Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Health, Roles & Responsibilities

2019-06-16 Thread Nathan
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven wrote: > > > The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They > have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons. > > Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not sure the

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

2019-06-12 Thread Nathan
A lot of different issues are being conflated by commenters on-wiki and here, muddying the issue. The WMF responses and some others think that this is about policing conduct, and the perennial difficulty of doing that against people who have entrenched support and lots of positive contributions.

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

2019-06-11 Thread Nathan
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted the entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of the Grupo de Usuários Wiki Movimento Brasil

2019-06-07 Thread Nathan
Philip - as can be seen from the group's meta page, this is the former Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil. Originally founded in 2013, this organization was de-recognized by AffCom about one year ago. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

2019-05-14 Thread Nathan
d be a recommendation that gets included in the > final reports - regardless of which entity assumes responsibility for it or > who pays for it. > > Risker/Anne > > On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 18:03, Nathan wrote: > > > The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain co

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF commitment for a Wikimedia projects archive

2019-05-14 Thread Nathan
The Internet Archive, incidentally, already seems to maintain copies of Wikimedia projects. I don't know to what degree of fidelity. Additionally, the WMF's core deliverable is already to provide and sustain access to its projects. It has an endowment for that purpose already. Other websites and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing our newest chapter, Wikimedia Korea

2019-04-23 Thread Nathan
I'll ask the obvious question - why is it not Wikimedia South Korea? And congrats to the participating Wikimedians on their achievement and recognition! On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 6:11 PM María Sefidari wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I am happy to share that earlier this year, the Wikimedia Foundation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reviewing our brand system for our 2030 goals

2019-04-13 Thread Nathan
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM phoebe ayers wrote: > > > Dear all, > I haven't weighed in before. But it seems to me there's a simple question > underlying all of this: do we actually want, or need, to increase public > awareness of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia chapters/affiliates

Re: [Wikimedia-l] America may go bizarro, but Wikipedia has a choice to make

2019-01-08 Thread Nathan
of them by glaringly public flaws. To my mind Steve Walling has it right - the very nature of Wikipedia is maybe the best protection there could be, even against the absurdly unlikely circumstance of a United States government takeover of Wikipedia. Nathan On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:17 PM Fæ wrote

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Subject lines for WMF fundraising emails

2018-11-13 Thread Nathan
"Deleting Wikipedia?" was the subject line of the e-mail I received as well. It also, as usual, included the claim that if enough donations were received the campaign would end early. That hasn't been the case in the past when campaign goals are met. On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:04 PM Pine W wrote:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Plea from Wikimedia Portugal

2018-10-11 Thread Nathan
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of this thread and the fact that AffCom is still making some effort to bring the problem to a resolution. It doesn't seem like it should be all that challenging, if one disputant is a single individual and the other is a community of people led by those

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Plea from Wikimedia Portugal

2018-10-11 Thread Nathan
I can't tell which part of this situation is the more sad; is it the events themselves, the total absence of any comment from AffCom, or the very limited interest evinced by the rest of the folks subscribed to this list? It seems if we follow the AffCom model described here, we should take WMPT

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Wikimedia Foundation website has soft launched!

2018-08-10 Thread Nathan
Mike, the "soft" part of the launch is that it is available only in English, has not been heavily promoted and every link and reference elsewhere has not been transitioned. This info was in Gregory's initial post about the soft launch on the 1st. On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:50 PM Michael Peel

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Israel joins the nationwide strike to protest the exclusion of gay couples the right to become parents

2018-07-22 Thread Nathan
I think Andrea's post perfectly illustrates the risk to WMF and WM affiliates of embracing political positions outside the core mission of the projects. The number of worthy causes is near infinite; every time you endorse one you please some people and make many other people wonder why you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns about WMF's "Manager of Community Development" job posting

2018-07-15 Thread Nathan
I agree with Ad and keyed on the same objection when reading Pine's complaint. The WMF has been the primary organization responsible for developing the community since the inception of the Wikimedia movement. That isn't changed by the titles of any particular position. To the extent that conflicts

