Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey

2016-09-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:19 AM, James Forrester 
wrote:

> All,
>
> *TL;DR*: Communities using Flow are invited to fill out a survey about what
> they want to see from Flow,


From this web page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow#Development_status

"Starting in October 2015, Flow is not in active development."

There have been many questions asked in various venues over the last year
about whether Flow is alive or dead, and what its future looks like. James,
perhaps you could take a moment to address that fundamental question?

It's quite odd to have a survey published about something that's been
declared defunct (albeit unconvincingly).

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey

2016-09-06 Thread James Forrester
All,

*TL;DR*: Communities using Flow are invited to fill out a survey about what
they want to see from Flow,[Y]. It is administered by a third-party
service. It will not require an e-mail or your username. See our privacy
statement.[Z]

We in the Collaboration Team have currently paused major development of
Flow. We continue to maintain it, fixing urgent bugs and adding minor
features, but we're not planning to put large-scale efforts into improving
it further in the current fiscal year (until June 2017). Flow is currently
enabled on ten wikis as a beta feature, which allows intrepid users to
convert their user talk page to Flow.[X] Some other communities are trying
it in various ways. We plan to support these communities in the future, and
we need their input to build a strategy.

This survey is so that you can help us make decisions about the way forward
in this area by sharing your thoughts about Flow — what works, what
doesn't, and what should be improved? We remain interested in the
structured discussions that the Flow project provides, and have a list of
five big areas we think are most needed (based on community requests and
user feedback) to make it more useful: searching, categorising, moving,
watching activity, and dealing with history.

This survey will help us to prioritise future development of Flow. However,
there are lots of other things on which we could instead work, and we hope
that through this survey we will identify the key areas for everyone so
that it is as useful as possible for those that wish to use it.

There are some areas in which Flow is currently weak for some use cases,
and we don't advocate its active use by wikis which lack the expertise on
how to use it. Because of this, we're not actively looking for further
wikis to get the beta feature at this time, but if your wiki wants it, you
can request it on this page.[X]

Please fill out the survey,[Y] which is administered by a third-party
service. It will not require an e-mail or your username. See our privacy
statement.[Z]

Thank you!

[X] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow/Request_Flow_on_a_page/Beta_feature

[Y] https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cHm4YCZ4AaoAOr3
[Z]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Survey_Privacy_Statement_for_Spring_2016_Flow_Survey


-- 

James D. Forrester
Lead Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
jforrester at wikimedia.org
 |
@jdforrester
___
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] Thinking outside the box

2016-09-06 Thread Jane Darnell
Yes to this: "the key issue is for us to build room for
people to  emerge but also to feel entitled to run for those position"

I would say this is a key issue at the very bottom as well, for example
just getting people to become a contributor to any one of our many
projects, whether it's Wikipedia, Commons, or anything else.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Christophe Henner 
wrote:

> Hi Rogol,
>
> The weird thing in this discussion is I kind of agree with everyone.
>
> Yes more diversity would be awesome. But in my opinion diversity should be
> something we achieve organicaly.
>
> So, from my biased perspective, the key issue is for us to build room for
> people to  emerge but also to feel entitled to run for those position.
>
> To also build ways to train people, to "groom" them and their potential.
> And we know that in our movement we have the smart people we will need in
> the coming years. It's up to us to help them emerge and take our seats.
>
> I gebuinely haven't a solution ready to work out of the box and there are
> people in our movement way more expert in those topics than me.
>
> And that might be something that could be adress during the strategy
> process. And the only way we will be able to tackle it properly is if first
> we can include everyone in our movement in the process, not just the "usual
> suspects".
>
> Le 6 sept. 2016 8:46 AM, "Anders Wennersten"  a
> écrit :
>
> > I am very happy how this nowadays works out.
> >
> > We have now a lot of chapters, each with a Board. And here the members
> are
> > not oldtimers and here is the appropriate first place to get into the
> > Wikmedia world.
> >
> > And there are many bodies who you can then turn to to get further into
> the
> > Wikimedia world, like Affcom or being a member of  Simple Annual Plan
> > Grants Committee or other grant committees. Also here more or less
> > newcomers are welcome.
> >
> > But for the core bodies like the Board, FDC or the BGC supporting
> > committee, I am very pleased to see that we get a lot of people with long
> > Wikimedia experience. And as they are frequently replaced, I see no
> problem
> > and only advantages
> >
> > Anders
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Den 2016-09-06 kl. 08:33, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:
> >
> >> I think Pine's message rather illustrates my point.  Pine seems to
> assume
> >> that the alternative is between people experienced in the WMF ways of
> >> doing
> >> things and novices.  Actually, there are plenty of people in the world
> >> with
> >> experience in being trustees of non-proft organisations, and technical
> >> expertise, and experience of knowledge representation and dissemination,
> >> and the robustness to hold senior employees to account, who are not
> >> closely
> >> connected with the WMF or its affiliates.  They mainly live a long way
> >> from
> >> Silicon Valley, too.
> >>
> >> For the avoidance of doubt, I have never been a candidate for, let alone
> >> held, any position, paid or voluntary, in or related to the WMF or any
> >> associated organisation.
> >>
> >> "Rogol"
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >> i/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/wik
> > i/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] Thinking outside the box

