's duty of loyalty to
WMF.  Even though that's often spoken about as if it would be a problem
because of an inherent duty of confidentiality, except in situations
involving things like obligations to third parties (e.g., most issues of
staff discipline, or explicitly private details of a contract with a
 thrird party,) the root issue in the theoretical situation I described
would be breaking their duty of loyalty, not breaking their obligation to
hold an issue confidential.

I don't believe that James' announcement of his dismissal from the board is
potentially a broach of his fiduciary duty to the WMF.  Given the other
issues involved here, I find it reasonable - and I tend to agree with him -
that having an open, prompt, and transparent conversation about his
dismissal from the board and the reasons behind it is in the best interests
of the Wikimedia Foundation.  If he had been explicitly informed that the
rest of the board was in the process of crafting a public, detailed
statement about his dismissal, then this could potentially be an issue, but
it seems like he wasn't informed that that was the case, so I don't
understand how James' announcement of his own dismissal could be taken as a
breach of his fidicuiary duties.

Without knowing what specific information was involved, it's hard to gauge
whether James released confidential information in a way that was a breach
of his fiducuiary duties.  I will say that I've talked with James pretty
often during his tenure on the board, and although he's been quite frank
about his own opinions and about how he thought certain issues should be
approached, I do not believe he disclosed a single piece of information
that would reasonably be deemed confidential to me - and even if he had
disclosed information the board believed should be held confidential (and I
honestly don't believe he did,) unless there was a secondary obligation of
confidentiality (e.g., a contract with a hosting provider with a
nondisclosure clause,) doing so wouldn't inherently be a breach of his
fiduciary duties - if he disclosed such information to me (or anyone else)
because he thought that the benefit of our advice was outweighed by the
chance of us disclosing the information further, it still wouldn't
inherently represent a breach of his obligations to the board.  But again -
at least in conversations with me, he hasn't even gone that far.  From time
to time he has sought my opinion about particular issues, but he's done so
in a way that hasn't made anything apparent except at the most his own
personal opinion - in cases where he sought my advice, I wouldn't even have
been able to make a clear guess as to whether he was asking for advice
about an issue currently before the board, or an issue he was considering
bringing up in six months.

Speaking with staff presents a trickier issue than the first two, but still
isn't a black and white bad thing to do.  Board members are generally
encouraged to restrict their conversations to conversations with management
(so that they don't end up accidentally interfering with management issues,
since the primary role of board is governance,) but at the same time, if
they believe that in order to fulfill their fidicuciary duties they need to
have direct conversations with staff members, then legally, they would be
breaking their fiduciary duties if they *didn't* have those conversations.
While having them they should stress that they are interacting with the
staff members as individual board members, not representing management or
the BoT as a whole, and not trying to interfere with day to day management
of the organization - but it sounds like James tried to follow those
standards.  There's also a secondary issue; if a staff member approached a
board member with a concern that they believed could not be adequately
addressed within their normal leadership chain, the board member would be
absolutely remiss in not at least having a conversation with the staff
member.  If someone from fundraising had approached James with concerns
that management had somehow embezzled $100m, and those concerns turned out
to 

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

2016-01-01 Thread geni
On 31 December 2015 at 13:02, Patricio Lorente 
wrote:

> 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 confer
> with the 2015 Elections Committee.
>
>

So can I see these conferings?

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-01 Thread Andy Mabbett
On 28 December 2015 at 23:29, Patricio Lorente
 wrote:

> 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
> 
> to discuss our options, and will keep you informed as we determine next
> steps.

There needs to be a change in the terms used; it has become clear that
this will not be an election, and that the trustee eventually approved
by the rest of the board will not be "community selected", but
"community nominated".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk




-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2016-01-01 Thread Todd Allen
Patricio,

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  >
> wrote:
>
> > 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 confer
> > with the 2015 Elections Committee.
> >
> >
>
> So can I see these conferings?
>
> --
> geni
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

2016-01-01 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-service-on-hold-TRAI-tells-Reliance-Communications/articleshow/50290490.cms
>
>
> http://qz.com/580884/india-has-hit-the-brakes-on-facebooks-free-internet-service/
>


As Bodhisattwa points out, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
recently put Inernet.org -- now re-branded "Free Basics" -- on hold in
India.[1] Facebook's offering free content is characterised by net
neutrality activists as an attempt to build a monopoly,[2] or establish a
gatekeeper role.[3]

Tim Berners-Lee is on record as asking people to "Just say no" to such
efforts.[4]

Jimmy Wales on the other hand is on record[5] as saying that he fully
supports Internet.org:

---o0o---

*What does Jimmy Wales think about Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org project,
especially in light of Wikipedia Zero? Is there a chance for it to become a
collaborative project between Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation?*

I like what they are doing. I have spoken to both Mark Zuckerberg and
Sheryl Sandberg about it, and the internet.org team is in contact with our
Wikipedia Zero team.

Because Wikipedia/Wikimedia is somewhat "the Switzerland of the Internet"
(i.e. with a strong tendency to be very vendor neutral) we are always going
to be supportive of efforts like this, which are broad industry coalitions
to do something useful particularly relating to broad access to knowledge,
our core value. But we won't generally be tied up in any one thing per se.
But we'll work with them where it makes sense, of course.

In my personal capacity, I am a big fan of what they are trying to do and
support it fully.

---o0o---

What do the other WMF board members think about Internet.org/Free Basics,
and about the risks involved in allowing the establishment of online
gatekeepers or monopolies?

And if you have concerns in this area, how does it inform your thinking
about Wikipedia Zero and other Wikimedia projects? Do you see any risk that
Wikimedia projects themselves could end up acting as an online gatekeeper
or monopoly, and if so, what are you doing to mitigate that risk?[6][7]

[1]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-service-on-hold-TRAI-tells-Reliance-Communications/articleshow/50290490.cms
[2]
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/free-basics-vs-free-internet-your-guide-to-the-raging-net-neutrality-debate-782554
[3]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/zuckerberg-s-india-backlash-imperils-vision-for-free-global-web
[4]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/zuckerberg-s-india-backlash-imperils-vision-for-free-global-web
[5]
https://www.quora.com/What-does-Jimmy-Wales-think-about-Mark-Zuckerbergs-Internet-org-project-especially-in-light-of-Wikipedia-Zero-Is-there-a-chance-for-it-to-become-a-collaborative-project-between-Facebook-and-the-Wikimedia-Foundation
 https://archive.is/1Lxlc
[6]
https://www.accessnow.org/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-its-back-on-the-open/
[7]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,