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Rebuilding Wikimédia France

2018-06-06 Thread Nathan
Congrats Charlotte and WMFr for everything you have done and achieved in such a short period of time. A truly impressive and meaningful accomplishment and demonstration of the capacity of Wikimedians to use the movement's tools and ethos to effect positive change. On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:04 PM

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Category: French Jews on en.wp / GPDR

2018-05-25 Thread Nathan
I'm not seeing an argument here for why Wikimedia should adhere to this law, if it is correctly stated by the OP. If France passed a law banning Internet-published photos of living people, how would we approach that law? If Germany barred publishing the place of birth, date of birth or religious

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Information on "Multiple failed attempts to log in" emails

2018-05-06 Thread Nathan
I get hundreds of these a year (my user name, Nathan, seems to be a popular target). It would nice to be able to use some sort of multi-factor authentication, which is actually supported by OAUTH. However, it seems most projects (including en.wp) restrict use to accounts with elevated rights. Can

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia France short update

2017-09-20 Thread Nathan
The site visit report is disturbing, especially with respect to the potential for hundreds of thousands of euros to be missing or unaccounted for since 2015. How is it that the FDC provided any funds to WMFR while that issue was still unresolved? Was the FDC aware of the legacy payable from the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimédia France - informations sur la situation actuelle

2017-07-11 Thread Nathan
Everything else aside, the apparent fact that the ED of WMFr hired her husband in any capacity is a clear sign of serious dysfunction and poor governance controls. If the association has had half its board resign and is accusing Anthere and Christophe Henner of misconduct, it suggests that WMFr's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Philippines

2017-04-25 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > When individuals are discredited in this way, your option, you are judging > these people. That is in my opinion a mistake. You may judge a situation > and determine because of what you consider your

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-02 Thread Nathan
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I want to thank everyone for offering their considered thoughts. I mean > that genuinely. There are many legitimate views expressed in this thread, > many by generous, constructive, wise, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More politics: "WMF Annual Report"

2017-03-01 Thread Nathan
It's an unambiguously political statement. Not political in the sense of "everything we do is political" - but in the sense of opposing the policies of a single national government as promulgated by a head of state and supported by one political party in a deeply polarized and contentious

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

2017-02-17 Thread Nathan
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Pine W wrote: > How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with > community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that > is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] community survey request

2017-02-13 Thread Nathan
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? On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Bill Takatoshi wrote: > When a contentious question about the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Foundation's challenge to recent U.S. immigration executive order

2017-02-06 Thread Nathan
I generally share Yair's reluctance to see the WMF engage in political activity outside the scope of the Wikimedia mission, but I'd like to express my support for the WMF taking action specifically in pursuit of maintaining the freedom to travel and work of its employees and volunteers engaged in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Delegation of policy-making authority" resolution

2017-02-06 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Christophe > > On 20 December, you wrote > > > Basically it's making the legal team life's easier when they need to do > > small and/or quick changes. They don't have to go through the whole > > resolution process

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-05 Thread Nathan
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > I fail to see who you are targeting and on what basis. My impression is > that it only has to do with money.. I understand this. For other parts like > the language committee there are no reports except

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-05 Thread Nathan
On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Yair Rand wrote: > > > "Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. > It > > is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all

Re: [Wikimedia-l] De-Recognition of Affiliates with Long-standing Non-Compliance

2017-02-04 Thread Nathan
illuminate why WM AM is in compliance but others are not, I would appreciate it! Thanks, Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-04 Thread Nathan
I did not see many arguing that the WMF must be neutral; the debate is not about political neutrality, but about political activity outside the mission of the WMF. Few argue, on the substance or even principle, that the WMF's statement about the travel ban is wrong or misplaced - merely that the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-03 Thread Nathan
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Natacha Rault wrote: > ...After all there is a notion called "freedom of speech" Katherine > Maher did a statement and so what? That does not prevent wikipedians from > editing, and confronting opinions to approach NPOV (actually there is no >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Publicpolicy] news events impacting the Foundation's ability to hire and its employees' ability to travel

