Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

2020-08-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Correction: It's been pointed out that I erred in two significant ways when discussing Katherine's background: Prior to becoming CEO, she was Chief Communications Officer, which is a more senior position than the one I named; and, where I said that prior to her time at WMF her career was "largely

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

2020-08-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Michael, thank you for weighing in. Your background in the movement and perspective is unique and valuable. (For those who don't know, Michael was an early WMF board chair, and also the founder of the Signpost newspaper.) I'll respond to everybody in this thread, but I want to start with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

2020-08-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
y other team I could convince and it was > critical to onboarding me. > > It lived to serve just the documentary process that you mention. > > Regards, > pb > > Philippe Beaudette > > > On Aug 25, 2020, at 6:35 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > > > I've thought a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Institutional memory @ WMF

2020-08-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
I've thought about institutional memory quite a lot since I stopped working at WMF in 2011. A few points I think are worth considering: 1. Often, institutional memory is measured in terms of staff/executive/board turnover; while there has indeed been a very high rate of turnover at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
hearts or minds (but perhaps you have reason to disagree with that - ?) -Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:41 PM Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 17:19, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > > Since it seems > > that multiple people are misunderstanding yo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 4:17 AM Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 02:47, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > > We would be better off if > > there were clearly articulated, published policies for OTRS > > Indeed. > Glad we agree on this central point! I think if

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
I believe there's an important point about OTRS to discuss, but the present framing -- rooted in a challenging examination of the issue's history -- is making it difficult to get at. OTRS agents, both individually and as part of a collective, have a tremendous influence over the perception of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New essay on the ambiguity of NC licenses

2020-07-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
Erik, thanks for posting the essay here. Glad to see the interest in this topic. I wrote this because I have found that when somebody asks me about the NC provision, I often want to point them to a simple webpage (rather than "reinventing the wheel" every time it comes up). There are some pages

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

2020-07-09 Thread Pete Forsyth
Worth noting, for those who may not have been tracking this issue in the media in recent years: CEO Katherine Maher has prominently and frequently highlighted how big tech companies benefit from Wikipedia and Wikimedia content, and that they pay little if anything for it. This shows up in many

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-06-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
My apologies for the error, the "Governance Wiki" URL is: foundation.wikimedia.org On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:15 AM Pete Forsyth wrote: > As a former, active admin on Meta (but not a current one), I'd like to > make a few points. I have also not been heavily involved in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Brand Project: Who are we as a movement?

2020-06-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
As a former, active admin on Meta (but not a current one), I'd like to make a few points. I have also not been heavily involved in this rebranding project, though I should disclose that I've taken a position against it. 1. A page such as this one can play one or both of two roles: (a) a FAQ about

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Update on Branding

2020-06-23 Thread Pete Forsyth
I tend to agree with Nathan here. I don't know the history of the event described, so I'm not sure whether or not it would be fair to bring up even if it had been Natalia. But certainly, publicly identifying the incorrect person in an accusation is no small thing. Gnangarra, you have given

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ombuds Commission - minor request for consistency in the name

2020-06-18 Thread Pete Forsyth
This is certainly a reasonable request, Fae, and I support it; there's no reason not to forge ahead with this request. However, for the benefit of anybody on this list who's not familiar, and just to ensure that this point is in the record: there's a more complex problem with the name of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New portal about Gender Gap on meta

2020-05-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
Very nicely done, Florence and Alacoolwiki! It was indeed very out of date, and it seemed scattered. The new page seems much more readable, informative, and sustainable. I added a couple of suggestions for small improvements on the talk page. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Wed, May 13, 2020 at

[Wikimedia-l] Lessons from governance, collaboration, conflict

2020-05-09 Thread Pete Forsyth
All, As we approach the 25th anniversary of wiki and 20th of Wikipedia, I'm reflecting on the various lessons that can be drawn from the way our community has approached governance over the years. We've had a number of conflicts; many have had significant impacts on the structure and culture of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Comment Open on U.S. Open Access Policy

2020-04-20 Thread Pete Forsyth
Jake, How can we most effectively support your excellent effort with this? -Pete -- Pete Forsyth User:Peteforsyth on Meta, English Wikisource, English Wikipedia, etc. On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 1:22 PM Tito Dutta wrote: > Hello, > Very well-written and well-supported by statistics.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Remember Wikipedia Zero.. Where is the research about the effects of its demise?

