I'm more interested in the numbers for the WMF as a whole. One CEO does not
make an emissions problem, and in a global-reaching organization I'd hope
that the CEO would be flying around a bit. Focusing on the ten or so
executives at the Foundation seems like a sensational approach rather than
is is what the community-selected board seats should do,
except the organization is too large for the board to function in that way.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:51 AM Paulo Santos Perneta
> I only started following WMF stuff more closely around 2 years ago, but I
> don't r
sition on the issue. And I really
don't see how it is desirable that the Foundation is willing to push ideas
through without community support. Again, are they a top-down governance
organization, or a service organization aimed at supporting and empowering
the editing community and readership?
community groups *before* you start consulting, and use them as part of the
consultation, so it stops being Foundation vs. the community and turns into
the Foundation collaboratively supporting community-led ideas.
It pains me to see this being done poorly, time and time again.
I'm tempted to sit this one out. The Foundation has organized a bunch of
working groups, staffed primarily through volunteers of various types, to
present some strategic recommendations for moving forward into the future.
We are a movement with flaws and opportunities for improvement, as with any
people accountable for their behaviour regardless of whether or not
they are correct.
- And ultimately just try other approaches. It's an internet website, we
can change or amend things if they don't work.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
Yes, like Samuel I'm excited to see some experimentation with alternative
(and hopefully better) mediums for community engagement.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:05 PM Samuel Klein wrote:
> I love the idea of experimenting like this.
> More like this please. The simpler and l
You must have received faulty information. The recipients have always been
revealed, at least in past years.
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja <
> Long back when I asked for list of
. If there are
actual concerns from the Wikimedia community over this that haven't been
raised in the last decade, then people will raise them. But you're going to
need to do better than suggest some abstract improvement in transparency
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 1:57 AM
Still absolutely no need to do this as a requirement.
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonf...@gmail.com>
> Thank you for that information. It seems that you are happy to introduce
> the new members of this Committe
Agreed as well. Anders, that is one of the most sensible posts I've seen on
this list in a long time.
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Peter Southwood <
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-
their expected mixed usage
> of accounts labelled "(WMF)" and personal accounts by the same
> employee in the same discussion.
> On 27 February 2017 at 18:11, Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, b
Oh please. It might be a bit confusing, but there's no huge issue here. You
could have just asked the person to remain on one account, rather than
accuse him of sockpuppetry and ask an admin to block him if it continues.
I'd call that a rule of basic interaction in an online setting - be
or a small and randomly selected group of
them, or a small and randomly selected group of others.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Pax Ahimsa Gethen <
> Thank you for sharing that Rachel Nabors post, David; bookmarked. I think
on a lack of interest.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:12 PM, quiddity <pandiculat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * The people in the WMF and the Affiliates are /part of/ of the
> * Even the people without extensive years of volunteering, or those who
> only st
action taken against them beyond their termination in cases
of abuse. Simple as that.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with something
rid of people that the Foundation doesn't like.
As to the appeals process proposed above, that is not useful either in my
opinion. Nor is there any relation between being a bureaucrat, AffCom
member, etc. and having the time, knowledge, and competence to deal with
Instead of imposing a WMF ban, they could build a case for a community ban,
and follow that process instead. As I said though, I'm not convinced that
there is a problem with how things are done currently. Some things
shouldn't be handled by community governance.
Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such
metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most
part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you
have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without comment
Not for any wiki; only Meta had wmf staff with admin rights, and only for
use within their specific work-related areas.
I am totally unconcerned with WMF staff having the necessary permissions to
do their job. They can easily be held accountable as paid employees.
On Feb 14, 2017 11:53 AM, "Fæ"
me link given at
> >> https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships send the
> >> applicant to a form designed for applications for the 2016 Wikimania.
> >> Is this intentional or are applicants using this form going to be
> >> automatically rejected?
submitting an application.
If you have any questions, please contact:
or leave a message at:
Please help us spread the word!
for the Scholarship Committee
I quite like the Phabricator guidelines. Can't those just be replicated to
apply to all technical spaces? No more years of debate needed, or new
arbcoms, or strange statements of principles, or exhaustive lists of
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Peter
comment. I'm sorry for referencing it in
my comment then; I wasn't trying to "mould" your opinion to support my own.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think they want a code of conduct as a background to any kind of
someone from engaging in prolonged campaigns of on-wiki harassment
using sockpuppets. Maybe it's time to think about a more strict account-->
operator connection, such as requiring email addresses on new account
creations and a method of checking accounts by email.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2
Similar to Vito, the safe space/code of conduct crowd has never
demonstrated that any of these principles are not already held and enforced
across our projects.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Same here, ofc.
> I still canno
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am also curious whether the committee members (and by extension the WMF
Considering how horrible on-wiki dispute resolution can currently be for
all involved, I'm OK with keeping this in private here.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Asaf Bartov <abar...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the input, folks.
> So, it looks as
% of the time here - block or lock
evasion after the system has already worked? Training would be a single
sentence: "rinse and repeat the block/hide process until they decide to
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm. I find
ways be the case. And
unfortunately, this isn't an area that a code of conduct or any of those
proposals would help with.
On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Pax and Pete,
> It sounds like part of the issue in this case may be th
t into one or two usergroups, rather than the variety of groups existing
now and some access to non-staff rights on top of that.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For anyone unaware, in 2014 I created a bot task to maintain a page on
I like the idea of reserved seats for the global south. I would prefer to
still have some appointed members for expertise, but that number should be
diminished to give the community seats a majority.
Somewhat controversial: I'd prefer to scrap the affiliate - selected seats.
Chapters vary so much
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Mail list logo