2017-01-30 Thread Nathan
It might be more effective, and certainly more courteous, if you could avoid making essentially the same set of advocacy posts almost every day. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 6:38 PM, James Salsman wrote: > I propose that the Foundation issue a statement in support of striking >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-27 Thread Nathan
Romaine makes some good points. There is a legitimate concern that the turn to populism and unpredictability threatens the environment in which Wikimedia operates, and its only reasonable to consider a move of core assets somewhere safer from the unspooling of Western social fabric. Perhaps the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Concerns in general

2017-01-27 Thread Nathan
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 7:39 PM, John wrote: > Im not sure you are reading section 14 correctly. It makes reference to > Privacy Act (Privacy Act of 1974) and the privacy policy of the federal > agencies involved in immigration enforcement and law enforcement agencies.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] LGBT+ safety considerations for conference venues

2016-11-09 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Not going to North Corolina is absolutely fine with me. We do not gain > anything by going there arguably not to any state in the United States. > What Wikimania is, is a platform for propaganda for what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

2016-08-20 Thread Nathan
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Pine W wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > As I mentioned previously, I would suggest that the criteria should also > apply to existing chapters. If any chapter's status is in doubt as a result > of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Suggesting moderation

2016-07-27 Thread Nathan
I find Trillium's denied e-mail to be off-topic but hardly so objectionable that a moderator reviewing it should deny it. If it is the case that a moderator suggested minor stylistic changes (couple days to couple of days), that seems a bit distasteful and probably not what list members would

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [discovery] Fwd: Improving search (sort of)

2016-07-15 Thread Nathan
How hard would it be to ask for search feedback on search results, perhaps piloting with some small subset of zero-result searches? For 1/1000 ZRRs, prompt the user to provide some type of useful information about why there should be results, or if there ought to be, or what category of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] With my thanks to everyone ...

2016-07-13 Thread Nathan
Congrats Geoff on your new and extraordinarily challenging role! Best of luck and thank you for all of your hard work on behalf of the WMF. ~Nathan On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Geoff Brigham <gbrig...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Over the past five years, I’ve been h

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing and the privacy policy

2016-07-01 Thread Nathan
Paid editing is addressed in the WMF terms of service and is a problem that has confronted or will confront most of the prominent projects in the movement. An alert to an RfC regarding principles of broader import, and a small amount of linked discussion, seems to be a perfectly reasonable use of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why are articles being deleted?

2016-06-25 Thread Nathan
Experiences described by a new editor are valid and meaningful even if, in relating them, the new editor shows some lack of familiarity with Wikipedia customs and established doctrines. It's certainly true that the process of patrolling pages for quality can be, from the perspective of a newbie

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] WMF Board of Trustees appointments and officer positions

2016-06-23 Thread Nathan
Congrats all, and thank you Patricio. I'll observe that it is interesting that the Board chose Christophe as Chair on his first day as a member, I think that is unprecedented in the short history of the WMF Board. On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Patricio Lorente < patricio.lore...@gmail.com>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thoughts on WMF Governance reviews

2016-06-02 Thread Nathan
Marc - just wanted to thank you for using "begging the question" properly! Chris - thanks for your insight. To Anders' point, perhaps not all insights offered will be new to everyone. But where some problems or potential solutions have been identified by some, it will be nice for them to have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-06 Thread Nathan
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Denny Vrandečić wrote: > Just a few points of clarification: > > * I have, to the best of my memory, passed on information only with the > understanding of my sources. If any of my sources disagrees with that, > please send me a message - I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-02 Thread Nathan
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > While *some* of research ethics comes from the medical world - > particularly from the Belmont report and the Western-centric research > atrocities of the last century - much of it does not. Things like the > Zimbardo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

2016-05-02 Thread Nathan
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Justin Senseney wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > > > +1 to that question, which is the biggest flag I have here. > > > > "The highest standards of confidentiality" is nice but, as you note, >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-04-26 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage > > wrote: > > > > Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, > > "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-04-19 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote: > > > Also, no, the United States is explicitly not a democracy. It's a republic. > And no, the Wikimedia movement is not a democracy - but it's *also* not a > dictatorship or a banana republic with a President For Life.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] DARPA FOSSS programs of interest

