just one page further (page 50) it would have become clear that the WMF
spent 1,247,211 USD on severance for five people. Why not ask that question
instead? Don't distract from the actual issues ;-)
On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 19:03, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Dear all,
> Page 49 of the
Isn't the amount of money spent in each region already public based on the
fact of the budget approved in each grant?
Concerning the overall possible budget to spend, I'm not sure that's that
fixed to each region based on my time on the simpleAPG committee.
On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at
"* This project is specifically to develop a leadership development plan
that the Community Development team, a team which has some great people on
it and a serious possibility for good in supporting volunteers, can use to
do their work effectively. *" - I'm a bit dismayed that we are using
thanks for this statement, it will definitely be helpful to have AffCom's
insights into the current affiliates network when talking about hubs. While
approval by the WMF BoT is one option, wouldn't that require a hub to be a
formal organisation? Otherwise the BoT would be involved in
icy, the user would
> have not been arrested? Similar to the "fact" that no Wikipedian has been
> arrested before the inception of the policy?
> What kind of logic is this?
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 3:18 PM Philip Kopetzky
>> This situation
This situation does raise the question why the WMF decided to widely
publish a human rights policy that will make the Wikimedia projects appear
in less of a neutral stance than before.
The fact that this move will endanger volunteers was even acknowledged in
the FAQs , but was just waived off
Maybe we should also fill the knowledge gap on how Wikimedia's footprint
could be reduced, if that isn't too complex ;-)
On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 at 17:14, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Thanks for organizing this again. 'Getting more complex' is right...
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:00 AM Alex Stinson
A meta-RfC would also be dominated by English Wikipedia, which of course is
in the interest of en.wp, but hardly anyone else. So thanks for that idea,
but no thanks.
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 11:57, Gerard Meijssen
> Why is it that you consider the "community" a single body that has
, 2 Nov 2021 at 21:05, 4nn1l2 <4nn1l2.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which bug, Philip?
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 1:58 PM Philip Kopetzky
>> Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most
>> regions represented
I would also find that helpful (if this isn't a policy that's been
completely rewritten). The legal text isn't especially easy to read and
understand either, so my only question would be if this new policy would
prevent past events that happened because this kind of policy did not exist
Some people here seem to think that because the outcome had at least most
regions represented, that the process itself ensured this. This is not the
case - we only got this outcome because of a bug/feature in the election
Just in case anyone else thinks that this kind of process would be
It is a very interesting and lengthy paper (which shows how much work went
into preparing and conducting the research/discussions), with some familiar
questions and problems that still need answering.
I'm not sure that using old structures to solve these new issues is
m Wikimedia Foundation" ? I believe that
> was sent within the day.
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 2:18 PM Philip Kopetzky
>> I find it quite worrying that after a month no one has deemed it
>> necessary to reply to the concerns v
I find it quite worrying that after a month no one has deemed it necessary
to reply to the concerns voiced by a former chair of the WMF Board of
Trustees. There isn't even a PR-level denial of there being a crisis.
The C-Suite turnover would be a major challenge for any company or
Adding to Chris' points, I would also like to illustrate the point where in
the future, founding a user group or chapter (the latter is pretty unlikely
nowadays), applying for a grant proposal and being hired by your colleagues
as the first staff member of the user group you founded would be
The 12 month waiting/cooldown period is something that was implemented in
the Good Governance Kodex of Wikimedia Austria in 2014, see
with an independent committee consisting of a staff, board and community
to be honest this is really difficult to understand. While the WMF, through
it's various committees, pushed affiliates to clearly draw the lines
between board and staff by introducing stringent governance measures (and
rightly so), which also include paragraphs about introducing a
this has been brought up on the talk page of the proposed bylaw changes,
including a statement by Jimmy:
Would be interesting to know if the status has changed
Congrats to everyone (and I'm talking about 50+ people here) who helped to
make this possible!
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 15:00, Dan Garry (Deskana) wrote:
> It's so great to see the Universal Code of Conduct come to fruition. As a
> movement we were severly lagging behind others in adopting a code
it is a bit puzzling to see an expansion of the WMF Board of Trustess at a
time where the start of implementing a global council is not far off. Right
now I can't see how these two directions will merge into one, especially
since the 2030 strategy does not make an appearance in this statement
What Martin mentions should be covered in the recommendations for the 2030
strategy, the measures mentioned here being "fast-tracked" to provide a
starting point for improving Community Health.
Conflict resolution needs to happen on the lowest possible level so that we
don't run into situations
I don't think a global commitee would be the right place - stewards are
currently filling this gap involuntarily, and it seems extremely difficult
to judge situations on a local project properly (the Azerbaijani case might
come to mind here).
For me the ideal version of a universal CoC
rs, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
> on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:27 AM Philip Kopetzky
> > Thanks Chuck for dig
Perhaps the self-re-electing AffCom members can elighten us what the future
of AffCom will look like in the light of the recommendations.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 10:57, Chris Keating
> To me the main surprise is that AffCom continues to exist despite being
> obviously broken.
> It does
I'm not sure why you want to vote on something that you will have to adapt
to your community needs and implement accordingly, Ziko. What exactly is
contentious about them that needs a vote, especially when the
implementation will hopefully lead to more decentralised structures? Or do
you think it
Yaroslav, the recommendations have always come with the caveat that the
actual implementation depends on the communities implementing them
themselves, adapting them to fit the needs of a specific community.
