Even at the scale of the WMF, the costs of offset would not be high.
At the scale of individual travellers where a typical trip would cause less
than 1 tonne of emissions, and offsets available already at the 1$/tonne
price range and below - I would argue that if you or your organisation has
+1 to Mike's approach.
An *option* for carbon offsets seems worthwhile. A *requirement* seems
potentially at odds with our desire to be inclusive and accessible. And I
agree that something specifically tailored to a community built around
making information accessible would be a much better fit.
I would suggest taking a different approach. Paying for carbon offsets does not
further Wikimedia’s goals. It is, at best, a shortcut to brownie points as
measured by other organisations. Requiring volunteers to pay extra for carbon
offsets is doubly worse as they can’t then spend that money on
In case it is interesting, for the tenders at my workplace that require
offsetting, we include this requirement:
Carbon offsetting will be achieved by means of projects of the following
type: CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), JI (Joint Implementation) or VER
(Voluntary Emissions Reduction),
Any general questions like catering for virtual attendees can be
raised at the talk page for the 2020 LGBT+ conference. The
conference is at the proposal stage with funding yet to be agreed with
the WMF. The proposers will be happy to receive feedback and respond
If no previous
> This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has
> to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/
Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much air
travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to
(I'm not the most technical person, so feel free to correct imprecisions or
add better suggestions)
It feels like a blast from the past, but it turns out there's still a fair
amount of Yahoo/AOL users that are part of our community.
Just a fair warning: as has been known for a while now (at least
To clarify, the topic was "planning a conference for next year, we
could ask or require participants to factor in payments for carbon
This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has
to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/
When the WMF wants to "green" itself, the most effective way is to make its
software and operations greener. The software will reduce the need for
energy, the operations ensure that green energy is used. Reducing the need
for energy is an investment that will reduce the overall cost and has
Yay, it's turn for the Ukrainian language in the topic!
That's actually the thing that immediately makes me [even more] happy =)
This week I have personally more time to serve my community translating
relevant information, and this feels good.
Besides, any time someone uses 'thank' button to
In the discussion about the report from the WMF relating to
sustainability, mention was made of the potential use of carbon
offset. As part of planning a conference for next year, we could ask
or require participants to factor in payments for carbon offset. With
no experience in examining carbon
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 08:52, Henry Wood wrote:
> So the Ombudsman Commission is managed by a department that they are
> likely to want to report on?
No. The Ombudsman Commission oversees volunteer actions only. Complaints
about staff should be sent directly to the Wikimedia Foundation.
> Just noting in passing that, technically, the Ombudsman Commission formally
> reports to the WMF Board of Trustees, which has in turn delegated the
> ongoing management and responsibility for the commission to the WMF Trust &
> Safety Department.
So the Ombudsman Commission is managed by a
This week's email is late and short, for which I apologize. I have a
collection of information to share but I am trying to catch up on a backlog
of email and today is already so late in the week that I decided to send a
I thank WMF Engineering and Site Reliability Engineering
Mail list logo