2016-09-06 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On 05.09.2016 23:41, Asaf Bartov wrote:
You clearly have a strong and abiding interest in movement governance, 
and

have been asking some good questions.  You should have submitted your
candidacy.[1]

To your point, I guess it can be taken as a reminder, but it does not 
seem
to me that the appointments were made *so as to minimize* influence by 
less
well-known figures.  Rather, it seems to me there was a strong emphasis 
on

suitability for the work expected from them (as distinct from other
considerations, such as "representation"); it is, of course, easier to
assess that suitability in people known to the people making the 
decision,
so old hands do have some advantage, but it isn't *because* they've 
been
around or because they are trusted not to disrupt or challenge the 
system.




Asaf, I believe in the announcements prior record of affiliation with 
WMF or one of the chapters was stated as an eligibility requirement. We 
should not be then surprised that only people with prior record of 
affiliation with WMF or one of the chapters were selected.


It is up to a debate whether this is the best strategy, but in the 
situation when out of the three community elected Board members only one 
is currently on the Board it could have been expected that the issue is 
sensitive.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
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] Thinking outside the box

2016-09-06 Thread
Picking up on Christophe's idea of improving "organically". It is a
good thing to be open to gradual organic improvement, this means that
the Wikimedia ecology of organizations adopt proven improvements based
on the results of varied and experimental changes.

This is one big drawback, referred to earlier in the email thread.
Organic growth may result in major changes but it eliminates the
possibility of major step changes, unless these happen in a single
disruptive upheaval where old rules and processes are broken. The
community RFC which resulted in an appointed WMF trustee resigning was
an example of how revolutionary changes can be forced on the
system,[1] but how much better it would be if unplanned changes like
this were avoided more often, by the deeper issues being surfaced early,
possibly through a more pro-active WMF strategy planning process.
I'm delighted that Christophe is an internal advocate for change, and has
the existing WMF strategy process in mind, so I hope there is scope for
investing in improving the strategy process itself.

Agreeing with Domedonfors' original point, for governance related
committees, a proportion of fresh viewpoints outside of the core
vocal community can be added by appointed professional seats, plus
committee roles can be deliberately spread between "long established
Wikimedians" and newbies that have other useful skills and experience
to bring. So, Domedonfors is correct that the recent appointments do
introduce a risk that entrenched viewpoints may be reinforced, rather
than evolving these committees to embrace potentially better
approaches to test out and foster improvements. Note that by
"reinforced", I'm not saying any committee has a single viewpoint, but
that the nature of the dialogue within committees, including hashing
out old disagreements, looks like it will follow the same path with
these appointments of long established Wikimedians and ex-WMF
managers, rather than carving a new agenda that may be able to
challenge both the WMF and Associates to step up their game and become
something different and better suited to the global open knowledge
internet-focused world of 2016, rather than be constrained and even
weighed down, by projects and strategies we established together over
a decade and a half ago.

Links
1. 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri

Fae

On 6 September 2016 at 09:00, Christophe Henner  wrote:
> Hi Rogol,
>
> The weird thing in this discussion is I kind of agree with everyone.
>
> Yes more diversity would be awesome. But in my opinion diversity should be
> something we achieve organicaly.
>
> So, from my biased perspective, the key issue is for us to build room for
> people to  emerge but also to feel entitled to run for those position.
>
> To also build ways to train people, to "groom" them and their potential.
> And we know that in our movement we have the smart people we will need in
> the coming years. It's up to us to help them emerge and take our seats.
>
> I gebuinely haven't a solution ready to work out of the box and there are
> people in our movement way more expert in those topics than me.
>
> And that might be something that could be adress during the strategy
> process. And the only way we will be able to tackle it properly is if first
> we can include everyone in our movement in the process, not just the "usual
> suspects".
>
> Le 6 sept. 2016 8:46 AM, "Anders Wennersten"  a
> écrit :
>
>> I am very happy how this nowadays works out.
>>
>> We have now a lot of chapters, each with a Board. And here the members are
>> not oldtimers and here is the appropriate first place to get into the
>> Wikmedia world.
>>
>> And there are many bodies who you can then turn to to get further into the
>> Wikimedia world, like Affcom or being a member of  Simple Annual Plan
>> Grants Committee or other grant committees. Also here more or less
>> newcomers are welcome.
>>
>> But for the core bodies like the Board, FDC or the BGC supporting
>> committee, I am very pleased to see that we get a lot of people with long
>> Wikimedia experience. And as they are frequently replaced, I see no problem
>> and only advantages
>>
>> Anders

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
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] Thinking outside the box

2016-09-06 Thread Christophe Henner
Hi Rogol,

The weird thing in this discussion is I kind of agree with everyone.