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 16:36, Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
> The recommendations must be
I can only reiterate what Lodewijk said - I'm trying to find the approach
and goals in the decision to acknowledge user groups that seem to be an
integral part (or from an outside perspective, should be) of the national
chapter. In the past this has been an indicator of personal conflicts
so it seems like geographically large countries are being split up into
different user groups - do you think that this is a viable model for the
future or just happened because of certain circumstances within the Russian
community? Would your template allow a User Group from Rome,
As an attorney for the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal
> > advice
> > > to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff
> > > members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please
thanks for the report! Is it possible to get a country-by-country breakdown
of the donations as well?
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 01:25, Patricia Pena wrote:
> Hi all,
> I’m excited to share with you our FY1819 Fundraising Report
Gereon, you clearly forget the whole Mediaviewer saga and attendance of WMF
staff at the following WikiCon in Cologne ;-) But that was a long time ago
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 01:53, Gereon Kalkuhl wrote:
> Since 2010 we have the WikiCon for the German language communities with
> more than
Congrats to the elected members of WMAU :-)
On Fri, 30 Aug 2019 at 13:08, Biyanto Rebin
> Congratulations, Robert and all WMAU team!
> Pada tanggal Jum, 30 Agu 2019 pukul 06.01 Robert Myers <
> robert.my...@wikimedia.org.au> menulis:
> > Hi all,
> > On Sunday 25
I'm sure you yourself can point out the recommendations that are based on a
year of deliberations and research than those that are not. It is pretty
hard work to gather all the feedback from the last year as well as analyse,
weight and incorporate it into the final recommendations. This
the way the recommendations were drafted was not straightforward and they
are still drafts, some less defined than might be ideal at this point in
time. Personally I would not accept such a statement in a final
recommendation, but these are still rather talking points than specific
Please don't generalise frustration with your conduct on this list. You're
the only one telling people to shut up here.
And just to keep this on track, what is your view on how we can incorporate
indigenous knowledge without it becoming commercialised by the current
I'm pretty sure that that licensing recommendation is still
work-in-progress and the legal implications haven't been analysed yet.
I guess that assuming good faith is not your strong suit, Fae? Be part of
the solution, for once.
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ wrote:
> I agree that the
Questioning is ok - we might indeed need to introduce some oversight, but
to be honest, I doubt this would solve the trust issue as long as some
people demand full transparency where there can never be full transparency.
Speculating and accusing victims of being the actual perpetrators,
Thanks Molly for your thoughtful words, I really hope your words make some
people think about their own replies in this thread.
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 23:42, GorillaWarfare <
> I do not know Romaine, I do not know Caroline, and I do not know much about
Well, I just hope things turn out better this time. Fingers crossed!
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 09:31, Paulo Santos Perneta
> The affiliate was originally formed in 2008 as the wannabe chapter
> Wikimedia Brasil, and made its life as a chapter until 2010 when it was
> noticed that it
I'm still confused who "we" is and what the history of this group is
compared to the previous user groups. Is there now one big community that
is represented in this user group? Because that would be a great step
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:32, Chico Venancio
I really think that the main problem here is not automation but the problem
Asaf pointed out: A small circle of people dictating the rules and who's
allowed to participate and who isn't. Automation just perpetuates the cycle
of those same people being in control of those processes.
On Mon, 13 May
Congrats Korea! :-)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 05:17, Roman Bustria Jr. wrote:
> In behalf of the East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Regional Cooperation
> (ESEAP) we would like to extend our congratulations to our member country
> for being elevated as a fully recognized chapter!
> We are
I'm sorry you feel this way and would hope you would still feel inclined to
provide a critical point of view on the process. I agree with you that
we're bad at changing processes that are evidently broken, but don't you
think that we are exactly changing this fact by moving on from an
f users and volunteers (embryonic future national
>> chapters or just regional associations), language-oriented associations
>> created to involve minorities or cross-projects of interested users unified
>> by a topic. They all have different purpose and should be rationalized
I just wanted to re-iterate Chris' point - meetings and plans are starting
to be put together for the summit, so if this is actually happening, it
should start soon. (Just to appear as non-committal as possible ;-) )
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:43, Chris Keating
> Hi Maria,
ld you please respond, I had the
>> very same question.
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Philip Kopetzky <
>> > Hi Kirill,
>> > what's the diffe
Congrats Farhad :-)
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 12:51, Фархад Фаткуллин / Farkhad Fatkullin <
> Our St.Petersburg colleagues wrote a Russian Wikinews article dedicated to
> the event.
is there an official statement by the WMF that explains why Wikimania 2020
is happening and that the funding for this event is secured? Wikimania does
cost quite a lot of money and I was under the impression that it was
unclear as to if, how and why Wikimania should take place 2020. But
Thanks Steinplitter! Especially the topic categories are very helpful! :-)
On 13 June 2018 at 12:39, Steinsplitter Wiki
> >> Not trying to criticize anyone or anything, but why is this starting so
> late in the year? I think it would make more sense to have it as early as
what's the difference/relationship between this group and the Wikimedians
of Albanian Language User Group, which is currently applying for a
simpleAPG grant? How do we avoid creating more Brazilian scenarios by
reconising even more user groups from the same area?
It would be really helpful to outline these kind of decisions with
arguments/deliberations that AffCom decided to follow, considering that
this sets a precedence in the worldwide community. For example, UG Wales
states that they "cooperate with and represent Wikimedia UK in Wales" -
Mail list logo