2019-11-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
, or of independent research, it would be good to know about it. -Pete -- Pete Forsyth User:Peteforsyth On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:34 PM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Kiwix and off line Wikipedia did exist at the start of Wikipedia Zero. It > is great that you brought some to Africa but you do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiConference North America live stream

2019-11-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
: Do you know if MIT asserts any copyright over the videos? I'd like to upload a couple to Commons, but want to be sure the copyright won't be an issue. -Pete -- Pete Forsyth User:Peteforsyth On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 11:31 AM phoebe ayers wrote: > Dear all, > We are looking forward to WikiConf

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiConference North America live stream

2019-11-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
Thanks Phoebe, looking forward to the conference -- and I think the college students I presented to this morning, most of whom will not be able to attend in person, will enjoy the opportunity to watch from afar. Do you know whether the videos will be available afterwards, as well? Pete --

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Greener travel and the ethics of carbon offset for Wikimedia community events

2019-10-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
+1 to Mike's approach. An *option* for carbon offsets seems worthwhile. A *requirement* seems potentially at odds with our desire to be inclusive and accessible. And I agree that something specifically tailored to a community built around making information accessible would be a much better fit.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [LGBT] Best practices for awarding scholarships

2019-10-10 Thread Pete Forsyth
Back to the original question (which is an interesting and worthwhile one, surely applicable to many events across the movement), I would hope that the WMF has some ability to provide guidance on these matters, or failing that, the committees who have put together other conferences (e.g.,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
t "something" without first undergoing a deliberate and comprehensive approach to building buy-in throughout that community. (See "Spanish Fork") -Pete -- Pete Forsyth User:Peteforsyth on (primarily) English Wikipedia, English Wikisource,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
on a project-by-project basis. Demonstrating an ability to win support at specific projects, and then demonstrating that implementing an EDP paved the way toward good results, could form a compelling argument. Strong advocacy in a strategy document does not form a compelling argument. -Pete -- Pete Forsyth

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Survey about the Foundation's Mission

2019-01-16 Thread Pete Forsyth
considered actions from list moderators to reduce the number of notifications like this one. -Pete -- Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]] on meta etc. On 1/16/19 11:04 AM, Lane Rasberry wrote: Risker raises the point of moderating research requests. I do not want to comment on this survey

Re: [Wikimedia-l] +28K images freed from Israel archives and uploaded to commons

2018-11-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
That's wonderful news. For those of us who don't speak Hebrew, can you say a bit more about how this project came about? -Pete On Tue, Nov 13, 2018, 10:16 PM Hello, > > It is a great pleasure for me to let you all know that wikimedia Israel > had developed a web scraper that crawled in various

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Board Recruitment Kick-Off: Changes to the Timeline

2017-03-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, It's unusual, and discouraged by the IRS (the United States' tax agency), for board members to be paid. I won't get into details, but I think this is a good thing, as it's tough to avoid conflict of interest when earning money from an entity you're seeking to get funding for. You can read a

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

2017-02-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
I want to chime in briefly, since I have direct personal experience in WMF0-initiated bans. Not long ago, Support & Safety took an action to exclude somebody for whom I, as a volunteer, felt some responsibility. Initially, I felt that there was inadequate communication with me, and as a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics

2017-02-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/07/2017 12:07 PM, Bill Takatoshi wrote: Anyone can go to Recent Changes and send a SurveyMonkey link to the most recent few hundred editors with contributions at least a year old, to get an accurate answer. Will a respected member of the community please do this? I would like to know what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

2017-02-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/07/2017 04:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, When we learned that one of our own was in a prison in Syria, we could not care less. A lot of words were spend on expressing how sad it was but no, we could do nothing about this because this would be "political". For me it is proof how

Re: [Wikimedia-l] banner proposals

2017-02-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/06/2017 11:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: The huha with no banner for Bassel has cost our community because it has proven that we do not care about our own. Thanks, GerardM Gerard, You may of course continue to assert what the "huha with no banner" proves. I happen to disagree,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