2016-04-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:53 AM, James Salsman wrote: > > > Doesn't that mean that the Foundation has the legal standing to see all > three of those projects published? Where do you see legal standing being a factor here, and how would the WMF have it?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] DARPA FOSSS programs of interest

2016-04-12 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:54 PM, James Salsman wrote: > Re > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/publicpolicy/2016-April/001335.html > > > > Are there any reasons that trying to do this might be a bad idea? > > __ Because the WMF is not, at least as far as we know,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who runs the Wikimedia Shop ?

2016-03-22 Thread Nathan
FWIW, it's clear that the trademark policy is intended to apply to users other than the WMF. This is all a bit overblown, considering the tiny scale of use and money involved. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Fæ wrote: > Tim, thanks for raising the Trademark Policy. > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-14 Thread Nathan
of those individuals who > are directly affected. Privacy should win. > > Risker/Anne > > On 14 March 2016 at 12:50, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It's an easy question to ask in a non-specific way: > > > > In the last six months, has the WM

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses

2016-03-14 Thread Nathan
It's an easy question to ask in a non-specific way: In the last six months, has the WMF approved severance agreements with departing employees with language that, in effect, prevented them from publicly criticizing the WMF, its management or the Board on matters of public interest?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Disabe Media Viewer for non-logged-in users and logged-in users on Wikimedia Commons

2016-03-14 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 16-03-14 10:33 AM, Steinsplitter Wiki wrote: > > Per commons Policy's the RFC is valid. > > Then the policy is broken. It seems more than a little insane to me > that an opinion poll having had participation of a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Easier browsing of Board minutes, agendas, etc., plus summaries

2016-03-09 Thread Nathan
Great work, Pete, all very interesting and useful. Thanks for dedicating your time to do this. On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > As many of you are aware, it's always been difficult to navigate > information about the proceedings of the Board of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Oh the irony

2016-03-08 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chris Keating wrote: > I'm really glad that Guy is able to bring this kind of insight to the Board > HR committee. > > ... > > OK, in possibly good news and trying to be fair to Guy, it looks like the > @guykawasaki bears very little

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-07 Thread Nathan
If the board is choosing not to participate for a particular reason, or Jimmy is choosing not to release e-mails for a particular reason, then they should say so. Nothing keeps them from offering that information themselves. It isn't necessary for other people to speculate on whether the deafening

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Leadership changes for Talent, Culture, and Team Practices

2016-03-04 Thread Nathan
Hi Geoff, Would it be wildly wrong to infer from this message that you are assisting the WMF by taking on some or all of the duties of the ED? ~Nathan On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Geoff Brigham <gbrig...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I’m writing to let you k

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-03 Thread Nathan
What do we want? We want to understand what board members think about major issues, we want some sense of the direction of the organization as driven by the board, we want to be able to see and verify that issues important to stakeholders throughout the movement are being considered and addressed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-03-03 Thread Nathan
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > > > Do you serve on any non-profit boards Chris? > > Chris > Chris Keating is on the board of the WMUK. In any case, it seems like there are many deliberative or legislative bodies that see themselves as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Armenia candidate for the board

2016-03-02 Thread Nathan
Is there any actual connection between Susanna and the high-level government interest or effort around the Armenian Wikipedia? What I'm asking is if there is anything here, other than supposition that because she is Armenian and the Armenian government is interested in Wikipedia that Susanna must

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

2016-02-29 Thread Nathan
Jimmy - the limit is a "soft limit" of 30 posts per month. If someone goes well over you might get an e-mail from Austin or another moderator to cut back, but otherwise there is no need to ask for an exception. Chris Sherlock - It is certainly not "unambiguous" what qualifies in that statute as

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A quick note about the future

2016-02-29 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > One of the things that someone asked me privately to discuss is what I > think of the possibility of James running for the board again. > > First, I have no opinion about whether or not he will be eligible at the >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Jimmy Wales' potential conflict of loyalties for Wikia Inc. versus WMF

