[Wikimedia-l] Què us fa feliç aquesta setmana? / What makes you happy this week? (Week of 17 June 2018)

2018-06-16 Thread Pine W
Below are some recent highlights from the wikiverse.

Here is a Phabractor ticket regarding the showcase from Wikimedia Hackathon
2018 in Barcelona: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T195219

Here is the Wikidata report from the May 2018 issue of *This Month in GLAM*:
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/May_2018/Contents/Wikidata_report

What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
language.


On a personal note: this week I am planning to take a few days offline. If
someone else would start a "What makes you happy this week?" thread during
next weekend, I would be grateful.

Have a good week ahead.

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


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

2018-06-16 Thread Dennis During
Yes. I think I am. I wouldn't have thought that WMF would be so driven by
economics.  I would bail from this project and find another that was less
partisan, though fewer and fewer institutions seem nonpartisan to me.  I
expect that the WMF projects would be more to your liking without people of
my beliefs intruding on policy discussions.  I favor the WMF focusing its
efforts on serving a vast public by offering content that is not

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM, James Salsman  wrote:

> Dennis,
>
> Are you suggesting that public policy to support wikimedians outside
> of copyright and internet law would be outside of the basic remit as
> specified by the Mission?



​Basically yes.
​

> We should measure how much donors are likely
> to donate more or less for each of the issues.


​That is a short-run view.  I prefer institutions that seem committed to​ a
minimal core set of values.  That long-term commitment is not necessarily
consistent at all times with the current views of those currently choosing
to participate in these fora.  I am also surprised that you believe that
the economics of donations and grants should be driving the projects.  Is
WMF for sale to corporate donors, to large private donors, or to those who
craft seductive fund-raising messages?

I would also like to
> know the proportion of wikimedians who think the Mission is so
> restrictive.
>

​Facts are always nice,/

>
> > US only or worldwide
>
> Peter, both in proportion to optimized influence likelihoods.
>

​What is an "optimized influence likelihood"?​

>
> Best regards,
> Jim
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Dennis During  wrote:
> > I'd reconsider contributing content to WMF projects if WMF became a
> > partisan on issues outside its basic remit.
> >
> > On Jun 15, 2018 16:11, "James Salsman"  wrote:
> >
> > Regarding https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273
> >
> > I propose that the Executive Director resume regular periodic
> > correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
> > movement, beyond copyright and internet law advocacy that the
> > Foundation traditionally supports directly and indirectly. In
> > particular, I propose that the Executive Director ask donors to
> > support other organizations which are working for free college,[1-4]
> > single payer universal health care,[5] shorter work weeks,[6-7]
> > payroll subsidies,[8] and two-bracket taxation.[9]
> >
> > I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
> > wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
> > is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
> > survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
> > urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jim Salsman
> >
> > [1]
> > https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-
> college-california_n_6474940.html
> >
> > [2]
> > https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%
> 20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf
> >
> > [3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf
> >
> > [4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf
> >
> > [5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689
> >
> > [6]
> > https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-
> fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/
> >
> > [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length
> >
> > [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit
> >
> > [9]
> > https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c3
> 1542b6.pdf
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Dennis C. During
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Executive Director's Letter to Donors

2018-06-16 Thread James Salsman
Dennis,

Are you suggesting that public policy to support wikimedians outside
of copyright and internet law would be outside of the basic remit as
specified by the Mission? We should measure how much donors are likely
to donate more or less for each of the issues. I would also like to
know the proportion of wikimedians who think the Mission is so
restrictive.

> US only or worldwide

Peter, both in proportion to optimized influence likelihoods.

Best regards,
Jim

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Dennis During  wrote:
> I'd reconsider contributing content to WMF projects if WMF became a
> partisan on issues outside its basic remit.
>
> On Jun 15, 2018 16:11, "James Salsman"  wrote:
>
> Regarding https://twitter.com/SuePGardner/status/998302792946102273
>
> I propose that the Executive Director resume regular periodic
> correspondence with donors on other ways they can support the
> movement, beyond copyright and internet law advocacy that the
> Foundation traditionally supports directly and indirectly. In
> particular, I propose that the Executive Director ask donors to
> support other organizations which are working for free college,[1-4]
> single payer universal health care,[5] shorter work weeks,[6-7]
> payroll subsidies,[8] and two-bracket taxation.[9]
>
> I believe all of these goals are favored by wikimedians, for
> wikimedians, I predict at around 80% for the least popular. If there
> is any question I ask that a statistically robust and significant
> survey of the question among community and staff be conducted with the
> urgency commensurate that work in these areas deserves.
>
> Best regards,
> Jim Salsman
>
> [1]
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/free-community-college-california_n_6474940.html
>
> [2]
> https://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/20121212_Economics%20of%20Higher%20Ed_vFINAL.pdf
>
> [3] https://www.docdroid.net/epSjOI2/peracchi2006.pdf
>
> [4] https://www.docdroid.net/joXd2MZ/heckman2006.pdf
>
> [5] https://twitter.com/jsalsman/status/1007106802507378689
>
> [6]
> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/does-working-fewer-hours-make-you-more-productive/
>
> [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend#Length
>
> [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_Work_Pay_tax_credit
>
> [9]
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1595/12bb30b0ceddfe0525addf777bb2c31542b6.pdf
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

2018-06-16 Thread Pine W
While that's a good step to see, I think that an average of five hours per
week for nine months is still a lot to ask, and is not something that I'm
likely to recommend to most people.

However, I have the impression that WMF is trying to involve the community
in this in a significant way, and I appreciate the good intentions.

In this case, the good intentions and the practical realities are difficult
to reconcile. I doubt that there is a perfect solution. If I was in WMF's
position I would be thinking carefully about what mix of staff time and
volunteer time would be best.