2017-02-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/06/2017 12:43 AM, Christophe Henner wrote: I'm delighted to see this issue getting some attention. I believe the core of the problem comes from the WMF's identity, from the start, as a technology company; so shifting in this direction might be an uphill battle, but I feel strongly that

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

2017-02-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/06/2017 11:53 AM, Pine W wrote: Hi Christophe, You wrote, "This delegates authority, not responsability." Perhaps you could explain the distinction. It seems to me that the two go hand in hand. Pine, I disagree. I have had plenty of jobs where I had the authority to do something, but

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

2017-02-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 02/05/2017 10:10 PM, Michelle Paulson wrote: Dear All, We know that the Foundation’s prior statement[4] on this executive order has generated debate in the communities, on mailing lists and in other forums. Some disapprove, with concern that the Foundation has taken a political stance on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Wikimedia Foundation receives $500, 000 from the Craig Newmark Foundation and craigslist Charitable Fund to support a healthy and inclusive

2017-02-04 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Lodewijk wrote: What I am curious about, is whether there are also efforts ongoing that are focused on influencing community behavior in a more preventive manner. On 01/27/2017 09:54 AM, Danny Horn wrote: Your idea for using

Re: [Wikimedia-l] guidance from Foundation leadership as to where to draw the line on policy requests?

2017-02-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
I strongly support keeping messages without a clear connection to Wikimedia's purpose off this list -- especially when multiple people have already objected to a certain topic. I am as worried about world politics and the future as anybody on this list, but Wikimedia has a fairly clear mission

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
On 01/25/2017 09:52 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote: Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better glasses. Sad!). :) I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to give them the time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance question, or a discussion about authority. I was

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
Anna Stillwell wrote: On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: Anna, Pete, Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahea

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [discovery] Interactive Team putting work on pause

2017-01-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
Anna, Your points are valid and well taken. If I may summarize what I think I heard, it's basically: "Getting things right can be hard, and if full preparations weren't made ahead of time, thorough answers may not be readily available. Be compassionate/patient." Is that about right? If so, I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

2017-01-13 Thread Pete Forsyth
ess pulls > the > > > > > > > organization > > > > > > > > in direction that they were not planning to go. Or even > worse, > > > > when > > > > > a > > > > > > > > funder pays for something outside o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Keeping historical documents related to Wikimedia

2017-01-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Meta Wiki users considered permitting such files on Meta Wiki a year and a half ago, and decided not to. The electorate was not very big (14 votes, total), but it was carefully considered, with compelling arguments made on both

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Exciting update about development of structured data on Commons

2017-01-09 Thread Pete Forsyth
Structured data on Commons is a huge and important area -- for one thing, the whole Media Viewer project would have gone much more smoothly if there were underlying structured data to rely on. Kudos to WMF and Sloan for the focus on this issue! If I'm not mistaken, this is by far the most

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

2016-12-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
t; Wikimedia_Survey_2014_English_Fundraiser.pdf > ] > [3 > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/e/ef/ > Report.WikimediaJapan.f.071916.pdf > ] > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, N

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising Update - Big English Fundraiser

2016-12-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Seddon wrote: > > Finally we didn't get any interest in our fundraising feedback and design > sessions last week and the week before so they were put on hold, however if > there are individuals who are interested in taking part in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Signpost – Volume 12, Issue 29 – 26 November 2016

2016-11-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
ht into recent, politics-heavy readership. * If you haven't seen them, you'll enjoy the winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth (republished from the Wikimedia blog), and the country-level nominees from Wiki Loves Monuments. Happy reading, -Pete -- Pete Forsyth Editor in Chief The Signpost en.wikipedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

2016-11-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Rogol Domedonfors wrote: > Jimmy Wales wrote: "it is possible and welcomed to bring forward issues to > board members at any time". To Jimmy and the board: This statement is, frankly, very much belied by the facts. In 2014, I delivered

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor safety and anonymity: ending IP address exposure?