2016-02-29 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:35 AM, Fæ wrote: > > Ownership of Wikia is a relationship where loyalty will be perceived > by the public as questionable, and there may be indirect financial > gains, even though there is no traceable direct benefit. > > Fae, Is there any evidence

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

2016-02-26 Thread Nathan
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > I would like to continue the discussion of who, in an ideal case, would be > a good fit for the ED position. This person has to fit culturally, share > movement's values, and be a trusted figure in the time of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation report, July-September 2015

2016-02-24 Thread Nathan
Tilman, are these quarterly reports no longer being released? On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote: > Hi all, > > please find the Wikimedia Foundation's report for the first quarter of > this fiscal year at > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are we too rigid?

2016-02-24 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Jake Orlowitz wrote: > Oliver wrote: > > "The Foundation I would return to is not an organisation with a flat > structure. In fact, it could be an organisation that looks a lot like > this one, because I don't believe reporting lines or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Nathan
the OP here struck me as the best and most complete statement of this vision that I have read. If you are aware of a better one that I have missed (completely possible, even likely!), could you please provide a link? Thanks, Nathan ___ Wikimedia-l m

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why we changed

2016-02-21 Thread Nathan
Lila's statement of her vision for WMF is compelling and attractive. If properly and faithfully executed, it seems like it would make just the right adjustments to the culture of the WMF and its interaction with and support of the Wikimedia community. I have long been concerned that a number of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Outcomes from the Consultation on Wikimedia movement conferences/Wikimania

2016-02-09 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Risker wrote: > Hello Gerard, I believe the topic of capping costs is a reasonable one > because, simply put, there are not unlimited resources within the movement. > Some of us have the financial wherewithal to attend "on our own dime", but

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why take grants? (was: Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?)

2016-02-03 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Spending and fundraising are two sides of the same coin. I remember that it > was strongly suggested that money had to go through the WMF for all kinds > of political reasons. At the time it was the Dutch

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Appointment of María Sefidari to Wikimedia Foundation Board

2016-01-29 Thread Nathan
Thanks Maria for agreeing to join the Board in this manner and at this time. On the subject of advantages vs. disadvantages... I imagine one of the most important is that a new election may have seen the community elect James Heilman again, requiring the board to publicly pass over him in favor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was the Wikimedia Foundation's removal of membership in 2006 legal?

2016-01-27 Thread Nathan
kimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > Is the question of whether the bylaws ever automatically created an actual class of members relevant? Is there something in either the bylaws or Florida law that would prohibit the board from changing the str

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Changes in the Board

2016-01-27 Thread Nathan
Thank you Patricio and Arnnon, and good luck and best wishes to Arnnon. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

2016-01-26 Thread Nathan
It's unfair of anyone to expect Arnnon to comment about the legal case or the circumstances surrounding it. I'm sure he has a stack of legal advice and corporate policies that specifically prevent him from answering Todd's questions or others. Even though I don't support the corporate collusion

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

2016-01-22 Thread Nathan
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > > The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process: > > 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we > have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

2016-01-11 Thread Nathan
the staff missed it entirely. If they were doing even a cursory review and reference check of the candidates through the very last stage, it's hard to imagine how that could happen. Perhaps more likely is that the staff happened upon the issue but didn't forward it to the Board? ~Nathan

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-08 Thread Nathan
I hope some day someone will be bold enough to tell the rest of us what this is all really about. I'm sure I'm not alone (though perhaps in the minority!) in not having inside staff contacts to provide the straight dope. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-05 Thread Nathan
t. We plan to make an > announcement on the roadmap for filling that seat by early next week. > > Patricio Patricio, I wish you and your colleagues the best of luck in recovering the trust and confidence of the many people who supported James' bid to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please stick to the 30-post limit

2015-12-31 Thread Nathan
The 30 post limit came about in a different era, when the list had problems at a greater scale. I don't see any issues with post frequency recently that should have received moderator response. You are referring to GerardM, but the majority of his posts have been to a single thread. I can't speak

