I think this call might fairly be described as too little too late.
Firstly, you describe the votes being held on a regular cycle. So there's
no reason for delaying this call until 10 January with a closing date of 19
January (one working week). Secondly, the first meeting is to be held in
>I don't know sending such emails of limited number of good
> news cherry-picked by mostly one person all the time to hundreds of
> wikimedians across the globe with very wide range of interests would be a
> good idea.
Leading inevitably to the question -- what postings to this list would
> Paying for carbon offsets does not further Wikimedia’s goals.
Not directly, any more than paying for petrol or aviation fuel does.
If you regard it as part of the cost of travel, and that travel does
indeed further the Foundation's goals, then it seems reasonable to pay
> 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
> I've never created a Wikidata profile about anyone, not even someone who is
> widely known.
I did not say you had. I said that the common view on the projects
you support is that the consent of the person written about is not
necessary and that volunteers have a right to create that
> I'm pretty shocked at this idea; in fact, if someone created a Wikidata
> profile about me, I'd have it taken down under applicable legislation.
... and yet you are an energetic volunteer for projects that assert
the right to do that to other people?
What exactly do you suggest that you or the rest of us could actually
do with a "better understanding" of these issues? Without taking any
position on whether there is some form of stress, is it likely to be
anything other than exacerbated by exposing it in public, with no real
As a follow-up, it would be helpful for those community members in the
EU to know how the Foundation handles GDPR requests.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 07:29, David Gerard wrote:
> What do you
There is nothing more for us to do, since community input closed on
the 15 September. The community will next be consulted on the
implementation of the recommendations after they are finally agreed.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 18:08, Paulo Santos Perneta
> " A second iteration
Surely it doesn't really matter who within the organisation is racking
up the CO2? More important is the fact that the Foundation
acknowleges itself responsible for about 2,000 tonnes of CO2 emission.
At an offset price around $100/tonne, presumably we may expect that as
an interim measure, WMF
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 20:27, Ad Huikeshoven wrote:
> tl;dr Wikipedia can engage millions, billions of people to achieve the
> Sustainable Development Goals by 2030
That's nice, but the mission of the Foundation is to help everyone
share in the sum of all knowledge, and people who have
I saw no criticism of a named individual, but of the Foundation. With
nearly three hundred employees and a budget of a hundred million dollars,
when the Foundation commits to sending a representative to a meeting, it
may reasonably be expected to have the resources to deliver on that
Mail list logo