[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

0 people would have such proportionately high > representation compared to the broader community (through either > affiliate-selected or participant-selected seats). > > And, having read your "revised" versionno, just no. Projects don't > belong there. > > Riske

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

Here is the predicted org chart with Risker's suggestions: https://i.ibb.co/fpXyx3r/WMF-orgchart-2.png -Will On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:24 PM Bill Takatoshi wrote: > > Hi Anne, > > Thank you for both of your excellent questions. > > 1) In Germany, rank-and-file empl

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Foundation org chart

; 1) Labour representation? Huh? > 2) Where are the actual Wikimedia projects? I meanall of this is hubris > if the projects aren't on the org chart. They're the raison d'etre of every > aspect of the community. > > Risker/Anne > > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 at 19:03, Bill Takatosh

[Wikimedia-l] Foundation org chart

Earlier today I tried to predict what the WMF org chart will look like, but I wasn't confident about my suggestion, so I created a new email account, subscribed it to wikimedia-l, and tried to send from there. I learned that new subscribers are moderated, which seems sensible given the level of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustees elections, membership, quorum, and

Klein wrote: > > Can anyone from the elections committee comment? What is the current > plan?//S > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:05 PM Bill Takatoshi > wrote: > > > How long can the Foundation legally postpone Board of Trustees elections? > > > > > &g

[Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustees elections, membership, quorum, and

How long can the Foundation legally postpone Board of Trustees elections? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2020#Postpone? has a comment from April saying, "Once things get moving again, appopriate [sic] date for the election will be decided and an announcement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Is the Wikimedia-movement apolitical?

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:41 PM Yair Rand wrote: > > Neutral Point of View is a fundamental founding principle. Per the policy, > NPOV "is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot > be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." It > may not be

[Wikimedia-l] US passport issuance and immigration suspended

I have been waiting for more than three years for the WMF to settle the question (below) of whether our long-term editor community supports political activism, and if so, what sort, by surveying the opinions of established editors. I was promised that the WMF would include such questions in their

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

> No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate I too see nothing in common, and since at least a handful of people hold this view, could the parallels that they see to be made explicit, please? > pathological people, having been called out on being pathological I am having trouble finding

[Wikimedia-l] proposal for regular surveys of community opinion

Over the past few weeks I have been discussing how to correct the lack of information about community opinion and the disadvantages of relying on opt-in (RFCs or less formal "speak up and stick your neck out") methods for addressing the problem with Foundation staff, other community members, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] community survey request

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Nathan wrote: > > What would your intended use of the results of such a survey be? How do you > think the community, or any group of people, should interpret, value and > react to the results? I only intend that the results be published as soon

Re: [Wikimedia-l] community survey request

When a contentious question about the community's opinion is preventing consideration of one or more proposals, what is the best way forward, in general? I am considering commissioning a survey of community opinion from a neutral and respected third party who has published a well-received survey

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

>>> The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus >>> do not represent the Wikimedia movement. >> >> The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the >> Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia >> movement either > > Is the Community Process Steering

[Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

In the past two days I've been four off-list messages in response to my request for proposed banner language, all but one from James Salsman, who I recently defended here and who was subsequently "placed on moderation." I asked moderator Richard Ames whether it would be appropriate to forward his

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen wrote: > > I don't think this mailing list should be open to just any and > all discussion of politics, regardless of viewpoint. What is > and isn't appropriate to post is a delicate judgment call Again, the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] guidance from Foundation leadership as to where to draw the line on policy requests?

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Michael Peel wrote: > Have you seen Katherine's statement at: > https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/01/30/knowledge-knows-no-boundaries/ That statement is well worth reading. It says, "we believe in a world that encourages and protects the open