It's almost as if ratifying an incomplete document based on vague framework
and future changes is a terrible idea.
That this is coming up now is not the least bit surprising. It was brought
up, along with many things, during one of the arbitrarily endpointed
"discussion" periods that involved
I don't have a problem with WMF staff voting, so long as they meet the
community voting guidelines; as Risker notes, many staff members are part
of the community. But staffers who do *not* otherwise meet the standard for
a community member to vote should not be voting.
Also, the exact wording of
The fundamental problem here is that the WMF's response to everything is
simply *reactive*. A policy is instituted, with zero real collaboration,
little or no discussion, foggy goals, sparsely answered direct questions
and then simply announced to the community in faux-press release fashion.
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 4:47 PM Erik Moeller wrote:
At least in my understanding, this thread conflates a good practice
> (waiting periods) with violations of COI policies. As I understand it,
> WMF adhered to its existing COI policy through the usual measures
> (recusal & resignation from the
There is nobody in existence whose advice is worth crossing serious bright
lines in ethics of corporate governance and quite possibly legal ones. This
isn't a parking ticket.
Whether the offer and acceptance were made in good faith or bad faith leads
to the same conclusion: a completely
"Moving forward" would involve directly addressing and fixing this shocking
example of board malgovernance, not corporate-doublespeaking about the
future in a way that avoids any and all culpability and transparency for
this gross ethical lapse. This doesn't need to be "explained" to us; it
It's my fault for not posting the link! I actually thought I had.
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 9:40 AM Uwe Herzke wrote:
> As I just saw, that you were referring to an even older post, that was
> about this section on the same talk page, the talk page on Meta about
> the changes.
Surprised to not see this here yet. Not exactly reassuring and the
reference that the community process "may" feature voting is a dark shadow
on the rest of this, but it is what it is.
In response to comments from community members, the Board Governance
Committee has agreed to incorporate
This isn't a completely honest description of events. You alternate between
attacking Brown-Haired Girl and asking her not to interact with you and you
chime in with things such as the diff below. It would take an enormously
charitable reading for that thread to be considered anything close to
As long as people are going to continue to talk about me and imply that I'm
actually *harassing* people, then I feel I have a right to defend myself.
No, clear warnings weren't given. I compared the action of a *non-profit
board* tangentially to *flatulence* and I was immediately talked down to
> > that text-based communication provides complications for discussions
> > emotional topics. I can see you feel passionate about this situation and
> > upset about the result.
> > Best,
> > Jackie
> > On Thu, Sep
> > Wikipedia has been a third tier social media platform since its
> > Luckily we are better known for being an encyclopedia.
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:31 AM Dan Szymborski
> > wrote:
> > > I am absolutely flabbergasted tha
I strongly disagree. There's no "reasonable person" standard in which
anything I said would be found offensive. I'm frequently sought out by
professors as a *mentor* for journalism students and we talk about issues
such as this. I'm no shock jock.
If anything, this spell highlights one of the
> >>> Our roles in the discussion should consider not only our needs as
> >>> individuals but the needs of the broader communities. To dismiss the
> >>> is failing to recognize privilege and power structures and their effect
> >> on
> > Wikip(m)edia community would be represented or vote on weather to have a
> > UCoC.
> > The current model isn't bad. I do think we should review the draft and
> > there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
> > impro
There was meant to be a " " there, but my phone rudely stripped it.
If it does it again, I'll make up a rule and suspend it for a year. It's
what the WMF would want, I'm sure.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 3:45 PM Andy Mabbett
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 20:06, Dan Szym
bad. I do think we should review the draft and if
> there are specific wording we disagree with, we can either suggest
> improvement or removal altogether. I honestly think we need to help and
> support the drafting committee at this stage.
> On Tue, 8
see anything that
> looks like an "imposition"
> The Universal Code of Conduct is not a substitute to the existing policy or
> guidelines but a behavioural guidelines expected of users in any Wikimedia
> On Tue, 8 Sep
As this is being explicitly imposed by the board from above without
community approval, participating in any way is ethically unsound. Doubly
so without a board election preceding this as the WMF has arbitrarily
denied communities the right, as manifested in the election of the
community seats, to
This is a bit like your local pizza place asking you what time you're going
to pick up the pizza you didn't actually order.
"Here are the recommendations. Now let's start implementing those
recommendations!" is definitely something that's missing a middle step.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:00 PM
Question about the timeline: will the community's opinions be ignored at
the July or at the August meeting? Or is this considered a continual
process? This information would help people with their planning.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:37 PM Zack McCune wrote:
> Dear all,
> We want to confirm
A survey in which the board's decision cannot possibly be disputed sounds
like a perfect fit rather than an unfit one.
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:35 AM Peter Southwood <
> It is not methodologically sound to continue using a survey which is unfit
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:26 PM Jan-Bart de Vreede
> Hi Gnangarra
> I find your request for Nat to resign uncalled for…. and not in the least
> because of the common misconception you have with regards to the role of
> Board members of the Wikimedia Foundation.
OK, you say that you take "full responsibility" for the situation. What
exactly does "full responsibility" entail? How will the relations between
the board and the communities differ compared to the moment *before* full
responsibility was taken?
Is the board changing the degree to which it will
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:58 PM Zack McCune wrote:
> Hi GerardM,
> As I mentioned in my earlier message, the process will be multilingual. We
> want to ensure that as many people as possible from across the movement
> have the opportunity to participate, so we are working hard to
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 4:18 PM James Salsman wrote:
> > "Wikipedia should support any political movement that makes
> > people's lives better because they will then have more time to edit
> > Wikipedia," is an incredibly dubious line of reasoning. It would
> > cover anything in
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 7:25 AM Samir Elsharbaty
> The 2030 Movement Brand Project is now moving into Phase 2: naming
> convention proposals . This is the most anticipated phase of this
> project. It will ask the movement to evaluate which proposal(s) best
> communicate who we are so
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 1:21 PM wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 2:00 AM Bill Takatoshi
> > And again, I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base is opposed to
> > campaign finance reform
> I doubt even 5% of the long term editor base has any opinion on this
> “campaign finance
I'm not sure I could design a process more guaranteed to result in complete
resistance from the community if I tried. It's gobsmacking that far more
effort was made on putting together a nice little junket to Tunisia than
any sort of effort to seek community-buy-in. The working groups had
This is largely my feeling as well. If you look at one of Andrew's links:
You'll see some quite vigorous opposition to the name change and robust
support for explicitly
Given the typical response rate for polling is extremely low, even among
groups of people who agreed to be polled, the 20% metric is absurd. If you
put out some random notice among a million other emails to 9,000 people on
various lists submitting a proposition to change the name to Fart Factory
Mail list logo