2016-11-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
A fully enumerated list of "cons" would be an important place to start. Wikimedians and WMF have long promoted the existence of stuff ike the "Congress edits" twitter account, which reports account-less edits from capitol hill. We often block high school IP addresses at certain times in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Personal Update

2016-11-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
ov 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dan, I disagree. Three points: > > 1. Rogol explicitly said they *hesitate* to suggest that anybody resign; > nobody on this list has asked her to resign. Best not to exaggerate. > > 2. It is true that t

[Wikimedia-l] Exploring challenging topics in Wikimedia history: Belfer Center post mortem

2016-10-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
In my view, the Wikimedia movement and the WMF often miss important opportunities to fully examine significant controversies in our history. It's an important practice, and can help parties who disagree absorb lessons, develop a shared understanding of what happened, and avoid causing similar

[Wikimedia-l] New edition of the Signpost: AffCom, Olympics, ethics & research, and more

2016-09-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-09-06/Blog Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway -- Pete Forsyth [[User:Peteforsyth]] co-Editor in Chief, The Signpost enwp.org/WP:POST ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey

2016-09-06 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:19 AM, James Forrester wrote: > All, > > *TL;DR*: Communities using Flow are invited to fill out a survey about what > they want to see from Flow, From this web page: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow#Development_status "Starting in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF C level hiring and retention

2016-08-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, maybe so, but if that's what you're going for, your best move might be to privately urge the people who have talked to you to come forward publicly -- rather than you sharing their words without attribution or context. The information that came through from your message is, "Pine asserts

Re: [Wikimedia-l] An example where search could be improved

2016-07-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
We recently had a huge amount of discussion about the importance of search, on this list and elsewhere. My strong takeaway from that was, nobody disagrees with the position you're advocating here, Jimmy - that our search is problematic, and is worth investing in. The only directly related ideas

Re: [Wikimedia-l] New Elections Committee

2016-07-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Sorry to post twice -- I spoke too soon with "single greatest opportunity." An acknowledgment of community members' positive role in addressing the Superprotect debacle is another important opportunity that should not be missed. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:3

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight

2016-06-30 Thread Pete Forsyth
Excellent example Chris, thanks for taking the time to write that up. I agree it would have had at least as much positive effect, and also substantially less negative effect, than the original post. One person's opinion might be especially worth considering: I wonder whether the person whose name

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our problem with India

2016-06-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > In other words, although I am not disclosing all of information I > have, mostly to protect privacy of some people, Yes, this is a difficult line to walk. I have encountered this issue many times in the Wikimedia world.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our problem with India

2016-06-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our problem with India

2016-06-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > > On the rest: being defensive is not useful; being constructive is. > I don't see anything in this thread that looks defensive; what I see (and thoroughly agree with) is a request to more clearly define the problem. I'd

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki

2016-06-07 Thread Pete Forsyth
Risker, perhaps you missed this part of Patricio's message; I'm pretty sure this is what Pine was referring to: > In re-reading Jan-Bart’s original email [1] where he stated that Sue was staying on as an advisor, it isn’t explicit that this was a paid position. We should have been more clear on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
Pine, as one of the admins who has worked to fend off this sustained attack, I can attest it is exactly that. Your point is a valid one, but it does not apply to this situation. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Jun 5, 2016 7:13 AM, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" wrote: > I am

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

2016-05-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
Reaching out offlist. Anyone who knows Chris well and has helpful input, feel free to contact me offlist. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Chris Sherlock wrote: > > I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal

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

2016-05-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain > > communication channels, not

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

2016-05-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
Keegan, that may very well be true (though I would say it's certain communication channels, not "our entire movement.") But stating that has no logical relation whatsoever to whether or not a certain trustee should remain in their position. Also: If there are eight people who repeat something ad

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

2016-05-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
Denny, Like Todd and others, I appreciate your candid exposition of how things went. It's important to have clarity about what happened here, and your contributions are very helpful toward that end. Thank you. However, these words ring hollow: On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Denny Vrandečić

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

2016-05-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
Adam, Thank you for providing an informative and accessible answer to Trillium's relevant questions. It's truly heartening to see the organization improving in its ability to communicate its intentions, etc. I hope that when broad consensus among staff is reached (as you express in footnote [1]),

