Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-03 Thread MZMcBride
Tim Starling wrote:
>Board members have a duty to act in the interests of the WMF as a
>whole, but it does not follow that denying anonymity to whistleblowers
>is in the best interests of the WMF. In fact, I think this Lila/KF/KE
>case demonstrates the opposite.
>
>I would encourage the Board to extend the current whistleblower policy
>to provide protection to employees making anonymous complaints via
>certain intermediaries (such as active Board members), rather than
>requiring complaints to be made directly to the Chair of the Board;
>and to specify that the forwarding of such anonymous reports by Board
>members to the Chair would be permissible.
>
>If we want to avoid a repeat of this affair, then employees should be
>encouraged to communicate serious concerns to the Board as early as
>possible.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Whistleblower_policy

You mention anonymous complaints and serious concerns, but the current
whistleblower policy seems to be pretty clear that it only applies to
laws, rules, and regulations. The text of the policy indicates, to me at
least, that even alleged violations of other Wikimedia Foundation policies
would not be covered by the whistleblower policy. Would you extend the
Wikimedia Foundation whistleblower policy to cover regular (i.e.,
non-legal and non-regulatory) grievances?

My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees sought
out and then appointed a tech-minded chief executive, who came from a tech
organization, in order to "transform" the Wikimedia Foundation from an
educational non-profit to be more like a traditional tech company. Many
employees of the Wikimedia Foundation disagreed with this decision and the
chief executive made a series of poor hires who ran amok (looking at you,
Damon), but I don't think anything rose to the level of illegal behavior.

From my perspective, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the staff mutinied
and ultimately successfully deposed the appointed executive director. I
don't see how this whistleblower policy or most variations of it that a
typical non-profit would enact would really be applicable here.

MZMcBride



___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-03 Thread Tim Starling
On 03/05/16 08:27, James Heilman wrote:
> As for my willingness to share all communications with the entire board, I
> believe I managed to communicate all relevant details without violating the
> explicit confidence requested of me by staff members. (Note that in later
> conversations I was informed that it may not be legal for board members to
> promise confidentiality to individual staff, as our ultimate duty is to the
> WMF as a whole).

Board members have a duty to act in the interests of the WMF as a
whole, but it does not follow that denying anonymity to whistleblowers
is in the best interests of the WMF. In fact, I think this Lila/KF/KE
case demonstrates the opposite.

I would encourage the Board to extend the current whistleblower policy
to provide protection to employees making anonymous complaints via
certain intermediaries (such as active Board members), rather than
requiring complaints to be made directly to the Chair of the Board;
and to specify that the forwarding of such anonymous reports by Board
members to the Chair would be permissible.

If we want to avoid a repeat of this affair, then employees should be
encouraged to communicate serious concerns to the Board as early as
possible.

-- Tim Starling


___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Tomasz Ganicz
I think it is rather a subject that there are chapters which are "zombies"
- I mean having no or very little activity. On the other hand we have a
number of quite active usergroups which cannot vote.  By the way, the
overal number of non-voting chapters can be a good measure of the number of
"zombie" chapters...



2016-05-03 21:14 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray :

> On 3 May 2016 at 17:34, Gnangarra  wrote:
> > We should be careful in not shaming communities to vote poorly to save
> > face, or even vote for people they dont want as some may truly feel that
> > the candidates who have nominated wont be a good representative of the
> > community.
>
> I agree with the first part, but on the second, it's worth noting that
> "none" is an acceptable vote in this election. For myself I think
> you'd be hard pressed to find *no* candidates you can support from
> this round - they seem a pretty good selection - but others no doubt
> differ :-).
>
> A.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.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,
> 
>



-- 
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
___
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] Guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia

2016-05-03 Thread Peter Southwood
Clearly the little yellow pixies told them so, hence my wikicomments
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Lilburne
Sent: Tuesday, 03 May 2016 9:16 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia

Natural News is an anti-vaccination, woo science blog, that pedals snakeoil to 
cancer suffers and reckons that breast screening is the medical professions way 
of giving women cancer so that they can profit from treatment.


On 03/05/2016 10:00, Peter Southwood wrote:
> {{citation needed}} {{POV}} {{weasel}} {{OR}} etc...
> Cheers,
> P
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Bodhisattwa Mandal
> Sent: Tuesday, 03 May 2016 9:27 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia
>
> Hi,
>
> Looks like a group of ?trolls are working in a organized way and disrupting 
> the basic policies of Wikipedia. They call themselves Guerrilla skepticism on 
> Wikipedia.
>
>  a_propaganda.html> http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.in/
>
> http://www.naturalnews.com/053719_David_Gorski_Wikipedia_VAXXED_docume
> ntary.html
>
> http://www.naturalnews.com/053869_science_skeptics_Wikipedia_guerrilla
> _propaganda.html
>
> https://www.facebook.com/GSoWproject/?fref=nf
>
> Regards,
> Bodhisattwa
> ___
> 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, 
> 
>
> -
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7539 / Virus Database: 4565/12154 - Release Date: 
> 05/03/16
>
>
> ___
> 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, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7596 / Virus Database: 4565/12157 - Release Date: 05/03/16


___
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] Wikimedia Indonesia's New Board of Executive (and Board of Trustees)

2016-05-03 Thread Biyanto Rebin
Thank you Asaf and Hasive.