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-30 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 3:25 PM, olatunde isaac wrote: > I'm very disappointed to know that the board meeting was still ongoing as > at the time James revealed that he was ejected from the board. It is a > silly idea! Perhaps he felt the community can stop the meeting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-30 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: > On Dec 30, 2015 12:33 AM, "Craig Franklin" > wrote: > > but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal > > with the fallout of that decision. > > That, at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-30 Thread Nathan
"Well, tell that to James. He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting. You are 100% wrong that this is a decision *against* the community. I know why I voted the way I did - and it has to do with my strong belief in the values of this community and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-29 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:00 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > Nathan wrote: > >In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's > >lack of transparency or failure to be forthcoming in a timely manner. > > The removal resolution

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-29 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote: > I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one > of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP > talkpage. Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that > page,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-29 Thread Nathan
I don't think all the legal speculation here is very helpful. I'm sure the Board or someone else will sagely advise us that the board is self-governing and self-perpetuating and no other legal authority is necessary. In any case, its irritating to see people providing cover for the Board's lack

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-28 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:39 PM, James Heilman wrote: > As Patricio stated the "Board has a responsibility to ... ensure that the > Board functions with *mutual confidence*" > > My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me to justify my > removal. No reason

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board of Trustees

2015-12-28 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > Surely there must be a board resolution that needs to be pubished regarding > this? It was published. It contains no information beyond the OP. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-28 Thread Nathan
Add my voice to those waiting for the Board to provide something closer to the minimum necessary context for this decision. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

2015-12-01 Thread Nathan
The reply every year is that the banners are keyed for maximum effectiveness, even if they are intrusive, in order to make the overall fundraising drive as short as possible. Fundraising has made small tweaks to various banners, but generally have not been willing to significantly reduce the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Affiliates mailing list

2015-10-21 Thread Nathan
The purpose of "privacy" on a mailing list with hundreds of subscribers is to avoid easy scrutiny and to bar participation from those who aren't an approved member of the club. Note that affiliates can't simply add subscribers; they have to request them. So the questions are - is a private club

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA 2015

2015-10-12 Thread Nathan
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > > > 2) Greg Kohs was banned from attending. I think that was a mistake. He is a > fierce critic of Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia. I am aware of the lines he has > crossed in the past (and the seemingly sincere apologies).

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

2015-10-05 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > > I think that this is a very unhappy wording; there is nothing wrong > with the bid or the city by itself. As much as I find the wasted > effort scandalous, it is not the fault of our friends from Montreal. > > About

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Coming up with a new process for Wikimania selection

2015-10-04 Thread Nathan
James, Can you describe the source of your authority, and that of the committee, to make such a decision? Do you have the approval of Lila and/or the Board? Which movement organizations, including those responsible for funding endeavours like Wikimania, did you consult? ~Nathan On Sun, Oct 4

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

2015-10-03 Thread Nathan
Evidently the Signpost has scooped the WMF by revealing that Montreal has been selected for the 2017 Wikimania host city in a secret process that completed this past August. [1] It seems like the community could have been looped into this new method before it was a done deal. ~Nathan [1] https

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

2015-09-01 Thread Nathan
I don't know how Wikimedia engineering tracks project resource usage - is there a number out there for the total cost to the WMF associated with the Flow project? At a basic minimum, the number of developer and other hours dedicated to Flow (including fully dedicated contractors)? Is it likely

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement

2015-08-31 Thread Nathan
Very sorry to hear that, Philippe. From the perspective of an outsider to the WMF and many of the "interior processes" of the Wikimedia community, you have always been a ray of light and a source of insight, knowledge and order. Your presence in a discussion, debate or process has always elevated

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy largely blocked by WMF fundraising

2015-08-18 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Antanana, And I forgot to mention, this same issue existed in 2014 as well, with also there the downside effects. This subject is of banners has been discussed internally with the local Wiki Loves Monuments

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday

2015-08-11 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: What I would hope for is guidance from the WMF Board that specifically outlines when WMF invocation of superprotect is and isn't appropriate [1], and which I believe is already being discussed internally by the Board. With

  1   2   3   4   5   >