On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Wikimedians, please review something we are working on for the Wikimedia
> Foundation, the Technical Collaboration Guideline [0].
>
>
>
Keegan, thank you for this, to you and everyone who has worked on it. It's
a very we
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 moti
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Denny Vrandečić
wrote:
> The protection of any personal or confidential information was, to the best
> of my knowledge, at all time guaranteed and has not been compromised. The
> official task force, set up by the Trustees, worked under the standards of
> keeping
Denny, you wrote: "I was particularly worried about James’ lack of
understanding of confidential matters ..." But you seem to be saying that
James wanted to respect the confidentiality that had been promised to staff.
Sarah
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke
wrote:
> Just to be
Dario and Aaron, thanks for letting us know about this. Is the research
available in writing for people who don't want to sit through the video?
Sarah
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Aaron Halfaker
wrote:
> Reminder, this showcase is starting in 5 minutes. See the stream here:
> https://www.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:17 PM, carl hansen
wrote:
> https://about.commonsearch.org/
>
> "We are building a nonprofit search engine for the Web"
>
> Sounds alot like Knowledge Engine, if there were such a thing.
> Any overlap with wikimedia projects?
>
Thanks for the link, Carl. Erik and Lydia
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> As Sarah says, a dedicated transparency officer within the community
> engagement department would be a great idea, because this is a
> community-facing issue. I'd be interested in hearing Maggie's views on
> that.
>
I've started a page wh
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> This seems to be a recurring (and daunting) pattern. People call for
> transparency about a particular issue. Eventually, someone in a leadership
> position responds that yes, demands for transparency about this issue are
> quite reasonabl
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Jimmy Wales
wrote:
>
> ...
> The truth is, I am genuinely
> bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things
> that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact.
>
> With one exception that I can think of, everything James has said
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> And no, I'm not a fan how things have played out so far, and I'm not
> arguing for just moving on without addressing remaining grievances.
> But this isn't how we should move forward.
>
Erik, what do you see as the alternative?
There is a
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
> But whatever, let's open up yet another thread for people to go after each
> other.
>
> Keegan, we've been told since the end of December that Jimmy favours
radical transparency regarding James's removal and surrounding issues. But
it's n
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
wrote:
>
> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to
> release an email?
>
Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about
whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:11 PM, jytdog wrote:
> How do we work out what actually happened, and how do we resolve the
> contradictions?
>
Several people have asked Jimmy to release his 30 December 2015 email to
James, in which he apparently explains in part why James was removed.
Jimmy said on
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:10 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
>
> Just to confirm, all Jimmy's email in these threads were in my Gmail spam
> folder when I looked.
>
> If you're using Gmail, go look at the spam folder and bring his messages
> back in...
>
>
That is why I asked Jimmy a question yesterday
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Jimmy Wales
wrote:
>
> James had gotten, from somewhere, the idea that there really was a
> secret project to build a Google-competing search engine. We had a
> discussion where I told him that wasn't right. We had further
> discussions at the board level of wha
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 2/28/16 5:45 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
> > Jimmy, will you respond to some of the other points I made? In
> > particular, what you wrote to James was dreadful. Even if you feel
> > that his actions were wrong, surely you can see that your
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 7:39 PM, SarahSV wrote:
> Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc
> James telling him why he had been removed?
>
> Jimmy, I see you responded to this in another thread, so I apologize for
the repetition. Thank you for the resp
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> No, this is wrong. I think things should be much more transparent at
> the WMF generally, and with the board in particular.
>
Jimmy, would you please release the 30 December 2015 email you sent Doc
James telling him why he had been remov
Doc James has asked Jimbo to release a 30 December 2015 email from Jimbo to
James, which explained the reasons for the removal. [1]
Apparently referring to James's removal, Jimbo has called for "full
publication of the details." [2]
Given that both parties have requested transparency, and that Ja
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Florence Devouard
wrote:
> Removing a COI is not the only issue at stake Sarah.
>
> Would WMF get involved into such a process, it would also possibly change
> its legal reponsibility. Right now, WMF does not get involved in the
> editorial process, which allows
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Pete Forsyth
wrote:
>
> However, if the core interest (as Sarah suggests) is to create paid
> opportunities for those who excel at Wikipedia writing and editing, those
> opportunities exist, and are increasingly available. The money doesn't need
> to flow through
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
wrote:
- Possibly POV will be compromised in paid articles.
> - Unhealthy situation within the editing community. In the debates with
> WMF staff when we disagreed, I always felt awkward, because they were paid
> arguing with me, and would do
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> Sarah, if the volunteer community was organised and had its own, functional
> representative body that had the community's trust and respect, that would,
> to some degree, correct the present asymmetry between us and the WMF.
>
> Our only rig
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:20 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>
> And here I thought you were going to suggest giving each editor a pool
> of $$ to assign to their favorite skunkworks projects.
>
> If we divide the current WMF budget ($58M) by the current number of
> monthly active editors (71K), then tak
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Denny Vrandecic
wrote:
> To make a few things about the Board of Trustees clear - things that will
> be true now matter how much you reorganize it:
>
> - the Board members have duties of care and loyalty to the Foundation - not
> to the movement.
>
> Hi Denny,
B
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>
> I think first we have to ask: why did many people feel attacked or in
> unwanted adversarial positions before (both among volunteers, and among
> staff)? What sort of interactions and behavior were seen as problematic,
> and what led up t
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> I believe a high-tech organization should invest in smart people creating
> unique technology. But I also think it should invest in people, period.