Regards,

2016-04-27 15:50 GMT+07:00 Asaf Bartov :

> Congratulations, WMID!  Thank you to the departing board members for their
> years of service.
>
> WMF is looking forward to working more closely with WMID, as we began
> discussing at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin last week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> A.
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Isabella Apriyana <
> isabella.apriy...@wikimedia.or.id> wrote:
>
> > Hello all, I am forwarding an email from Siska Doviana of Wikimedia
> > Indonesia:
> >
> > Hello Wikimedia Chapters,
> > Cc WMID mailing list
> >
> > This is my last email to you (to this list), as I am no longer serving
> > Wikimedia Indonesia's board and currently being denied access because
> > of ASBS. In a separate email you will also find Wikimedia Indonesia's
> > annual report for 2015.
> >
> > You will receive this email from Isabella, as a request to extend my
> > email to the chapter's list. So many things has happened between 2010
> > and 2016 (I begin enroll to this list in 2008, out, and in again, now
> > out again), and I am proud to see where Wikimedia Indonesia - the
> > state that I left it in. Hard work pay off y'all!
> >
> > I am happy to announce Wikimedia Indonesia new Board of Executive and
> > new Board of Trustees based on our VIII general meeting of member
> > taking place on March 19, 2016 [1] - followed by Head of Board
> > Executive decision on March 28, 2016 regarding Board of Executive's
> > position [2].
> >
> > Wikimedia Indonesia Board of Executive 2016-2019
> > 1. Biyanto Rebin - Chair Board of Executive (elect)
> > 2. Vacant - Deputy Chair Board of Executive (appointed)
> > 3. Isabella Apriyana - Secretary General Board of Executive (appointed)
> > 4. Farras Daryoctara - Deputy Secretary General Board of Executive
> > (appointed)
> > 5. Djohan Satria- Treasurer Board of Executive (appointed)
> > 6. Rachmat Wahidi - Deputy Treasurer Board of Executive (appointed)
> >
> > Wikimedia Indonesia Board of Trustees 2016-2019
> > 1. Rinto Jiang - (Chair) Board of Trustees (elect)
> > 2. Kartika Sari Henry - Member of Board of Trustees (elect)
> > 3. Ricky Setiawan - Member of Board of Trustees (elect)
> >
> > Thank you for all the time invested in the organization, when I reached
> > out for help, volunteer work, expert advice, council - and showed me
> > what leadership is by making a bold example by doing.
> > Stepping down:
> > 1. Ichsan Mochtar
> > 2. Prasetyo
> > 3. Panjisakti Basunanda
> > 4. Indra Utama
> > 5. Hendra Prasetiawan
> >
> > Please remove the above access to this list and chapter's wiki, and of
> > course, myself.
> > 6. Siska Doviana
> >
> > Getting to know the new board:
> >
> > Biyanto Rebin (email: biyanto.re...@wikimedia.or.id) user: Beeyan
> > is a long time Wikipedian and joins Wikimedia Indonesia in 2013 as
> > committee for Free Your Knowledge Competition. Graduated from
> > University of Indonesia majoring Chinese, he received scholarship to
> > perfect his Italian language and studied in Italy for 3 months. He's a
> > polygloth, vegetarian, a gamelan player, and a very nice person
> > in general. Before joining Wikimedia Indonesia to work full time in
> > 2014 for Cipta Media Cellular project, he held various position from
> > Human Resource in oil company, cellular company, translator, to
> > tutoring. Biyanto attended WMCON 2016 as one of WMID
> > delegates
> >
> > Isabella Apriyana (email: isabella.apriy...@wikimedia.or.id) user:
> > 26Isabella
> > Joined Wikimedia Indonesia as ex participant of Free Your Knowledge
> > wikipedia writing competition. Graduated from Atmajaya University
> > majoring in Biotechnology Isabella works for Eijkman Institute for
> > Molecular Biology. She attended WMCON 2016 as the other
> > WMID delegates.
> >
> > Farras Dary Octora (email: farras.daryoct...@wikimedia.or.id),
> user:Farras
> > A dedicated Wikipedian since 2006 and now still studying international
> > relations in Airlangga University. He has been member of Wikimedia
> > Indonesia since 2014 and an administrator in Indonesian Wikipedia.
> >
> > Djohan Satria (email:djohan.satria.hasib...@wikimedia.or.id), user:
> djohan
> > Graduate from STAN (Indonesian State College of Accountancy) Djohan
> > been helping Wikimedia Indonesia with accounting matters (and
> > nightmare) since 2013, help us move office three times! Everyone calls
> > him pop, and he is the one any of us go to if there's any serious
> > matter happening, business, pleasure, or psychological (ha!). He is a
> > certified auditor and like to smile a lot, since he is pretty scary if
> > he is in his auditing mood.
> >
> > Rachmat Wahidi (email: rachmat.wah...@wikimedia.or.id), user:Rachmat04
> > Rachmat Acehnese Wikipedian (sysop), Indonesian Wikipedian, winner of
> > WMID's wikisource challenge, and Indonesia's representative for
> > Wikisource International Conference in Vienna in 2015. He is the head
> > of WMID Digitalization project 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Andrew Gray
On 3 May 2016 at 17:34, Gnangarra  wrote:
> We should be careful in not shaming communities to vote poorly to save
> face, or even vote for people they dont want as some may truly feel that
> the candidates who have nominated wont be a good representative of the
> community.

I agree with the first part, but on the second, it's worth noting that
"none" is an acceptable vote in this election. For myself I think
you'd be hard pressed to find *no* candidates you can support from
this round - they seem a pretty good selection - but others no doubt
differ :-).