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

2016-04-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
corded WMF Board meetings To: petefors...@gmail.com, nawr...@gmail.com 26.04.2016, 14:32, "Nathan" <nawr...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Trillium Corsage < trill

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

2016-04-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
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 dismiss Lila." Wait -- seriously?? I missed this piece until today. But if this is true,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] User interaction on Wikipedia --call for submissions

2016-03-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
But...but...Moushira just acknowledged the point. Gracefully, I think. Can't we simply trust her to incorporate the feedback into future announcements? For anybody who had trouble discerning what the consultation is about, its first question makes it clear: "How can we make Wikipedia more

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

2016-03-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
In case anybody believes Wikimedia Foundation personnel have entirely forgotten this issue, please be assured that is not the case. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T119595 Speaking for myself, I'm not convinced that taking action on a two year old RFC at Commons is the most pressing component

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

2016-03-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Risker wrote: > There's a difference between "does the WMF generally include > non-disparagement and non-disclosure clauses in separation agreements" and > "how many separation agreements include non-disparagement and > non-disclosure

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

2016-03-12 Thread Pete Forsyth
Guys...gals...some perspective? The important thing (as Andreas initially said) is that informal commitments from Trustees, to seek transparency in specific areas, not continue to get lost. The questions about what department it belongs in, the speed at which they get addressed, etc. are all

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Cross-wiki notifications beta feature now available on all wikis

2016-03-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
I've enjoyed finding some messages I never knew were there, such as a welcome message from two years ago on Basque Wikipedia, and a substantive reply I had missed on Wikinews for 4 months. It's refreshing for a new feature to make me immediately feel more connected to other volunteers. Well done!

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia.org portal page update!

2016-03-11 Thread Pete Forsyth
Thank you to the Discovery team -- it seems to me that your work has been largely overshadowed by political concerns in recent months (which may have been necessary, but not pleasant). I'm delighted to see working and useful software emerge, in spite of the challenging environment that has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

2016-03-10 Thread Pete Forsyth
useful overview of how things could or should go in the future. Thank you for that. Specifics about my choice to release the email below: On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Erik Moeller <eloque...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-03-09 16:56 GMT-08:00 Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: A conversation?

2016-03-09 Thread Pete Forsyth
of mine: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082764.html -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] -- Forwarded message -- *From: *Jimmy Wales *Date: *February 29, 2016 6:21:46 AM *To: *Pete Forsyth,James Heilman *Subject: **A conversation?* James, I wonder

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

2016-03-09 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > I rejoined this list after a long absence, and I was immediately > reminded why some people call it "drama-l" Jimmy, if you -- specifically, you -- want to do things to decrease drama, there are much more

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

2016-03-08 Thread Pete Forsyth
As many of you are aware, it's always been difficult to navigate information about the proceedings of the Board of Trustees: minutes, agendas, specific resolutions, notes, and commentary are split across Meta Wiki, WMF Wiki, various mailing lists, etc. So, I spent the last few days building a set

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

2016-03-05 Thread Pete Forsyth
+1 Whether to record meetings is a separate question from whether to release the recordings publicly. We have seen a lot of disagreement among Trustees recently. That's a massive and *entirely avoidable* distraction for the movement. Please, start recording the meetings -- if only for the

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

2016-03-03 Thread Pete Forsyth
Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't seen addressed: Are there notes kept during executive sessions? From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing minutes; but

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

2016-03-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
Assume Good Faith, we Assess the Conditions Impacting Good Faith. Or at least, we should. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocrist...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-03-03 2:06 GMT+01:00 Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>: > > I

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

2016-03-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
I heartily endorse what Asaf has said here, but I'd add one thing: When someone runs for the board, that introduces a standard that goes beyond Assume Good Faith. Ultimately, if appointed, a Trustee will need to disclose any Conflicts of Interest. But those disclosures, as I understand it, are

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

2016-03-02 Thread Pete Forsyth
]] On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's > encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this > part: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 P

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

2016-03-01 Thread Pete Forsyth
Dave, you're simply mistaken. The paid editing amendment was passed by the Board in April 2014 (before Lila was hired); it was merely *announced* in June. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany wrote: > Dear Coren > > I think you are