> Staff and volunteers must be cultivated and supported -- that's how loyalty
> and passion
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> Do you agree that an annotated summary of what has gone well and what
> hasn't, in the case of discussion technology like Liquid Threads and Flow,
> might help us to have generative conversations on this topic? Or do you
> disagree? What ki
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> Is it possible to imagine an effort that would not be shot down, but
> embraced?
>
> What would need to be different?
>
> These are the kinds of questions I wish the Wikimedia Foundation would get
> better at asking and exploring.
>
> Lila
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:43 AM, SarahSV wrote:
> > This isn't about how much people know. It's obvious that the KE was just
> a
> > flashpoint. It's about how to move forward without further casualties. I
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Despite everything, Anders, it is inappropriate for staff to publicly
> prosecute Lila. The board is aware of the many issues, quite a few not yet
> public on any forum. And it is for the board to solve.
>
>
Asaf, I agree, but it's happening
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:16 PM, James Alexander
wrote:
It is probably best for me not to get into a long count/counterpoint here
but I couldn't avoid not responding at all.
James, several staffers have talked about feeling unappreciated and
demoralized.
But that's how quite a few WMF staff mad
Lila, thank you for setting this up. I think it will help a lot.
Sarah
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Bence Damokos wrote:
> Thanks Lila for posting this.
> Just as a courtesy to those who follow the topic here on the mailing list,
> can you please send an update to this list whenever there
The grant application to the Knight Foundation says that the "Search Engine
by Wikipedia" budget for 2015–2016 is $2.4 million, and that this was
approved by the Board of Trustees. [1]
I can't find any reference to this in the minutes. Could one of the
trustees tell us which meeting approved it an
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:11 PM, SarahSV wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>> Dariuz, when I first heard about this, I understood it to mean that the
>> Foundation was seeking to fix the Wikimedia search func
Siko, I'm very sorry to see this. You were a strong supporter of women on
Wikipedia and of improved community harmony. It was a pleasure to work with
you on the grant application that led to the Ally Skills Workshops. I wish
you all the very best.
Sarah
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Steven Cro
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
> If we are to survive the next 10 years as the top 10 website, we should
> focus externally more, and start building more stuff that our readers care
> about. I totally agree that WMF has failed on many occasions here, and we,
> the comm
Lila, thank you for posting this. I have no technical background, so I only
have a limited understanding of how the Discovery project works. But as an
editor and reader I've been frustrated by the limitations of Wikipedia
search. Even things that I know are there, because I added them myself, are
r
Patrick, I also want to thank you and the team for having done this work.
It's extremely interesting and informative, and I think it will be very
helpful moving forward.
Sarah
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> Thank you for posting this -- excellent work don
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Florence Devouard
wrote:
I read you Sarah. Good point. Hmmm.
> But ianal...
>
> I am sure it was discussed back then, but I forgot the details.
>
> I contacted Brad on Facebook to suggest him to read the list. Perhaps he
> might be willing to comment on this ?
>
>
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Florence Devouard
wrote:
> Hi Adam
>
> The WMF has never been a membership based organization.
>
>
> Hi Anthere,
The bylaws as of September 2004 said: [1]
"
This membership [
v
olunteer active membership] shall consist of all persons interested in
supporting
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Adam Wight wrote:
> Dear friends,
>
> Recent events have made me curious to learn more about the Wikimedia
> Foundation's origins and history as a membership organization. The
> revelations about the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections being a
> recommendation
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
>
> just to clarify this issue: I have been signing the COI pledges/disclosures
> over the last 4 years, as the FDC member, and later as a Board member.
> Apparently I did not make myself clear that I think it is worthwhile to
> consider
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
>
> It was tenth several days ago, in Google.com. unfortunate and silly as it
> may sound, it was not in top ten on Google.pl or .de / .it for that matter.
> I'm not making excuses, just stating the fact.
>
> I'm investigating with the BG
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Matthew Flaschen <
matthew.flasc...@gatech.edu> wrote:
> The board had an obligation to fully research both candidates, and insist
> on more time as needed to do so.
>
> Boryana Dineva, the Foundation's Vice-President of Human Resources
, wrote [1] to this maili
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
>
>> Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested
>> Arnnon Geshuri
>> for a seat on the Board?
>>
>>
> AFAIK we have not been sharing this information historically, and I don't
> think we are going to now - even the Board members
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Fæ wrote:
>
> > Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
Dariusz, would you please tell us who suggested
Arnnon Geshuri
for a seat on the Board?
Sarah
_
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> I do think there are two significant issues with Mr. Geshuri's appointment,
> though -- the second of which has not been brought up yet:
> (1) The Board did not apparently do basic due diligence in looking into his
> background
> (2) Mr. Geshu
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> > I give Lila 100% credit for this change and thank the Board for
> supporting
> > this change (and also to have recruited Lila with this as main purpose)
> >
>
> I would have to give this final point a big "citation needed" tag.
>
> -Pete
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Denny Vrandecic
wrote:
> I’ll tell you how I experienced it from my point of view: a few weeks ago,
> I had to turn to the Board in a confidential and important matter for me.
> And while writing my email, I felt that I probably should not write it as
> openly and
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
> With this action, eight Trustees with little accountability overruled
> several hundred volunteers and another Trustee who literally earned the
> most support votes of any Trustee in the organization's history.
>
> Any explanation of the re
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:43 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> On Dec 28th 2015 I was removed from the board of the Wikimedia Foundation.
> Many thanks to all those who gave me their support during the last
> election. I have worked in the last six month to honor the trust placed in
> me by advocating f
52 matches
Mail list logo