A.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Lodewijk
Indeed only two or three candidates were present in Berlin (unfortunately
we were not allowed to join, not even at our own expense). It would become
quite problematic if 40 organisations would all want to chat for an hour -
but at the same time, I do believe in being approachable. I'm more than
happy to chat with anyone who wants to, if the agenda permits. Now, and
through the year. Chapter or no chapter. If you think a chat will give you
something helpful (insight or whatever), just schedule something! Be bold.

Best,
Lodewijk

2016-05-03 19:30 GMT+02:00 Ilya Korniyko :

> Dear Sam,
> dear all,
>
> It was mainly my idea that we decided to talk to all candidates.
>
> I was under impression that we would have the opportunity to talk with all
> candidates in Berlin.
> I did get the reasoning that it would be too expensive to do it (in fact,
> all you have to do to get to WMCON is to apply for BoT and be endorsed by
> some chapter), but I really wanted to make the decision at least fairly...
>
> If we are not interested in people who may be our future members of WMF
> Board, how can we expect that they are interested in us?
> There are some excellent people nominating themselves, asking for our trust
> that they can do better,
> but we do not know them at all. And if we are voting only based on our
> personal connections, we would always vote for the same people. I thought
> it was wrong.
>
> We have struggled to find the balance between talking to people via
> skype/hangouts and not doing that.
> And this is the best solution we came up with.
> Maybe if I did not have the idea that we are going to have all candidates
> present during WMCON,
> I would try to do something else... But I did have that impression.
>
> We understand the difficulties of the process we decided to follow. I
> understand the concerns.
> But some crucial things about the candidates you can learn only in such a
> way:
> - are they willing to communicate with affiliates?
> - how they answer in real life?
> - how clearly they explain their thoughts?
> etc.
>
> And even the level of English is important. These people are going to
> represent (to some extent) our movement.
>
> Best regards,
> Ilya /  ILLIA KORNIIKO
> Chair
> Wikimedia Ukraine
>
> З повагою,
> Ілля Корнійко
> Голова Правління ГО «Вікімедіа Україна»
> +38 067 65 66 177
> http://ua.wikimedia.org
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip 
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
> > > candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2]
> > [3]
> > > [4] [5] [6]
> > > And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
> > > people.
> > >
> >
> > Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr
> > Skype chats, one with each chapthorg?  That sounds grueling. I thought
> the
> > value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead
> of
> > 40 times.
> >
> > Sam
> > ___
> > 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Ilya Korniyko
Dear Sam,
dear all,

It was mainly my idea that we decided to talk to all candidates.

I was under impression that we would have the opportunity to talk with all
candidates in Berlin.
I did get the reasoning that it would be too expensive to do it (in fact,
all you have to do to get to WMCON is to apply for BoT and be endorsed by
some chapter), but I really wanted to make the decision at least fairly...

If we are not interested in people who may be our future members of WMF
Board, how can we expect that they are interested in us?
There are some excellent people nominating themselves, asking for our trust
that they can do better,
but we do not know them at all. And if we are voting only based on our
personal connections, we would always vote for the same people. I thought
it was wrong.

We have struggled to find the balance between talking to people via
skype/hangouts and not doing that.
And this is the best solution we came up with.
Maybe if I did not have the idea that we are going to have all candidates
present during WMCON,
I would try to do something else... But I did have that impression.

We understand the difficulties of the process we decided to follow. I
understand the concerns.
But some crucial things about the candidates you can learn only in such a
way:
- are they willing to communicate with affiliates?
- how they answer in real life?
- how clearly they explain their thoughts?
etc.

And even the level of English is important. These people are going to
represent (to some extent) our movement.

Best regards,
Ilya /  ILLIA KORNIIKO
Chair
Wikimedia Ukraine

З повагою,
Ілля Корнійко
Голова Правління ГО «Вікімедіа Україна»
+38 067 65 66 177
http://ua.wikimedia.org

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Sam Klein  wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip  wrote:
>
> >
> > JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
> > candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2]
> [3]
> > [4] [5] [6]
> > And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
> > people.
> >
>
> Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr
> Skype chats, one with each chapthorg?  That sounds grueling. I thought the
> value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead of
> 40 times.
>
> Sam
> ___
> 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Brill Lyle
Agree wholeheartedly. Don't need details but a summary list of chapters and
the record of who voted would be very welcome.

I was dismayed that this information was private. It seems like
transparency of basic information like this should be the goal here. I
don't think detailed information is necessary.

Like WM UK, WM NYC was transparent about the process and outcome of its
voting. It would be a real drag to have to look at each chapter's recent
events to see if this information is recorded locally.

Why not have it publicly viewable, collected in one place? I don't see a
downside here.

- Erika

*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* 
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Pharos 
wrote:

> In fact, for those who have access to it, there is a list of statements at
> the bottom of that page, listing statements from each chapthorg on their
> method and time of voting:
>
> https://chapters.wikimedia.ch/Appointment_process/2016/Voting#Statements
>
> For example, our entry says:
>
> "NYC: Decided by open public meeting on April 13, 2016."
>
> I think it might be best to make that whole section publicly viewable.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Gray 
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
> > voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
> > electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.
> >
> > I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
> > Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.
> >
> > But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
> > chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
> > isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
> > order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
> > voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
> > cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
> > is what we all want to achieve :-)
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > > It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same
> > time:
> > >
> > > - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before,
> or
> > > after the election has finished)
> > >
> > > - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> > > right now.
> > >
> > > It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made,
> > and
> > > it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election
> > works
> > > (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> > > wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have
> voted
> > > (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> > > with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
> > >
> > > So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of
> > Chapters
> > > in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so,
> > would
> > > it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> > > voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they
> > have
> > > indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Liam
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > wittylama.com
> > > Peace, love & metadata
> > > ___
> > > 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,
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.g...@dunelm.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,
> > 
> >
> ___
> 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: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Gnangarra
We should be careful in not shaming communities to vote poorly to save
face, or even vote for people they dont want as some may truly feel that
the candidates who have nominated wont be a good representative of the
community.