Yes more diversity would be awesome. But in my opinion diversity should be
something we achieve organicaly.

So, from my biased perspective, the key issue is for us to build room for
people to  emerge but also to feel entitled to run for those position.

To also build ways to train people, to "groom" them and their potential.
And we know that in our movement we have the smart people we will need in
the coming years. It's up to us to help them emerge and take our seats.

I gebuinely haven't a solution ready to work out of the box and there are
people in our movement way more expert in those topics than me.

And that might be something that could be adress during the strategy
process. And the only way we will be able to tackle it properly is if first
we can include everyone in our movement in the process, not just the "usual
suspects".

Le 6 sept. 2016 8:46 AM, "Anders Wennersten"  a
écrit :

> I am very happy how this nowadays works out.
>
> We have now a lot of chapters, each with a Board. And here the members are
> not oldtimers and here is the appropriate first place to get into the
> Wikmedia world.
>
> And there are many bodies who you can then turn to to get further into the
> Wikimedia world, like Affcom or being a member of  Simple Annual Plan
> Grants Committee or other grant committees. Also here more or less
> newcomers are welcome.
>
> But for the core bodies like the Board, FDC or the BGC supporting
> committee, I am very pleased to see that we get a lot of people with long
> Wikimedia experience. And as they are frequently replaced, I see no problem
> and only advantages
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Den 2016-09-06 kl. 08:33, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:
>
>> I think Pine's message rather illustrates my point.  Pine seems to assume
>> that the alternative is between people experienced in the WMF ways of
>> doing
>> things and novices.  Actually, there are plenty of people in the world
>> with
>> experience in being trustees of non-proft organisations, and technical
>> expertise, and experience of knowledge representation and dissemination,
>> and the robustness to hold senior employees to account, who are not
>> closely
>> connected with the WMF or its affiliates.  They mainly live a long way
>> from
>> Silicon Valley, too.
>>
>> For the avoidance of doubt, I have never been a candidate for, let alone
>> held, any position, paid or voluntary, in or related to the WMF or any
>> associated organisation.
>>
>> "Rogol"
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/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/wik
> i/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] Thinking outside the box

2016-09-06 Thread Anders Wennersten

I am very happy how this nowadays works out.

We have now a lot of chapters, each with a Board. And here the members 
are not oldtimers and here is the appropriate first place to get into 
the Wikmedia world.


And there are many bodies who you can then turn to to get further into 
the Wikimedia world, like Affcom or being a member of  Simple Annual 
Plan Grants Committee or other grant committees. Also here more or less 
newcomers are welcome.


But for the core bodies like the Board, FDC or the BGC supporting 
committee, I am very pleased to see that we get a lot of people with 
long Wikimedia experience. And as they are frequently replaced, I see no 
problem and only advantages


Anders







Den 2016-09-06 kl. 08:33, skrev Rogol Domedonfors:

I think Pine's message rather illustrates my point.  Pine seems to assume
that the alternative is between people experienced in the WMF ways of doing
things and novices.  Actually, there are plenty of people in the world with
experience in being trustees of non-proft organisations, and technical
expertise, and experience of knowledge representation and dissemination,
and the robustness to hold senior employees to account, who are not closely
connected with the WMF or its affiliates.  They mainly live a long way from
Silicon Valley, too.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never been a candidate for, let alone
held, any position, paid or voluntary, in or related to the WMF or any
associated organisation.

"Rogol"
___
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] Thinking outside the box

2016-09-06 Thread Rogol Domedonfors
I think Pine's message rather illustrates my point.  Pine seems to assume
that the alternative is between people experienced in the WMF ways of doing
things and novices.  Actually, there are plenty of people in the world with
experience in being trustees of non-proft organisations, and technical
expertise, and experience of knowledge representation and dissemination,
and the robustness to hold senior employees to account, who are not closely
connected with the WMF or its affiliates.  They mainly live a long way from
Silicon Valley, too.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never been a candidate for, let alone
held, any position, paid or voluntary, in or related to the WMF or any
associated organisation.

"Rogol"
___
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,