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

2016-02-28 Thread Pete Forsyth
Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this part: On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman wrote: > Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-27 Thread Pete Forsyth
; too. > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Keegan Peterzell > <kpeterz...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Still, my list is very much influenced by what I > >> ha

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Risker wrote: > > Honestly, "we need a new board" is probably not an issue. Risker, perhaps you missed this in my original message -- I did not express that we need a new board. Item #3 on my list was entirely under the heading: "The Board

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
had time to understand the problems. Quite a > > few of the "solutions" I've seen on this list in the last 24-48 hours are > > nothing much more than personal wishlists; almost all of them are > proposing > > to solve problems that may or may not even exist. >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
To Oliver and Keegan -- I hear you guys loud and clear, and I am very aware that the trauma of the last few months has taken this kind of toll. Although there is of course much I don't know, I have been talking with a number of staff, board, etc. for many months now about this. So to whatever

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I am going to San Francisco

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
I agree with what Pine said -- it's worthwhile to consider keeping a record of these conversations, at minimum for staff reference, even if making them all public is not desirable. Further to that point, I have found in many instances, involving a skilled professional facilitator or mediator, who

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

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Lawrence Lessig has done wonderful things for the free culture movement (including making that very phrase famous!) I am pretty confident, given his recent interests, that he would not want this position,but he's well worth discussing anyway. Though I don't know Larry Lessig personally, I do know

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
eteforsyth]] On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <pute...@mccme.ru> wrote: > On 2016-02-26 21:20, Pete Forsyth wrote: > >> All: >> >> Now that Wikimedia's Executive Director is leaving, a central point of >> contention has been resolved. But as

[Wikimedia-l] What should happen next? My 5 ideas

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
All: Now that Wikimedia's Executive Director is leaving, a central point of contention has been resolved. But as many have said, the "real work" of getting back on track comes next. I have been thinking about what the next specific steps should be, and I have some suggestions here. I present

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

2016-02-26 Thread Pete Forsyth
Regarding the Wikimedia Foundation paying editors, brokering paid editing to displace the role of PR agencies, etc.: Since 2009, my full time work has centered on this area, in providing solid advice to companies and other organizations on how to engage ethically and effectively with Wikipedia.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership - Board Reform

2016-02-25 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Chris Keating wrote: > > > > I have to register disagreement with the idea that the WMF board is > > duty-bound to serve the Foundation over the Wikimedia movement. > > > > I still feel this is more a semantic issue than a practical

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-24 Thread Pete Forsyth
l volunteers (along the lines > of the FDC), I'm very comfortable. If it's owned by WMF management, I > wouldn't bother reading their reports. > > If you and Andreas were to sign on, that would be a very good start. > > On Wednesday, 24 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gma

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-23 Thread Pete Forsyth
estones. > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082313.html > > > > On Monday, 22 February 2016, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','petefors...@gmail.com');>> wrote: > > > >> Br

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Shared list

2016-02-22 Thread Pete Forsyth
Anthony, two points: 1. Billinghurst is a very long-serving community member, and has always in my experience been happy to talk things through. I'd urge you just to talk with him directly. 2. Tension is high right now. If we're irritating each other more than usual, keep that in mind...it may

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Transition plans for WMF leadership

2016-02-22 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Pine W wrote: > > > I also hope that the current Board members will thoughtfully consider > > whether it's in the best interests of the Wikimedia Foundation and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems

2016-02-22 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Molly White < gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would be fairly trivial to archive the discussions there someplace that > was publicly viewable. However, it would require consent from the ~450 (at > last glance) members that their comments and the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:53 PM, SarahSV wrote: > ​Pete, I think having a "truth and reconciliation" period would be > helpful. I would like to see that process include Lila, which is why I > talked earlier about calling in a professional mediation service. > > But

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Post mortems (second attempt)

2016-02-21 Thread Pete Forsyth
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Thyge wrote: > > I really wonder why wikimedia discussions have migrated to FB. ... On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Brandon Harris wrote: > Because Talk pages suck as a medium for conversation and all > attempts

  1   2   3   >