The individual votes are visable to every affiliate who has access to vote
and we all know that the more people who have access the more likely it'll
be shared anyway either in part or in full.

On 4 May 2016 at 00:24, Andrew Gray  wrote:

> Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
> voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
> electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.
>
> I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
> Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.
>
> But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
> chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
> isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
> order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
> voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
> cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
> is what we all want to achieve :-)
>
> A.
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same
> time:
> >
> > - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
> > after the election has finished)
> >
> > - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> > right now.
> >
> > It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made,
> and
> > it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election
> works
> > (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> > wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
> > (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> > with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
> >
> > So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of
> Chapters
> > in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so,
> would
> > it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> > voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they
> have
> > indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Liam
> >
> >
> > --
> > wittylama.com
> > Peace, love & metadata
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.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,
> 
>



-- 
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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Michael Maggs
Consistent with our commitment to openness, WMUK published our vote on 
our website last Friday, the day it was agreed by the board. It's at
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Minutes_2016-04-29 for anyone who may be 
interested.


Best regards


Michael


Wikimedia_UK_logo_40px.png

Michael Maggs

Chair, Wikimedia UK



Liam Wyatt wrote:

It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same time:

- Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
after the election has finished)

- Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
right now.

It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made, and
it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election works
(where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
(and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.

So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of Chapters
in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so, would
it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they have
indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]

Thanks,
-Liam




___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Pharos
In fact, for those who have access to it, there is a list of statements at
the bottom of that page, listing statements from each chapthorg on their
method and time of voting:

https://chapters.wikimedia.ch/Appointment_process/2016/Voting#Statements

For example, our entry says:

"NYC: Decided by open public meeting on April 13, 2016."

I think it might be best to make that whole section publicly viewable.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Andrew Gray 
wrote:

> Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
> voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
> electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.
>
> I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
> Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.
>
> But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
> chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
> isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
> order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
> voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
> cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
> is what we all want to achieve :-)
>
> A.
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> > It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same
> time:
> >
> > - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
> > after the election has finished)
> >
> > - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> > right now.
> >
> > It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made,
> and
> > it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election
> works
> > (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> > wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
> > (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> > with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
> >
> > So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of
> Chapters
> > in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so,
> would
> > it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> > voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they
> have
> > indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Liam
> >
> >
> > --
> > wittylama.com
> > Peace, love & metadata
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.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,
> 
>
___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Andrew Gray
Yes, for clarity, this is what I meant - a public list of who has
voted so far (or who hasn't - it's much the same thing, as the overall
electorate is known), but not a list of the votes.

I'm quite happy with confidential voting - either fully secret or, as
Itzik says, just confidential until the end of the vote.

But knowing *who* has voted would be quite useful. Ultimately, the
chapters represent large chunks of the community, and if the chapter
isn't doing its job then it's good their members know about it in
order to chase them. Discovering afterwards that your chapter hasn't
voted is interesting, but not very useful at making sure votes get
cast while there's still time - and ultimately, I think that last part
is what we all want to achieve :-)

A.

On 3 May 2016 at 16:21, Liam Wyatt  wrote:
> It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same time:
>
> - Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
> after the election has finished)
>
> - Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
> right now.
>
> It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made, and
> it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election works
> (where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
> wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
> (and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
> with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.
>
> So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of Chapters
> in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so, would
> it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
> voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they have
> indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]
>
> Thanks,
> -Liam
>
>
> --
> wittylama.com
> Peace, love & metadata
> ___
> 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, 
> 



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Gnangarra
Agree Sam additionally it'd be even more grueling for some candidates who
would be expected to field these calls at 2-3 in the morning and then be
compared to someone who was fortunate enough to have their chat at 2-3 in
the afternoon..

As for publishing a list of who voted I see no issue with that, also not
all that concerned about the way we voted being published either as it is
the result of consultation with our members, within our committee, and with
no further factors to consider raised by the people who attended the Berlin
Conference WMAU committee reconfirmed our votes last night. All which will
be on the public record anyway when our Secretary publishes the minutes
from that meeting

On 4 May 2016 at 00:05, Sam Klein  wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip  wrote:
>
> >
> > JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
> > candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2]
> [3]
> > [4] [5] [6]
> > And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
> > people.
> >
>
> Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr
> Skype chats, one with each chapthorg?  That sounds grueling. I thought the
> value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead of
> 40 times.
>
> Sam
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Sam Klein
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM, attolippip  wrote:

>
> JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
> candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2] [3]
> [4] [5] [6]
> And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
> people.
>

Does this mean that each candidate is expected to have 40 different 1-hr
Skype chats, one with each chapthorg?  That sounds grueling. I thought the
value of public questions was that candidates could answer once instead of
40 times.

Sam
___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Hello,

Actually I favor very much the idea that, after the election, there is
a public list of the chapters that did cast the vote. (Not
necessarily, which chapter supported which candidate, but that is
another discussion. In 2012, the list of candidates was not published
at all, by the way.)

I remember from 2012 that, shortly before the elections, I heard a
chairman from a specific chapter talking with very, very strong
opinions about the movement. It struck me to find out later that that
chapter didn't cast its vote. Isn't it important for a chapter to
influence the movement as a whole?

