That could indeed happen, James. :)
Apropos, thanks to everyone currently or formerly at WMF who worked with
(and for ;) ) us during that time! It was a pleasure.
And, of course, congrats to the new and remaining members of the OC!
Th.
2016-02-01 20:13 GMT+01:00 James Alexander :
> Thanks Patr
2016-01-09 0:40 GMT+01:00 James Heilman :
>
> Our board made the decision to give Lila a
> second chance in the face of staff mistrust.
>
Now that's interesting. Where can I read more about this?
Th.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https:
First of all, a happy new year to everyone!
Thank you, James, for bringing at least some light into this blurriness.
For some more light, all board members, please do me a favor and explain
briefly how you see the relationship between transparency and our movement,
especially in your work as board
@Jimmy Wales: The problem is not that James was too fast to publish the
fact that he was ejected. I'm pretty sure if the Board decided to boot you
out, you would have posted something, too. And that's absolutely natural.
The problem is merely that the Board is too slow to publish the reasons for
t
2015-12-29 10:15 GMT+01:00 Isarra Yos :
> It says a lot, but just what that is depends entirely on the context. And
> for community members who voted for him, that context could mean we should
> also no longer have confidence in him elsewhere in the projects, or in the
> board, or have no bearing
Pine, the resolution was published, and it does not provide any
information.
https://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_Removal
Matt, why would FL law apply to Board decisions? WMF is based in Cali. Are
they still officially a Florida entity?
Best,
Th.
2015-12-29 1:39 GMT+01
Dear Patricio,
as James is (or was) a community-elected member, it would have been nice to
include reasons why the Board took this decision in the announcement. It
gives (at least me) the impression of deliberate non-openness, and I don't
like it.
Th.
2015-12-29 0:52 GMT+01:00 Risker :
> On 28
Why not make it a bit more difficult for them to do their foul play? Maybe
enwiki needs a stricter rule enforcement system for sources in articles
about promotion-worthy entities like living people, existing
businesses/organizations, etc. Just allow only external, reliable, and
confirmable sources
I really wonder why it's anyone (except Russavia)'s business why Russavia
was banned. Or in other words, why don't you guys just ask Russavia about
it? If they want to tell you, fine, if not, fine as well... And no, that's
not a speech against openness and transparency. The rules are transparent.
I
Anders,
the problem is the strong US/EN-centric way the projects are handled by
WMF. That drives people away (especially the more critical/touchy
communities like DE), and it didn't start with the superprotect mess. There
were other serious affronts by WMF (image filter, etc.) to the community
bef
Gerard,
this is called "narrowing focus" by WMF, you see.
But you wanted a comment on the FDC. The only thing I can say is: To base
such a decision on things like "the FDC feels" and "to appear" and "it is
likely" (all quotes from their text within a single paragraph) makes me
think that they get
Hello,
just a few remarks from the OC about this case.
2014-08-01 22:19 GMT+02:00 Russavia :
> Hi all,
>
> On 27 May 2014 I received an email back from the OC which basically
> said that because no personal information was divulged, there was no
> breach of the WMF Privacy Policy. It also said
In fact, a simple note that Sarah has left the WMF would, of course, have
been enough from the WMF side. BUT, the obvious questions would then have
been directed to Sarah in any possible way, most probably. And I guess, she
just doesn't wish to answer those questions right now and I can fully
under
"but will circle back when I return to work next Monday." (Gayle)
Wait for that. Whatever time it actually means. :)
Th.
2013/5/13 Huib Laurens
> Thomas,
>
> She is on holiday, she will not be in the office today?
>
> Huib
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
and clicks randomly.
2013/5/13 Thomas Goldammer
>
>
> 2013/5/13 Keegan Peterzell
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, James Alexander > >wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood <
>> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> w
2013/5/13 Keegan Peterzell
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, James Alexander >wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Lets get a few things in perspective:
> > > 1. How many community members were abusive/unreasonable/w
Wow, this was definitely a huge brick they dropped there... It seems, the
WMF needs to hire someone (a diplomat) to counsel them about actions
towards the volunteers. (Seriously!)
Well, and when we are at it, the volunteer community might need a diplomat,
too, one who counsels them about actions an
Dear all,
the Ombudsman Commission has started a request for comments on Meta about
its scope:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Scope_of_Ombudsman_Commission
We invite everyone to comment on this proposal (preferably on the page
linked above in order to have all discussions at
Hi.
Could you explain in more detail (on the wiki page you linked) what
the content would look like and how it would differ from the Incubator
wiki? For example, would original research be allowed?
Best regards,
Thomas.
2013/2/18 Kevin Behrens :
> Hello!
>
> I have started a proposal for a new w
t in advance, then the task should
> be bearable. Let's look forward, and not dwell on what we didn't think
> about before.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Delphine
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Goldammer
> wrote:
>> 2012/4/23 Mike Christie :
>
2012/4/23 Mike Christie :
> This might be a digression, but I'm fairly new to this list and would
> like a clarification. What's the decision-making process within the
> WMF on issues such as this (a request from the community to document a
> WMF process)? I understand how processes are implement
Ok, for the number fans, I did a filter search on my email archive and
I found 660 emails archived that were sent to the OC email address
since we were appointed (I don't think I deleted any, so this should
probably be it). This includes emails sent from within the committee
as well as those sent t
2012/4/23 Thehelpfulone :
> Touché. I believe that if the process is going to be put on Meta we do need
> actual numbers as opposed to your guesstimations. Hopefully this shouldn't be
> too difficult to sort out, if you do some searches on Gmail for all the
> emails that you have received in the
It was not meant passive-aggressive. ;) I know that his suggestion is
a good one and I wanted to push him to just do it on Meta. Sorry if
you misunderstood that. ^^
Th.
> I thought Thomas's requests and suggestions in this case were quite valid
> and reasonable, and they did not deserve such a co
2012/4/23 Thomas Dalton :
> Transparency and privacy are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, the
> actual content of complaints is usually going to be confidential, but
> that doesn't preclude the process being transparent.
That's why I answered to Lodewijk's questions. I guess the process is
more
> * How many cases were brought to your attention?
around 30, give or take
> * How many of those did you consider serious enough to warrant
> investigation beyond direct dismissal?
around 10, I'd say
> * How many cases did you take on *proactively* (without a solid complaint)?
none that I woul
Hi all,
Well, I think an annual report is a good idea. However, there is not
much we are allowed to report, for obvious reasons. I can tell you
that we had a number of requests (about 30, depending on what you
count as request), some of which were pretty difficult to deal with
and therefore took a
27 matches
Mail list logo