If WMF was asking people to volunteer for an average of five hours per week
for one month, I would view that differently than asking people for an
average of five hours per week for nine months. For the latter, I doubt
that there will be many volunteers, and I think that attrition would be a
significant concern.

There aren't a lot of great options here, unfortunately. If requesting an
average of five hours per week for nine months is necessary, then I think
that compensating the participants for their time should be considered. I
wouldn't apply myself, but I think that it's unreasonable to ask people to
do so much work for free. I realize that a few selfless people on the
English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, Wikimania volunteers, and others
put in this kind of commitment and are not paid, but I think that such a
high level of sacrifice is unrealistic to ask of most people.


Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Lodewijk 
wrote:

> I don't like to steal Kaarel's thunder here, but he actually changed the
> number of hours from minimum 5 per week to average 5 per week (which is a
> significant improvement):
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/
> Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups=10598095&
> diff=18129628=18125168
>
>
> Probably good to know. Thanks Kaarel & Nicole.
>
> Best,
> Lodewijk
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Pine W  wrote:
>
> > Hi Kaarel,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to
> comment
> > > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
> > >
> > > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly
> to
> > > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
> > time
> > > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology &
> Product
> > > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
> > them
> > > than separating people with expertise and connections within both
> areas.
> > >
> >
> > I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the
> engineers
> > who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
> > the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious
> and
> > could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
> > could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share,
> here
> > or on the talk page
> > <
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
> > >,
> > your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the
> > best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain
> how
> > you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
> > Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication
> of
> > effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the
> talk
> > page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be
> good
> > to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
> > would
> > > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
> > > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
> > > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research
> and
> > > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
> > go
> > > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
> > the
> > > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice
> versa.
> > > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
> > Group
> > > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
> > > throughout the process.
> > >
> >
> > I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think
> that
> > they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that
> they
> > will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
> > willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
> > activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
> > diversity of 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Open Call for Working Group members

2018-06-16 Thread Lodewijk
I don't like to steal Kaarel's thunder here, but he actually changed the
number of hours from minimum 5 per week to average 5 per week (which is a
significant improvement):
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups=10598095=18129628=18125168


Probably good to know. Thanks Kaarel & Nicole.

Best,
Lodewijk

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 5:29 PM Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Kaarel,
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
> >  Dear Pine and Lodewijk,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feedback. I would like to comment
> > on some of your concerns in my role as the Process Architect.
> >
> > The scope for all groups has been defined in quite a broad way, mainly to
> > keep the level of conversations high and mitigate the risk of too much
> time
> > being spent on details and tactical issues. For the Technology & Product
> > group for example, we think that there are more benefits in connecting
> them
> > than separating people with expertise and connections within both areas.
> >
>
> I concede that I know much less about MediaWiki than some of the engineers
> who have been here for years, but I think that I know enough to say that
> the scope of work for the Product and Technology group looks ambitious and
> could be segmented into two or more WGs with more specific scopes that
> could coordinate their work when necessary.  Perhaps you could share, here
> or on the talk page
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology
> >,
> your analysis that led you to conclude that a single working group is the
> best way to go for the Product & Technology group. Also, please explain how
> you anticipate that the group will sync its efforts with TechCom and the
> Platform Evolution initiative, so as to avoid confusion and duplication of
> effort. If someone like Victoria would like to comment here or on the talk
> page, I'd be glad to hear their perspective. I think that it would be good
> to get clarity on these issues early in the process.
>
>
>
> >
> > We are indeed looking for high commitment in the Working Groups as we
> would
> > like the participants to be well informed and effective in the
> > conversations. Working Group members will not only be participating in
> > discussion meetings, but reading through existing materials, research and
> > preparing for the meetings. In addition to that, we expect some time to
> go
> > to contextualizing these materials and carrying the conversations from
> the
> > Working Groups into their “home” groups and communities – and vice versa.
> > This takes time and we want to be clear about it, as to avoid Working
> Group
> > dropout, burnout and ensure the presence of the diverse perspectives
> > throughout the process.
> >
>
> I am glad that you are being clear about your goals. However, I think that
> they will limit the diversity of participants to people who think that they
> will have lots of available volunteer time for nine months and/or are
> willing to divert 5+ hours per week from other valuable volunteer
> activities. I think that this goal is inadvisable for the sake of the
> diversity of the WGs and also because of the potential diversion of
> significant volunteer hours from other valuable activities.
>
>
> >
> > For both volunteers and staff members it will mean prioritizing. That is
> > the reason we are encouraging discussions inside your communities,
> groups,
> > collaboratives and organizations to decide who are the best
> representatives
> > of your perspectives and expertise. For many organizations and groups,
> the
> > coming year will be a transition year, with time set aside for strategic
> > planning and a redistribution of responsibilities within the organization
> > or group. As to individuals - it is of course up to them to decide what
> > they can manage and not and what are the priorities in their
> contributions.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, at this point, I am not going to recommend that most people
> participate in these WGs because I feel that the time commitment that you
> are requesting is excessive. Of course, volunteers are free to make their
> own choices, but volunteering for WGs is not a course of action that I am
> likely to recommend to most people. I am not trying to undermine your good
> intentions, but I think that you are requesting far too much and that you
> would be more successful in encouraging diverse participation if your
> requests for volunteers' time was more modest.
>
>
> >
> > Thank you so much for the feedback targeted towards ensuring clarity
> around
> > the process and some of the specific points regarding participation in
> the
> > Working Groups.
> >
>
>
> Again, I appreciate your clarifying your expectations, although I would
> encourage you to revise them.
>
> Also, please respond to my question about the budget for this phase of the
> strategy process that I made in my