Also from the year 2012 (and 2013) I remember that many chapters that
we from the WCA contacted did not respond at all. So I am not
surprised to read now that only one third did vote until now.

Lane wrote:
"Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support
less organized chapters in voting."

I usually agree with Lane, but in this case I don't see that "duty".
It is the responsibility of each and every chapter to become active,
not anybody else's responsibility.

Possibly, if a chapter board did not cast a vote, it is interesting
for the members of the chapter to know that. Maybe the board can come
up with a good reason.

Kind regards
Ziko


2016-05-03 17:40 GMT+02:00 Laurentius :
> Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 08.05 -0400, Lane Rasberry ha scritto:
>> Or - I could be wrong. Should the list of voting chapters be reported?
>> What is the correct interpretation of closed voting in this case?
>
> At the end of 2015, before starting the election process, there has been
> some discussion about this on Meta.
> The result was in favour of publishing, after the end of the election,
> the list of affiliates who voted.
> The idea of publishing a partial list during the voting process was not
> proposed; personally I think it's fine and it makes sense, but I'd like
> to hear a few opinions about this from the involved affiliates.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] [ASBS] Vote of Wikimedia Deutschland

2016-05-03 Thread Tim Moritz Hector
Dear fellow Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Deutschland’s Board has just casted their vote for the Affiliate
Selected Board Seats, and I would like to share our reasoning behind our
decision. We will vote for three candidates and rank them in the following
order:

#1 Christophe Henner
#2 Nataliia Tymkiv
#3 Jan Ainali

We identified different criteria that helped us making this choice:

* Experience in Wikimedia Movement organizations and with other non-profit
organizations
* Connection to the communities
* Ability to strengthen and to shape the Board, especially in the light of
the current gridlocked situation and challenges
* Excellent communication and negotiation skills
* Clear agenda for the upcoming term
* Diversity with regards to gender and geography

Christophe has lead Wikimédia France through diverse change processes. He
steered the organization through fundraising and governance crises and is
deeply rooted in the global Wikimedia movement. He has a clear vision about
the challenges and changes for Wikimedia as in international Organisation
and movement  in the upcoming term, and has proven to have outstanding
communication and negotiation skills. His leadership experience from being
the deputy CEO at an entertainment online publisher completes his profile.
All this makes him the number one candidate for us, especially in view of
the current leadership situation at the head of the movement.

Nataliia also has a lot of leadership experience within and outside the
Wikimedia movement. She has lead Wikimedia Ukraine through a change process
and brings a high level of passion as well as clarity about roles and
responsibilities with her. We believe that with her leadership style and
sense for cooperation, she can contribute innovation and a healthy part of
disruption to the Board. On top of that, she brings essential skills from
being a finance director of a large ukrainian NGO that works in the human
rights sector.

Jan has gathered his extensive experience in the Movement in a volunteer
capacity on Wikimedia Sverige’s Board as well as their Executive Director.
We know Jan for being a consensus-oriented, prudent leader in the movement
and a strong advocate for free knowledge. He has gained leadership-skills
in boards of organisations larger than the Wikimedia Foundation,
undoubtedly has strong communication-competences and with his background in
Innovation and Design Engineering and his passion for the Wikimedia
projects, he seems to fit most of our abovementioned criteria for the
candidates as well.

We are confident that these three candidates can turn our current crisis
into an opportunity for strengthening the movement and provide the
essential leadership to shape a strong and efficient Wikimedia that we can
all be proud being part of.

Best regards,
Tim Moritz Hector

Chair of the Board
Wikimedia Deutschland

Wikimedia Deutschland | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | D-10963 Berlin
Tel.: +49 (0)30 - 219 158 260http://www.wikimedia.de
___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread attolippip
Dear Lorenzo,

You can ask the chapters that voted already, if they are okay with
publishing the list.
I think. Personally I do not see a problem, but who knows.

JFYI, Wikimedia Ukraine has not voted yet, as we wanted to talk to the
candidates via skype/hangouts before making the final decision [1] [2] [3]
[4] [5] [6]
And during Wikimedia Conference we had a chance to talk only to three
people.
So we shall have a Board sitting on Friday, I hope.

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:B1mbo#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ainali#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Siska.Doviana#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Effeietsanders#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MADe#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Legoktm#Affiliate-selected_Board_seats

Best regards,
antanana / Nataliia Tymkiv
Wikimedia Ukraine

2016-05-03 18:40 GMT+03:00 Laurentius :

> Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 08.05 -0400, Lane Rasberry ha scritto:
> > Or - I could be wrong. Should the list of voting chapters be reported?
> > What is the correct interpretation of closed voting in this case?
>
> At the end of 2015, before starting the election process, there has been
> some discussion about this on Meta.
> The result was in favour of publishing, after the end of the election,
> the list of affiliates who voted.
> The idea of publishing a partial list during the voting process was not
> proposed; personally I think it's fine and it makes sense, but I'd like
> to hear a few opinions about this from the involved affiliates.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Laurentius
Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 19.09 +0700, John Mark Vandenberg ha
scritto:
> This is a bit odd.  I vaguely remember that in previous years that
> some chapters held discussions with their members online, and publicly
> published the chapter decision before it was recorded on chapters
> wiki.  Is that no longer possible?

This is still possible, of course!
Any chapter can choose its internal processes: whether to have a
discussion in their board, in the members' mailing list, or in the
general assembly, or whether to publicly publish their vote or not.

Laurentius



___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Laurentius
Il giorno mar, 03/05/2016 alle 08.05 -0400, Lane Rasberry ha scritto:
> Or - I could be wrong. Should the list of voting chapters be reported?
> What is the correct interpretation of closed voting in this case?

At the end of 2015, before starting the election process, there has been
some discussion about this on Meta.
The result was in favour of publishing, after the end of the election,
the list of affiliates who voted.
The idea of publishing a partial list during the voting process was not
proposed; personally I think it's fine and it makes sense, but I'd like
to hear a few opinions about this from the involved affiliates.

Lorenzo



___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Liam Wyatt
It seems like people are talking about two separate things at the same time:

- Some people are taking about publishing *the votes* (either before, or
after the election has finished)

- Some people are talking about publishing *the list of who has voted*
right now.

It is this second thing that I understood to be the request being made, and
it is also completely consistent with the way the community-election works
(where the voter, but not their vote, is published immediately). I also
wouldn't think that publishing the names of the Chapters that have voted
(and therefore identifying which ones have not yet) is still consistent
with the preference that the *vote itself* remain private.

So, in order for the community (and those of us who are members of Chapters
in particular) to encourage the chapters have not yet voted to do so, would
it be possible to please publish a table on Meta of the list of
voting-eligible organisations, and a "tick" next to their name if they have
indeed already submitted their vote. [NOT who they voted for]

Thanks,
-Liam


-- 
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread James Heilman
I think the proposal was to publish whether or not specific chapters have
voted at all, not what their votes specifically were.

J

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> I'm against publishing the chapters votes before the end of the elections.
> More than that - I even offered before the election started that the
> chapters votes will be confidential between them and be collected by
> the moderators.
>
> I believe that each chapter needs to vote as he think, not be looking on
> others votes and decide by the way the wind's blowing. This is the way most
> elections are done.
>
> After the election, I don't have problem that the chapters votes will be
> publish publicly.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Regards,Itzik Edri*
> Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
> +972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am unable to report which chapters voted. The voting process is closed.
> > Right now I have to recommend encouraging all chapters to vote.
> >
> > The election rules are decided by chapters and chapters have said closed
> > election. I do not think this was a well-discussed rule, but whatever the
> > case, it cannot be changed by the community and needs to be changed by
> > chapters. Community discussion could influence it. I think that it is a
> > rule that could change. Asking chapters to have open voting could be
> > another reason to contact chapters, or open voting might be a problem - I
> > am not sure.
> >
> > Even if voting were not completely open, there could be other kinds of
> > openness, like just a list of who voted. Right now, I cannot provide
> that.
> > Any chapter can look at the list and see who voted and who did not.
> >
> > For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> > to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> > they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> > chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
> >
> > yours,
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lane,
> > >
> > > While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
> > > chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
> > > they've voted before doing this...
> > >
> > > As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
> > > which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
> > > However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
> > > has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
> > > presumably already know whether they've voted or not.
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
> > > voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
> > > materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
> > > help encourage some groups to actually vote.
> > >
> > > Andrew.
> > >
> > > On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> > > chapters'
> > > > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> > trustees.
> > > > In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
> > > wishes
> > > > to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
> > vote
> > > > by the May 7 end of election.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
> > > support
> > > > less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> > > > chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate
> being
> > > > reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The
> election
> > > > result is more sound with more votes.
> > > >
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> > > >
> > > > yours,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lane Rasberry
> > > > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > > > 206.801.0814
> > > > l...@bluerasberry.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,
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Andrew Gray
> > >   andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel <
it...@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

> I'm against publishing the chapters votes before the end of the elections.
> More than that - I even offered before the election started that the
> chapters votes will be confidential between them and be collected by
> the moderators.
>
> I believe that each chapter needs to vote as he think, not be looking on
> others votes and decide by the way the wind's blowing. This is the way most
> elections are done.
>
> After the election, I don't have problem that the chapters votes will be
> publish publicly.
>
>
Itzik, just for clarity - I think Lane suggested that it would be optimal
to release the information WHO voted (to enable encouraging those who have
not), rather than HOW they voted.

dj
___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
I'm against publishing the chapters votes before the end of the elections.
More than that - I even offered before the election started that the
chapters votes will be confidential between them and be collected by
the moderators.

I believe that each chapter needs to vote as he think, not be looking on
others votes and decide by the way the wind's blowing. This is the way most
elections are done.

After the election, I don't have problem that the chapters votes will be
publish publicly.





*Regards,Itzik Edri*
Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel
+972-(0)-54-5878078 | http://www.wikimedia.org.il
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment!


On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Lane Rasberry  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am unable to report which chapters voted. The voting process is closed.
> Right now I have to recommend encouraging all chapters to vote.
>
> The election rules are decided by chapters and chapters have said closed
> election. I do not think this was a well-discussed rule, but whatever the
> case, it cannot be changed by the community and needs to be changed by
> chapters. Community discussion could influence it. I think that it is a
> rule that could change. Asking chapters to have open voting could be
> another reason to contact chapters, or open voting might be a problem - I
> am not sure.
>
> Even if voting were not completely open, there could be other kinds of
> openness, like just a list of who voted. Right now, I cannot provide that.
> Any chapter can look at the list and see who voted and who did not.
>
> For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
>
> yours,
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lane,
> >
> > While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
> > chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
> > they've voted before doing this...
> >
> > As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
> > which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
> > However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
> > has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
> > presumably already know whether they've voted or not.
> >
> > Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
> > voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
> > materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
> > help encourage some groups to actually vote.
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
> > On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> > chapters'
> > > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
> trustees.
> > > In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
> > wishes
> > > to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
> vote
> > > by the May 7 end of election.
> > >
> > > Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
> > support
> > > less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> > > chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
> > > reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
> > > result is more sound with more votes.
> > >
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> > >
> > > yours,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lane Rasberry
> > > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > > 206.801.0814
> > > l...@bluerasberry.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,
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> >   andrew.g...@dunelm.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,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Gregory Varnum
I can appreciate chapters wanting their vote to be confidential. However, 
publishing who has voted seems reasonable - and in line with our other 
elections (where you can see who voted, but not how they voted).

Since before I served on AffCom, I have heard from affiliates how important it 
is to them to have a voice in WMF Governance. This is a great opportunity for 
that, and I am a little disappointed the turnout is, so far, rather low. 
Seeking these opportunities is less than half the effort, actually utilizing 
them when offered is perhaps even more important (IMHO).

-greg (User:Varnent)


> On May 3, 2016, at 8:32 AM, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> 
> It is possible to self disclose now - it is a wiki. The problem is that
> there is no table set up for anyone to do it, and then it is confusing to
> tell people to report in two places.
> 
> We could ask now, "who wants to self-disclose?" then copy those votes into
> a public space.
> 
> The ideal way would be to have a way to note intent to self disclose in the
> one voting location, then anyone on the chapters wiki could report those
> votes publicly. I think it is too much to ask to have voting organizations
> take more than one action to vote. I do not want voting to be complicated.
> 
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:09 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Lane Rasberry 
>> wrote:
>>> ..
>>> For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
>>> to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
>>> they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
>>> chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
>> 
>> This is a bit odd.  I vaguely remember that in previous years that
>> some chapters held discussions with their members online, and publicly
>> published the chapter decision before it was recorded on chapters
>> wiki.  Is that no longer possible?
>> 
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>> 
>> ___
>> 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,
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.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, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Lane Rasberry
It is possible to self disclose now - it is a wiki. The problem is that
there is no table set up for anyone to do it, and then it is confusing to
tell people to report in two places.

We could ask now, "who wants to self-disclose?" then copy those votes into
a public space.

The ideal way would be to have a way to note intent to self disclose in the
one voting location, then anyone on the chapters wiki could report those
votes publicly. I think it is too much to ask to have voting organizations
take more than one action to vote. I do not want voting to be complicated.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:09 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Lane Rasberry 
> wrote:
> >..
> > For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> > to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> > they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> > chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
>
> This is a bit odd.  I vaguely remember that in previous years that
> some chapters held discussions with their members online, and publicly
> published the chapter decision before it was recorded on chapters
> wiki.  Is that no longer possible?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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,
> 
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
>..
> For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> chapters seem to want to self-disclose.

This is a bit odd.  I vaguely remember that in previous years that
some chapters held discussions with their members online, and publicly
published the chapter decision before it was recorded on chapters
wiki.  Is that no longer possible?

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Lane Rasberry
Or - I could be wrong. Should the list of voting chapters be reported? What
is the correct interpretation of closed voting in this case?

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Lane Rasberry  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am unable to report which chapters voted. The voting process is closed.
> Right now I have to recommend encouraging all chapters to vote.
>
> The election rules are decided by chapters and chapters have said closed
> election. I do not think this was a well-discussed rule, but whatever the
> case, it cannot be changed by the community and needs to be changed by
> chapters. Community discussion could influence it. I think that it is a
> rule that could change. Asking chapters to have open voting could be
> another reason to contact chapters, or open voting might be a problem - I
> am not sure.
>
> Even if voting were not completely open, there could be other kinds of
> openness, like just a list of who voted. Right now, I cannot provide that.
> Any chapter can look at the list and see who voted and who did not.
>
> For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
> to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
> they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
> chapters seem to want to self-disclose.
>
> yours,
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lane,
>>
>> While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
>> chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
>> they've voted before doing this...
>>
>> As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
>> which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
>> However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
>> has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
>> presumably already know whether they've voted or not.
>>
>> Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
>> voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
>> materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
>> help encourage some groups to actually vote.
>>
>> Andrew.
>>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
>> chapters'
>> > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of
>> trustees.
>> > In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
>> wishes
>> > to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to
>> vote
>> > by the May 7 end of election.
>> >
>> > Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
>> support
>> > less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
>> > chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
>> > reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
>> > result is more sound with more votes.
>> >
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>> >
>> > yours,
>> >
>> > --
>> > Lane Rasberry
>> > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
>> > 206.801.0814
>> > l...@bluerasberry.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,
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Andrew Gray
>>   andrew.g...@dunelm.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,
>> 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.com
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Lane Rasberry
Hello,

I am unable to report which chapters voted. The voting process is closed.
Right now I have to recommend encouraging all chapters to vote.

The election rules are decided by chapters and chapters have said closed
election. I do not think this was a well-discussed rule, but whatever the
case, it cannot be changed by the community and needs to be changed by
chapters. Community discussion could influence it. I think that it is a
rule that could change. Asking chapters to have open voting could be
another reason to contact chapters, or open voting might be a problem - I
am not sure.

Even if voting were not completely open, there could be other kinds of
openness, like just a list of who voted. Right now, I cannot provide that.
Any chapter can look at the list and see who voted and who did not.

For the next election (in three years) I will propose a change. I want it
to be easier for chapters to self-report their votes in a public way, if
they choose to do so. Even if the election is closed, enough individual
chapters seem to want to self-disclose.

yours,



On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Andrew Gray 
wrote:

> Hi Lane,
>
> While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
> chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
> they've voted before doing this...
>
> As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
> which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
> However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
> has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
> presumably already know whether they've voted or not.
>
> Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
> voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
> materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
> help encourage some groups to actually vote.
>
> Andrew.
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016
> chapters'
> > election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> > In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who
> wishes
> > to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to vote
> > by the May 7 end of election.
> >
> > Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to
> support
> > less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> > chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
> > reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
> > result is more sound with more votes.
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
> >
> > yours,
> >
> > --
> > Lane Rasberry
> > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> > 206.801.0814
> > l...@bluerasberry.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,
> 
>
>
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.g...@dunelm.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,
> 




-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.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] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Andrew Gray
Hi Lane,

While I agree that it's good for people to encourage their
chapters/other organizations to vote, we would need to know whether
they've voted before doing this...

As far as I can see, the voting is entirely done on chapterswiki -
which is fair enough, and it's reasonable to have this semi-private.
However, it means that the only people who can tell if a given chapter
has voted or not are people closely associated with the chapters, who
presumably already know whether they've voted or not.

Would it be possible to have a public list of which organizations have
voted and which ones have yet to do so? I don't think this would
materially affect the confidentiality of the vote itself, and it might
help encourage some groups to actually vote.

Andrew.

On 3 May 2016 at 12:43, Lane Rasberry  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters'
> election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
> In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who wishes
> to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to vote
> by the May 7 end of election.
>
> Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support
> less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
> chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
> reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
> result is more sound with more votes.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016
>
> yours,
>
> --
> Lane Rasberry
> user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
> 206.801.0814
> l...@bluerasberry.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, 
> 



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.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, 


[Wikimedia-l] election for 2 seats on WMF board of trustees ends May 7...

2016-05-03 Thread Lane Rasberry
Hello,

As of now, 13 of 42 eligible organizations have voted in the 2016 chapters'
election for 2 of 10 Wikimedia Foundation seats on the board of trustees.
In the last election, 1/3 of organizations did not vote. Anyone who wishes
to influence the election could do so by asking sleepier chapters to vote
by the May 7 end of election.

Feel free also to pressure more active chapters to do their duty to support
less organized chapters in voting. Support can mean having
chapter-to-chapter encouragement to vote. All chapters appreciate being
reminded. All eligible organizations are supposed to vote. The election
result is more sound with more votes.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016

yours,

-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.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] Guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia

2016-05-03 Thread Peter Southwood
{{citation needed}} {{POV}} {{weasel}} {{OR}} etc...
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Bodhisattwa Mandal
Sent: Tuesday, 03 May 2016 9:27 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia

Hi,

Looks like a group of ?trolls are working in a organized way and disrupting the 
basic policies of Wikipedia. They call themselves Guerrilla skepticism on 
Wikipedia.


http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.in/

http://www.naturalnews.com/053719_David_Gorski_Wikipedia_VAXXED_documentary.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/053869_science_skeptics_Wikipedia_guerrilla_propaganda.html

https://www.facebook.com/GSoWproject/?fref=nf

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
___
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, 


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7539 / Virus Database: 4565/12154 - Release Date: 05/03/16


___
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] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-03 Thread SarahSV
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
> > The formal task force was created end of October. This task force
> involved
> > outside legal counsel and conducted professional fact finding.
> >
>
>
> What were the prime motivations for involving outside legal counsel, and
> how much money did this cost the Foundation?
> ___
>

​
And why was James excluded from the task force?

Sarah​
___
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] Crisis of Confidence

2016-05-03 Thread James Heilman
That Dariusz is willing to engage with the community is very positive. The
issues that occurred around the selecting of Arnnon are complicated and I
agree with Dariusz were more systemic in nature. I do not see the movement
as being well served by him stepping down.

James

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Fae, I can see no reason for Dariusz to leave the board. He seems to be
> decent and intelligent. The Arnnon thing was an error but it was clearly
> part of a broader problem. Yes, they all need training but that seems to be
> in the works. I hope he stays, and is re-elected if he chooses to run next
> time.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity) <
> nwil...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > With regard to "[the WMF board] delivering services that are of a high
> > > quality", all the metrics that the WMF report show the opposite. The
> > > WMF consistently fail to meet the performance targets they set for
> > > themselves, as you can see from the most recent quarterly report, they
> > > "missed", i.e. "failed", 35% of all their objectives.[3] In the Retail
> > > & Telecoms businesses I have worked in, a pattern of poor performance
> > > like this would see speedy major investment in change and improvement,
> > > including major changes at the board level.
> > > [...]
> > > 3.
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2015-16_Q2_(October-December).pdf=5
> >
> >
> >
> > The explanation for this, is at the top of
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_reviews
> > : "NB: In a mature 90-day goalsetting process, the “sweet spot” is for
> > about 75% of goals to be a success. Organizations that are meeting 100%
> of
> > their goals are not typically setting aggressive goals."
> > Note that partial successes are not also represented, if one just checks
> > the overview result; it's a simple binary system. See the textual notes
> for
> > details about partial successes within individual goals.
> > Plus, not reaching that 75% target of completely-successful goals, is
> > perhaps also attributable to the intense and widespread stress of that
> time
> > period...
> > Hope that helps.
> > ___
> > 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,
> 
>



-- 
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] Guerrilla skepticism on Wikipedia

2016-05-03 Thread Bodhisattwa Mandal
Hi,

Looks like a group of ?trolls are working in a organized way and disrupting
the basic policies of Wikipedia. They call themselves Guerrilla skepticism
on Wikipedia.


http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.in/

http://www.naturalnews.com/053719_David_Gorski_Wikipedia_VAXXED_documentary.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/053869_science_skeptics_Wikipedia_guerrilla_propaganda.html

https://www.facebook.com/GSoWproject/?fref=nf

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
___
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,